HNHacker News
TopNewBestAskShowJobs

johnfernow

423 karma · joined March 20, 2021

submissionscomments
johnfernow··on Does the American Diabetes Association work for patients or companies?
> My view is that diabetes is an urgent national scandal. Over 100 million Americans have diabetes or prediabetes, and 100,000 die from the condition annually. In addition, every year hundreds of thousands of people with diabetes have limbs amputated or suffer blindness or kidney disease. Diabetes costs our country $400bn annually to treat.

So about 4x as many deaths per year as homicide, twice as many as suicide, twice as many as car crashes, twice as many as accidental falls, and a multiple of plenty of other preventable causes of death. Obviously some of these other types of deaths take far more years off people's lives than diabetes, but I think the author is right to call it an urgent national scandal.

> Her meticulous account depicts the world’s most important diabetes patient advocacy organization as a cynical fund-raising machine, anxious to please its corporate overlords at the expense of the millions of people with diabetes it is supposed to be trying to help. “The defendant’s conduct shows that they were party to a scheme to defraud the American people by approving and endorsing recipes submitted by Splenda to be lauded by the ADA as a healthy choice for people with diabetes, when the ADA knew that those recipes were contrary to the ADA’s guidelines and well-established and emerging scientific principles,” the complaint reads. In case you’re curious, the ADA and Splenda appear to be still at it. As I write this, the ADA’s Diabetes Food Hub web page still features no fewer than 203 recipes – some marked “sponsored”, some not – that include Splenda, whose parent company’s $1m contribution has brought to light the utter insanity of our diabetes epidemic.

I really wish this could have gone to the discovery phase. Hopefully there will be investigations.

> And although type-2 diabetes is often reversible through a low-carbohydrate diet, the ADA and the pharmaceutical industry don’t seem very interested in acknowledging that. Instead, they promote a laundry list of corporate deals and pharmaceutical treatments that have failed to stem the disease’s lethal and expensive impact on American life.

I'm not naïve enough to think that all (or even most) of the tens of thousands of people dying from type 2 diabetes each year would be saved if the ADA didn't give poor advice, but I also think it's wrong to think that it'd have had no impact: insulin has been infamously expensive for many years in the US, and insulin pumps are thousands of dollars. I certainly think some of the millions of people who ended up dying from type 2 diabetes would have made lifestyle changes had it been made clear that it's often reversible with diet changes, if for no other reason than to save money. If you don't have a pump, having to take insulin shots throughout the day is a pain the ass, so again, I think some people would have made lifestyle changes to avoid that had it been made clear that it was an option.

johnfernow··on Does the American Diabetes Association work for patients or companies?
Here's a great PDF I found on the ADA's website from fall 2023:

https://professional.diabetes.org/sites/default/files/media/...

> This content is brought to you by Splenda, a proud supporter of the American

> Diabetes Association

> A Message from Splenda

> Splenda® is committed to helping people achieve their health goals by making it

> easier for people to reduce the amount of added sugar in their diet. You likely know

> Splenda Original Sweetener (“the yellow packet”), but did you know we also make

> Splenda Stevia? Splenda Stevia is a plant-based sweetener made from the

> sweetest part of the leaves of the stevia plant. And just like Splenda Original,

> Splenda Stevia contains zero calories and zero sugar. The people you see can use

> Splenda Stevia to make a variety of delicious recipes from appetizers and drinks to

> entrées and desserts.

> Check out the ADA's Diabetes Food Hub® for recipes that use Splenda Stevia, like

> these Slow-Cooker Sweet & Spicy Turkey Meatballs, which are perfect for a football

> party, and these Gluten-Free Mini Eggnog Cupcakes which add cheer to any holiday

> gathering!

WHY??!!! I get upset enough with tech YouTubers making misleading claims about VPN sponsors, but the American Diabetes Association allowing sponsors that sell products that several studies link with causing and worsening diabetes to write parts of their newsletters is an entirely different degree of unethical behavior. No, the link between artificial sweeteners and diabetes has not been firmly established and more research is needed, but it's a likely enough connection that the CDC and WHO[1] have expressed concern and have noted the potential links.

[1.] https://www.who.int/news/item/15-05-2023-who-advises-not-to-...

I get it, organizations have to get funding somehow. But if the American Lung Association started allowing vape companies to write part of their newsletters, I think people would rightfully be outraged. Sure, vaping is less bad for you than cigarettes, and may even be a helpful way of quitting for some, but allowing them to be a sponsor is a major conflict of interest and causes you to lose credibility.

johnfernow··on Does the American Diabetes Association work for patients or companies?
I agree, it seems extremely misleading, especially for medical organizations. The US government doesn't make consumer clothes, so I don't think anyone's too confused with American Eagle Outfitters not being government-ran, but the US does have several government-ran Health and Human Services divisions and U.S. Public Health Service agencies (e.g. the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), etc.)

I wonder what percent of Americans think that the American Diabetes Association is a government-ran organization. My guess is that it's quite high. You'd have to design a poll correctly (e.g. "From the following list, select which ones are government-ran organizations") to not give the answer away, but I imagine it's a high percentage.

johnfernow··on Yuzu emulator developers settle Nintendo lawsuit, pay $2.4M in damages
So long as Nintendo doesn't end up going after emulators released before the Switch, then the de facto (not de jure) precedent is: don't release an emulator for their current latest console.

Overall, that's probably a mostly fine outcome for game preservation, and thinking about it more, it's probably much better for emulation and game preservation long term that Yuzu's devs settled instead of fighting this, as if they had lost and a legal precedent were set, many other emulators might have had to shut down or be hosted in countries where the DMCA doesn't apply. But with no legal precedent set here, emulators for consoles released before the Switch might very well be safe. Time will tell though.

johnfernow··on Generating Expressive Portrait Videos with Audio2Video
On smartphones at least, you could require users to use a specific app to establish the authenticity of the footage. You could have a code hash signature for the app to compare against the current hash and make sure the compiled code was not altered. The app can be open source so people can trust it and compile it themselves, but if the hash doesn't match the videos would be considered untrusted. You would also have to take measures to ensure that there aren't runtime modifications — a difficult thing to accomplish for sure, but something some companies are getting increasingly good at.

In addition to LIDAR data, throw in gyroscope data (would make recording a screen more obvious) and GPS data (would need the screen where you say you are — would also need to make sure device is not rooted or jailbroken to prevent spoofing of GPS) and it becomes even more challenging to fake a video. I think securing the app against modification or runtime injections is probably the biggest point of focus, but even if you were able to defeat all those measures, you'd still need to have models generate convincing LIDAR, gyroscope and GPS data. Not impossible of course, but at that point you need a rooted phone that is able to successfully hide that it is rooted, several well trained models, and the ability to defeat the video app's own security measures against both binary and runtime modifications.

On a technical level, it may not be possible to develop an app that records videos with LIDAR, gyroscope and GPS data that could not be fooled by recording a screen. In practice, I think it is possible to develop an app that could establish the authenticity of videos that nearly everyone except maybe state actors would be incapable of defeating (maybe the world's richest corporations might also have the funds to do so, though I think the odds of a whistleblower or leaks is a bit higher there — maybe Microsoft could gather a team of highly talented AI developers to generate fake videos passed as real ones without notice, but I think the likelihood of not a single one of the employees revealing that info to journalists, the government or public is low.)

I share many concerns about device attestation, as it has potential to limit a user's freedom to do what they want with the hardware that they bought and software and services that they pay for. That said, if I really was dying to use a rooted phone (I'm not currently, due to it being more hassle than it's worth), I wouldn't mind buying a second, heavily locked down device for proving videos I record are real. The device could even be powered by entirely open source software, but have a hash for the compiled ISO that is used to install the OS.

johnfernow··on Nintendo is suing the creators of Switch emulator Yuzu
> I feel like it would be a lot more straightforward if people just came out and said that they think piracy should be legal.

I don't believe piracy should be legal. I believe that copyright and trademarks are important for the creation of many types of interesting new works in society.

Nonetheless, I also think archiving history and having those archives (in their original format, to the closest degree possible, which is what many emulators try to achieve) widely accessible to the public is also important.

Flash memory in game cartridges degrade over time, and discs rot as well. In contrast to some here, I do not think DRM is inherently bad — preventing piracy can be important — but I do believe that DRM should be time limited. After about 10 to 15 years, I think one should be able to have a DRM-free version of whatever piece of media they purchased, be it a game, movie, TV show, etc. At that point, the console (or other device) should allow you to rip it and transfer those DRM-free files to other devices.

I don't think those files should be legally redistributable online (at least not after only one decade), but many users' consoles will break before the 10 year mark, and many consoles are not sold for more than 10 years at a time. I think requiring much more than roughly that amount of time before allowing DRM-free rips will just result in a lot of consumers not being able to play the games they purchased. I think legalizing piracy would destroy the gaming industry, but I think legally prohibiting the consumer from experiencing the media they purchased on future devices encroaches on their consumer rights and results in history being forgotten.

That said, I've never been a fan of Yuzu and Ryujinx releasing as early as they did. Approximately no new game sales have been lost due to RPCS3: by the time it became a useable enough emulator, no new PS3 games were being sold and a huge number of PS3 consoles had already stopped working. The same is true Xenia and the Xbox 360, PCSX2 and the PS2, and many other emulators. That's clearly not the case for Yuzu and Ryujinx though.

Still, while my feelings on Yuzu are somewhat negative due to when they released it, I do hope they ultimately win this lawsuit — if Yuzu isn't legal, it's very well possible that no home console emulator after the PS2 and GameCube era is legal, as they all arguably bypass DRM. Clearly, the existence of Yuzu has not harmed Nintendo all that much — they're currently the richest (though obviously not most valuable) company in Japan, with $11.44 billion in cash. The Switch has sold 139 million units and Tears of the Kingdom has sold over 20 million units. Yuzu clearly does not constitute a legitimate threat to the continuance of Nintendo making games, but Yuzu being shut down would pose a legitimate threat to the preservation of any video game released on consoles after around 2006.

johnfernow··on YouTube dominates TV streaming in US, per Nielsen's latest report
Here's the video for anyone curious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3dSkkEr-wk

tl;dw:

First, he searches the exact name of the video on YouTube: it shows a fan-made animated skit of it, the wrong videos but from the right channel, and several re-uploads with only a few hundred views.

Second, he adds the channel name before the name of the video in the search bar. Same results.

Third, he tries searching for a famous line from the video: still no luck.

Finally, he sorts by view count and it shows up, but still not as the first result.

Is this some obscure video from some obscure channel? Nope, the video has 15 million views from a channel with 3.91 million subscribers that uploads videos regularly. He has a verified account which was created in 2006.

I just tried doing the same search as he did in an incognito window, and it also didn't show up for me until I sorted by view count.

I ran it on archive.today, and while it has slightly different results than what I got, nowhere in the search results does it ever show the original video with 15 million views. https://archive.ph/ksZhq

johnfernow··on Ask HN: Why isn't there a Rotten Tomatoes for consumer electronics?
> In 5 years when shitty battery and defective hinge become apparent, the laptop is already off the market and the user isn't interested in reviewing it.

Yep, and quality can vary quite substantially from one year to the next. I mostly like my 2015 MacBook Pro 15" with an AMD dGPU, but many people hated the 2016 MacBooks with the butterfly keyboards that quickly broke and touchbar that would freeze up.

It's especially an issue for products with bad model names. Is my experience with the MSI GE72MVR Apache Pro-080 going to be insightful for anyone considering a current MSI laptop? No idea. There were tons of MSI laptop models back then too with who knows what quality.

Automated lab tests can't perfectly represent real world tests, but I'd still like to see more of them. I remember seeing a machine fold and unfold the Samsung Galaxy Fold around 119,380 times before half the screen stopped working. [1] While it's a sample size of one and not a perfect representation of real world use, it's a lot better than nothing. I'd like to see similar tests for opening and closing laptops, plugging and unplugging cables into ports, pressing keys on a keyboard, etc. Some things can't be simulated, such as long term battery health, but there's a lot that could be tested but isn't in nearly all product reviews.

Something that'd be expensive but that I'd like to see is long-term automated tests to see how frequently a machine crashes. The machine should browse the web, play games, and use commonly used software: Adobe CC, Office 365, G Suite, Slack, Zoom, VLC, ffmpeg, AutoCAD, Blender, Unity, Unreal, and various Docker instances, IDEs, compilers, runtime environments, local servers and databases, etc. It should have automatic updates on and reboot only when required for an update, though sleep and wake-up should be tested regularly. Then, one could analyze how stable of a machine it is.

Personally I'd rather buy a slightly older machine that is proven to be stable than a brand new machine with better performance but questionable stability. Unfortunately, neither is currently an option for me, and with OS and driver updates, stability and performance can worsen at any moment with little (convenient) recourse (or in the case for phones, often no recourse at all.) If my work tools were available on Linux or worked through Wine/Proton/etc., I'd probably try an immutable OS like Fedora Kinoite just so I'd hopefully have more stability. I could automate stress testing the drivers after updates to make sure they were safe. Unfortunately, depending on your hardware, it may never pass driver stress tests even on a clean install (even on Windows, which the machine was designed for!), so may have to exclude certain tests.

1. https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/galaxy-fold-lasted-for-1200...

johnfernow··on FTC Obtains $195M Judgment and Ban on Simple Health for Sham Insurance Offering
To some extent I understand why Google and Android OEMs don't include call recording apps pre-installed on their phone, as laws vary by jurisdiction and change over time. I also understand why Google wouldn't want them on the Play Store for the same reason.

What I don't understand is why they removed the API for it, as it seems very unlikely they would be held responsable for users sideloading call recording apps in places where it's not legal. Nearly every Windows, Mac and Linux desktop/laptop can use OBS or dozens of other apps to record calls through Slack, Discord, Teams, Skype, or any other VoIP app, regardless of the legality of the action in your local area. As far as I'm aware, Microsoft, Apple and various Linux distros have never been sued for that (or even OBS and other apps.)

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of everything I've ever said in a phone call potentially being recorded. However, I'd much rather my in-person conversations not be recorded than what I say in phone calls, but no device takes any measures to prevent that: anyone can just start their audio recording app on their phone, turn their screen brightness down and then put it on the table (where my voice will be easily picked up) without me knowing it's recording. That happens to be legal in my State, but it can be done regardless of legality anywhere on any Android or iOS phone.

I'm lucky enough that I've never been threatened over the phone. Cheap products aside, I've also never been scammed. I've also never had an employer, coworker, politician or government worker that I know commit a crime and discuss it over the phone to me. However, I don't think we should inhibit victims of abuse, scams, people receiving threats, whistleblowers, or other witnesses to crime from sharing that evidence in a court of law (or with the public in my opinion — if someone threatens me, I think I deserve the right to let the public know that.)

However, if phone calls were recorded by default on most devices, while it would help keep certain companies more accountable towards their users, I think for other crimes (such as violent threats) it'd just shift them to be in-person, which could be more dangerous. By the default being off, people who are victims of or witnesses of crime might get a chance to call record without the perpetrator knowing. What I find very frustrating though is that Google and Apple prohibit you from recording calls without rooting, jailbreaking or using an external device. I'm not asking for it to be the default, I'm just asking for the freedom to do so, even if it requires 3rd party software to achieve.

It's particularly interesting on Android 14 because apps could in theory use Accessibility Service to record phone calls, but Google prohibits apps from doing so on the Play Store. You should be able to just sideload them then, right? Nope, as of Android 14, side-loaded apps are unable to activate Accessibility Service at all. There are workarounds depending on the device, but in any case you're limited to recording from microphone or loud speaker (can't use wired or Bluetooth headphones.)

johnfernow··on PhotoPea: Advanced Image Editor
Definitely wouldn't call it "Photopea for video", but it's free (though not FOSS) and multiplatform: DaVinci Resolve is a free NLE desktop program available on Windows, Mac and Linux. Exports are limited to 3840x2160 60fps on the free version, but that's good enough for most use cases.

Aside from increased resolution and framerate, the main differences with $300 Studio version is that it allows you to use multi-GPU setups, advanced noise reduction, lens correction, better color grading capabilities, scripting and automation with Python and LUA, along with some other things.

So Studio is definitely nice to have if you're doing professional editing, but the free version is good enough for many hobbyists.

Unlike Photopea, I don't think Resolve has any compatibility with Adobe products' files (such as Premiere Pro, After Effects, etc.)

However, it is a tool that's been used for color grading or editing several major films and TV shows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DaVinci_Resolve#Media_produced...

I've tried other free tools, and Resolve definitely seems to be the most powerful. However, it's almost certainly not the easiest to use. If you're just wanting to trim video clips, combine different clips into one video, crop and add some background music or VO, etc., there's probably easier free tools to use out there.

johnfernow··on OpenFPGA
I agree. For me, one of the challenging long term parts of video game preservation will be non-standard controllers and other peripherals, such as the Wii remote, Wii balance board, Guitar Hero/Rock Band guitars and drums, etc. Sure, technically you can use a mouse and keyboard for some of those, but it’s fundamentally an entirely different experience from the original.

The Wii came out over 17 years ago and third party companies still make controllers for them. Maybe that will still be the case 40 years after release, but eventually nearly all Wii consoles will stop working. Will there always be a big enough market of people playing Wii games on emulators to justify making those controllers and peripherals? I hope so, but am not sure. There near certainly won’t be enough demand for 3rd party Wii balance boards, which I can honestly live with, but I do hope the main controllers themselves are still available for purchase or possible to make out of other hardware available in the future.

johnfernow··on Vision Pro Review: Apple's First Headset Lacks Polish and Purpose
True. I mostly use virtual desktops to separate work content from personal project stuff, as well separate non-productive stuff from both of them.

But yeah you phrased it well, craning my neck to see a screen does sound much worse than a keyboard shortcut. I have my 2 monitors positioned so that I can mostly just move my eyes, but I can't fit more than 2 monitors in that space (either IRL or in a VR/AR without them being too tiny to read.)

If I didn't have virtual desktops, I'd have to just close out of more stuff, which isn't a huge deal but any amount of friction can disuade you from working on something you're not obligated to do. I definitely wouldn't have my work tools, two separate IDEs, a game engine, 3 different browser windows, Slack, Discord and Spotify all open at once in various virtual spaces, where I have to crane my neck to see them. Maybe the Vision Pro also supports virtual desktops, but I still struggle to see in what scenario it speeds up my workflow.

johnfernow··on Vision Pro Review: Apple's First Headset Lacks Polish and Purpose
The iPhone 1 is perhaps a stretch, but how have things meaningfully changed since the iPhone 4? (which in 2010 introduced the front-facing camera, something that radically changed how many people use their phone.)

That was over 13 years ago, and while SOCs have become faster (though OS's, apps, and websites have become more bloated), the devices have become larger (which makes it easier to type and fit a larger battery), and the cameras have definitely improved, but I can't think of anything I regularly do on my current phone that the iPhone 4's hardware wasn't capable of supporting.

The iPhone 4 already replaced many people's dedicated flashlights, watches, cameras, and GPS navigators back then. Sure, software has changed. Online dating is far more prevalent, but the iPhone 4 definitely could run dating apps, even if it was less common. Likewise, paying people through digital apps is much more common now, but it's not like Venmo or PayPal didn't use to run on the iPhone 4.

The way we use our phones since the iPhone 4 released has changed, but not because of hardware changes. I mean modders have gotten Android 14 running on the Galaxy S3, which released nearly 12 years ago.

johnfernow··on Vision Pro Review: Apple's First Headset Lacks Polish and Purpose
> Shrinking this technology is all it will take for similar devices to make workstation monitors and gaming consoles completely obsolete.

Do people want that? I love playing games in my Quest 2 for an hour or two, or the PSVR2 at my friend's house, but I dread the thought of spending 8+ hours a day in it while I work. No, not just because of the weight, but because I like the feeling of fresh air on my face and sunlight reaching my eyes.

For that reason, despite being able to play non-VR games in cinematic mode on those headsets, I never do that. Sure, it's closer to my face, and it is larger, but if I'm putting a VR headset on, there better be a compelling reason to block out air and light to my eyes. And a bigger screen isn't a compelling enough reason for me.

Technically I can also use my Quest to have dozens of virtual displays, but why? There's almost never a situation where I need more than two things visible at once. I can look back and forth between two things pretty quickly and easily (my code and the library's documentation; the PhotoShop/Illustrator mockup vs. how it actually currently looks in browser; etc.) but I can't easily look at 3 or more things at once, so I feel it'd be more of a distraction that a productivity booster. I mean I could buy a 3rd monitor if I really wanted to but I haven't found a reason to do so. I don't need to see Spotify or Slack 24/7, I can just alt-tab to them as needed.

I love video games, I often enjoying coding, but I really think having a screen right up in my face for most of my waking hours is a bit much, even if they were more like regular glasses instead of goggles. When I'm outside or walk someplace I almost never look at my phone unless I need directions or am responding to plans, because I like a break from staring at screens. Even when I'm working, I try to stand up and look away from the screen when I have no reason to be looking at it, whether it's code compiling, waiting for something to upload to a server, or any other time when there's no point to be looking at my screen.

johnfernow··on Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)
I agree. When an app uses GPS on my phone, I'm informed of that: a notification permanently displays in the top bar until it is no longer being used. Same with the camera and mic. If my clipboard is copied, I get a notification as well informing me of that and telling me which app did it.

I'm not sure why a similar system doesn't exist for browser extensions. Furthermore, there are limits to what features you can and cannot disable for Chrome extensions, and as far as I'm aware there are no logs of what actions they took.

I had an extension that randomly redirected me to scam URLs while doing completely innocuous things such as visiting the homepage for Gmail, YouTube, or performing a Google search (after pressing enter for the initial query, before clicking on any URL.) I had 15 extensions, and the redirects were infrequent enough that disabling extensions one by one wouldn't help much: it could potentially take months to track it down, and there's no way of disabling the permission to redirect to different URLs. I searched the minified source code for all of the extensions that I had, but none of them had the URLs I was redirected to. My guess is that they pulled data from a server and then redirected me to whatever malicious URL it pulled at that time. I also checked network traffic in the Chrome Task Manager to see if there was an extension sending data for unknown reasons, but again, nothing, so it likely periodically pulls a URL to redirect me to from some server, redirects me, and then sleeps for a few days. Short of un-minifying all 15 extensions and trying to understand the purpose of every redirect, many of which would be legitimate, I'm not sure what can be done.

In the end, I removed every last extension aside from my password manager and uBlock Origin (which fixed the issue — over one month later I've never been redirected to a scam URL.) Many of the extensions I used were open source, but I don't think any hash system exists to verify the minified code matches the source files for Chrome extensions (maybe I could do that manually, but I don't want to do that every time there's an update for any of the 15 extensions I had.)

It's unfortunate, as many of the extensions I used improved my productivity and helped me focus better and be distracted less. But as it is currently, the browser extension ecosystem simply isn't safe.

From what I've heard, Firefox's review process is better in some ways than Chrome's, but their extensions can have even more control of your browser.

I don't think it's impossible to design an extension system that is secure: extensions just need to have the ability to be granted extremely limited permissions, and any permission beyond what is reasonable should be denied in the review process for putting it on the Chrome or Firefox extension stores. Most of my extensions shouldn't have even needed Internet access (if they can execute JavaScript, they'd still be able to redirect me to a scam URL, but if it couldn't have pulled a URL from an external server, then the URL would need to be in the minified JS, so I'd have been able to catch it.)

johnfernow··on Over 2 percent of the US's electricity generation now goes to Bitcoin
You can have a carbon tax with a border adjustment. If goods are imported from a country without an equivalent (or stronger) carbon tax, then those goods would be subject to a fee at the border. The EU is considering is a system like this, which could be very impactful since they're the 2nd largest economy in the world.

If the US, the world's largest economy, also implemented such a system, then there would undoubtedly be a large global impact in reducing emissions. Creating the political will to do so is difficult of course. Citizens' Climate Lobby has been working on trying to pass a carbon fee with a border adjustment since 2007, though unfortunately with increasing political polarization it has been difficult. I wouldn't rule out the possibility though — political change can be very slow in the US, but CCL is clearly a group with extreme patience and a focused goal, but is willing to be pragmatic and advocate for any improvements as opposed to taking nothing. Admittedly I haven't volunteered for them in a quite some time, but in the past (at least at where I was at the time), the people I worked with seemed level headed and goal oriented — they may not have always personally liked the Representatives or staff that they were meeting, but they kept personal opinions to themselves and were laser focused on trying to convince them of joining the Climate Solutions Caucus and sponsoring a carbon fee. Perhaps the EU looking to implement one with a border fee adjustment may be the push the US needs to make it happen here.

johnfernow··on Over 2 percent of the US's electricity generation now goes to Bitcoin
The difference is that the existing financial system is used by about 3/4 of the world population (closer to 94% in developed nations) for the exchange of actual goods and services.

Bitcoin has significantly fewer users, but more importantly it is almost never used for the actual exchange of goods or services.

With my bank (and the accompanying infrastructure that goes along with it), my employer can deposit directly into my account, which I can then use to pay rent online (as opposed to physically traveling to their office), buy groceries at the store, and purchase nearly every legal good or service that is for sale, all while reducing the odds of me being robbed or losing money (e.g. losing my wallet.) If someone or some business scams me, I'm given methods of retrieving my money without confronting them in person. It also allows me to autopay all my bills so I'm never charged for forgetting to pay (and frankly I have very little desire to write and mail several checks each month or travel to various places to pay in cash.)

Credit cards, debit cards, direct deposit and money transfers are far more convenient than using cash, and aside from convenience, I imagine they decrease a nation's carbon footprint over using exclusively cash (due to less need to mint, print and transport physical currency, as well as travel in person to pay or receive payment.)

They do come at a cost of privacy, but if I wanted privacy for a specific purchase, I can still use cash for those specific transactions. While it may have a higher carbon footprint than digital payments, overall ink and paper tend to have low carbon footprints (though it's probably a bit higher for currency than it is for standard A4 paper.) Still, it's near certainly less carbon intensive than Bitcoin (per purchase, maybe not in total since billions of people actually use paper currency to buy things at least sometimes.)

Cryptocurrencies and their accompanying anonymity can bring about good things, so I'm open to at least considering their value — there are countries with authoritarian and oppressive governments, and there have been several democracies that have fallen to dictatorship before and that very well could happen again in the future. As such, being able to anonymously transfer money does have its value, especially in a world with CCTVs and facial recognition.

Cryptocurrencies, of course, also can be used for illegal services that are near universally considered immoral and evil. Currently, in most countries (even ones that aren't exactly liberal democracies), this is likely a much larger harm.

Balancing freedom from and freedom to is always tricky: neither authoritarianism nor anarchy are appealing — allowing personal freedom while preventing people from encroaching on other people's personal freedoms is difficult to achieve.

However, even if I were fully convinced that cryptocurrencies currencies were a net positive on society (open to considering the idea but definitely not convinced yet), I struggle to see how one with such a large carbon footprint is what should be used.

johnfernow··on Bing Search shows few, if any, signs of market share increase from AI features
I wonder what leads Microsoft to name things the way they do.

When they released a new browser in 2015, they called it Edge to distinguish it from Internet Explorer, which had built up quite a reputation for not being particularly fast, secure or accurate in rendering websites.

However, after those efforts failed, they released their new Chromium-based browser and also called it Edge, despite the old Edge also not having a great reputation for rendering webpages accurately. There was virtually nothing in common between the two browsers (even some of the keyboard shortcuts were different), so I'm not sure why they did that.

Likewise, Bing doesn't have the best reputation (regardless of its current real world usefulness in comparison to Google Search), so you think they'd have taken the opportunity to give their new AI assisted search engine a new name, even if much of the same technology for the search engine side was the same.

Anecdotally, I almost never used Bing until Bing Chat released. I still don't use Bing for everything (I guess because Firefox, Chrome and Safari all have Google set as the default and I haven't done enough research to know which search engine currently has the best results), but if I'm searching for something that is difficult to find, I'll often use Bing Chat.

Bing Chat is very far from perfect. I still think things used to be easier to find on Google. But now with so much SEO spam, Bing Chat often helps me find things that I'd otherwise struggle to find. It's also useful when you want information on a topic but don't know what specifically you need to search for.

Will be interesting to see what Microsoft tries to get more users (renaming it Copilot may help but I'm skeptical that that alone will attract many users.) Hopefully they can come up with something better than the dark design patterns that they've tried to get people to use Edge. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35787707

johnfernow··on Korea to welcome 'digital nomads' with new visa starting Jan. 1
If you're a single adult (which you probably are if you're interested in taking advantage of this program), $66k/year would mean you are richer than 99% of people on the planet, and your median income would be 20.2 times the global median. [1]

1. https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i?income=66000&c...

So yes, by global standards, $66k/year would mean you are extremely rich. It's even quite a bit higher than the median adult income in developed countries. At $66k/year, you're making about double the average German working adult, and over triple the average Japanese working adult. [2]

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

I think people often don't understand the grand scale of difference between the developing and the developed world. Yes, there is a cost of living adjustment, and certain things are cheaper abroad (though many things, such as electronics, are more expensive), but people really do consume a ton more in the rich world. Most people don't have cars, and most people live in far smaller homes. Even Europeans live in far smaller homes than Americans: the average new English home is 1/3 the size of the average American home. [3] People in developing countries also travel a lot less. Only 3% of Indians have traveled abroad, vs. 76% of Americans. [4]

The discretionary income, defined as "all the money you have left after paying for taxes and your absolute needs", that most Americans have (all but the lowest 3 deciles) would be extremely enviable by most people worldwide. [5, 6]

3. https://www.businessinsider.com/ons-english-homes-are-a-thir...

4. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2023/12/06/international-...

5. https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/10/18/the-averag...

6. https://infogram.com/discretionary_income_by_income_decile

johnfernow··on Omg.lol: An Oasis on the Internet
In the UK, if you publish a book, magazine or newspaper, by law you have to send a copy to the British Library for archive. A lot of other countries have similar laws. In the UK, legal deposit has expanded to include the web (so long as the person/group creating the content is in the UK), but since many individuals and small businesses are unaware of legal deposit, the UK Web Archive will archive a lot of the web by themselves.

Tom Scott interviewed some people from the British Library, and they explain the importance of archiving:

> The importance of legal deposit not being selective, and being everything, is: we can't decide today what's going to be important in 50 years' time. We want everything, because we don't know what will be important.

He also added his own thoughts:

> I cannot overstate just how useful it is to be able to track down things that never made it online, or to research out of print, forgotten books where there are no other copies available, or to scan through every issue of an obscure local newspaper to track down one reference. This is the raw text of history, as it happened, and someone has to keep it preserved for the future.

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNVuIU6UUiM

johnfernow··on Effective Altruism Is a Welter of Lies, Hypocrisy, and Eugenic Fantasies
Prior to ~2021 or so, I felt that many if not most in the EA community not only wanted to donate their money in the manner that most effectively saved lives, but also donate as much of their money as they could while still avoiding relative poverty. So many were extremely frugal, living in small homes or apartments, donating as much money as they could afford to purchase mosquito nets, vaccines, and deworming medication for others, as well as many donating one of their kidneys to strangers, all things I think most would find commendable.

Billionaires who live luxurious lifestyles and donate to prevent AI catastrophes was not something I was aware of at all prior to ~2021. I'm not sure how that ever became part of the movement.

In fact, longtermism in general wasn't something I was aware of until sometime around then. Purchasing mosquito nets, vaccines, and deworming medication has a demonstrable impact for saving lives and objectively reduces human suffering. In contrast, while AI, nuclear warfare, etc. can indeed kill billions, donating to those charities has absolutely no demonstrable impact. It's possible it has an impact, but it is near impossible to prove.

GiveWell states the following:

> GiveWell evaluates potential top charities along four main criteria: (1) Effectiveness, as supported by evidence the program the charity is implementing saves or improves lives; (2) cost-effectiveness, or how much ‘bang for the buck’ the charity offers in terms of lives saved or improved per donation; (3) room for more funding, or the charity’s ability to put additional donations to use; and (4) transparency.

So certain charities likely do save lives, but would never be recommended by GiveWell because they aren't transparent enough to verify that. There has to be concrete proof in order to get a recommendation, which is a perfectly reasonable decision on their part, and something I thought was the felt among all in the EA community until I heard some advocating for charities to reduce the chances of AI catastrophes and nuclear warfare, but those people always felt like a fringe part of the community until they started getting more news coverage.

I'm not condemning longtermism outright, I think those who with the appropriate skills should work towards reducing the likelihood of nuclear warfare and AI induced disasters, but I don't see how it could possibly be considered "effective" altruism to donate money to charities tackling those issues considering we have not the slightest clue as to whether it's effective.

In a world where people die of preventable and curable diseases because governments choose not to spend more (or more effectively) on foreign aid, I absolutely believe it is critical that people take responsibility for saving those that they can. If I see someone drowning at the beach, I'm not going to say "Well I'm not going to save them because the government didn't pay for lifeguards." Sure, they probably should have, but at the end of the day someone is living or dying based on my decision: I'm going to try to save them. The same is true for those dying of malaria, neglected tropical diseases and malnutrition: yes, I believe governments should take responsibility for those issues, but they haven't, and if I don't donate what I can, more people will die. Hundreds of thousands die each year from malaria and NTDs and millions from malnutrition. While I'm not remotely capable of solving those issues, I absolutely am capable of saving some of those people, which certainly has an enormous impact on those I can save (also, while hundreds of thousands die from malaria each year, millions suffer from it but survive, so not only can reduce death but also pain.) I think trying to get more people to donate to charities that are demonstrably effective at saving lives is extremely important. With the "Effective Altruism" movement now including stuff like longtermism, as well as having its reputation ruined, I'm not sure how advocacy should move forward. On one hand, I don't think it'd ever be good for it to be an ideology: one should evaluate individual concepts by themselves, not tie them into some larger ideology and then decide based on one's personal feelings towards that ideology whether to support it. Still, it's helpful to have terms to describe concepts in fewer words, as well as have tangible goals for advocacy, as the more people that donate to charities that effectively save lives, the more lives that are saved overall.

johnfernow··on Meta Quest 3
As someone who loves VR, I'm not sure at $500 who this headset is for.

If you want something cheap but decent, a Quest 2 is a better deal at $300. It'll give you a cordless, hassle-free, console-like experience as a standalone device if that's what you want, or, if you instead want to play graphically intense VR games, you can connect it to a gaming PC and use SteamVR (AirLink, Virtual Desktop, or a USB-C cable.)

If you want something high end with a really solid game library so far, the PSVR2 is much better than this at $550 (though requires a PS5.)

The Quest 2 had a promising start with several great games coming to it, but then Meta seemingly stopped funding new games and VR ports, and unfortunately SteamVR hasn't had a ton release recently either.

Sony, on the other hand, had an incredible starting library for the PSVR2 and plenty more AA and AAA games are releasing soon. Discoverability is also much better on PSVR2 — my friend with the headset has shown me many great games that actually are on the Quest and SteamVR, but I had never seen them before as there are so many more games on Steam and the Quest store (unfortunately most of which aren't good.) Not sure if Sony curates their store better or if it's just that not much shovelware has been made on it yet. In either case, great games exist on all 3 of those platforms, but they're easiest to discover on PSVR2.

As others have mentioned, Meta's resources would be better spent bringing games to their existing headset versus creating new ones. I do think that having a more powerful headset would allow more impressive experiences (as is the case with PSVR2), but people aren't going to keep buying their devices if only a handful of impressive games release on them.

Nintendo regularly releases underpowered hardware compared to the competition, but they make such great first-party games that they end up selling incredibly well despite their lackluster hardware. The Quest 2 sold very well, and I imagine that games like Resident Evil 4 VR probably convinced many people to buy it (I know at least one person who got it for that game.) The Quest Pro did not sell well, so I'm not sure why they think better hardware but with the same library will convince people to buy new headsets.

EDIT: I guess I should have done a bit more searching, as does seem like there are some potentially popular games coming out for the Quest still, such as Assassin's Creed Nexus VR and Attack on Titan VR: Unbreakable. Strange I haven't gotten any ads for it on YouTube, I saw tons of ads for Resident Evil 4 VR for the Quest 2 (as well as some of the Star Wars VR games.)

johnfernow··on An open letter to our community
For a lot of studios, even very large ones, that's not the case anymore, and even those that have their own engines don't use them for everything. Nintendo has several engines, but Pokémon Go is made in Unity, as was Mario Kart Tour and Pokémon Brilliant Diamond and Pokémon Shining Pearl. miHoYo has over 5000 employees but they still use Unity for Genshin Impact and some of their other games. Blizzard surely had the money to make their own engine for Hearthstone, but they chose Unity.

This is even more pronounced for Unreal, where Final Fantasy VII Remake, Valorant, Apex Legends Mobile, Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order and Survivor, Octopath Traveler, and tons of other wildly profitable games are made in it. CD Projekt Red is making the next Witcher game in Unreal as well. Square Enix has a ton of money and thousands of employees, as does Riot Games, EA, and plenty of other huge companies. Nearly all of these companies have developed their own engines in the past, but Unity and Unreal are just really hard to beat: not only can they offer great performance and stability, as well as easy multiplatform support (can publish on Windows, PlayStation, Switch, Xbox, iOS, Android, etc.), but it also can make development easier since new employees likely already are familiar with the engine, versus if you build your own it can take months for new employees to be productive and contribute much of anything to the project.

Often times they'll still make changes to the engine's source code (miHoyo didn't just download the latest Unity LTS from the website or Unity Hub), but that's still considerably less work than building your own engine from scratch, and in many cases even that's not necessary.

johnfernow··on The WebP 0day
I certainly hope it is, but even still Project Mainline only came out with Android 10, and as of May 30, 2023, 27.8% of Android users are on Android 9 or lower, according to Google's stats listed in Android Studio. [1]

Considering there are over 3 billion active Android users according to Google [2], that's at least 834 million people who are potentially vulnerable to this exploit that will likely never receive a patch. That's awful enough by itself, but particularly terrible since the exploit could be as simple as having someone view an image. Chrome may be fixed, but there are over 2 billion WhatsApp users. [3]

1. https://www.androidauthority.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/...

2. https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/18/22440813/android-devices-...

3. https://about.fb.com/news/2020/02/two-billion-users/

johnfernow··on TikTok fined €345M for breaking EU data law on children’s accounts
I guess in theory a government could strongly guarantee freedom of speech while not guaranteeing anonymity — you could say whatever you want, but you couldn't do so anonymously. I suppose until recently in history there was a limited number of methods of making public messages anonymously.

I think Internet anonymity has some benefits though: it's certainly helpful for whistleblowers revealing crimes committed by a company, government or other organization. While you could in theory still drop folders containing documents or a USB drive to different news organizations, with how widespread CCTVs are, so I think that path may become more difficult. In countries with oppressive regimes, that's even less of an option.

I'm also not sure that the lack of anonymity is a sure-fire way to improve public discourse: just look at Facebook comments (which are rarely anonymous.)

As you mention, perhaps anonymity could be allowed on the Internet, but not on the big 5 platforms — that could be a balancing act between chaos and oppression.

Though, while a policy like that might be a net good for someplace like the EU, the precedent of requiring government IDs for Facebook etc. could set a dangerous precedent for places that are less free. Not every country is a full-on liberal democracy OR an authoritarian state where Facebook etc. is outright banned — there are places in-between, where the government oppresses people but still has elections and some degree of dissent is permitted. It's in those places that I see government IDs being required to post on major platforms being a major issue. Being able to share instances of government oppression on major platforms is crucial for those places, but if the identity of those sharing it is revealed, then fewer people may speak up and share such instances.

It's a complex issue to say the least.

johnfernow··on Unity has seemingly silently removed its GitHub repo that tracks ToS changes
Actually, making it unavailable wouldn't even solve the problem, as once you purchase a game, even if it is no longer for sale on Steam, you can still redownload it, including to new devices.

So if you've ever released a Unity game (even if it hasn't been updated in years), even if you delist your game from the store today, presumably you could still get charged if people who already own your game reinstall it.

I'm not a lawyer, but I really don't see how that'd hold up in court — you created a product under different terms years ago, and now your product, which isn't even for sale, can be charged for something that your business has no control over. Even if the ToS says Unity reserves the right to change their fees, I don't see how that can apply to products that aren't even being sold anymore.

johnfernow··on Unity has seemingly silently removed its GitHub repo that tracks ToS changes
It is completely impossible to keep track of DRM-free games being distributed illegally on private trackers that they are not members of, and there are surely tons of private trackers that are not mentioned on the public web that no one at Unity is aware of. Short of spying on the entire world (and processing all that info), it's impossible to keep track of people sharing DRM-free games illegally on USB and hard drives with their friends, or on private folders through Google Drive, Dropbox, etc. accounts.

So unless their anti-fraud system is asking Valve, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Apple, Google, Epic, GOG, itch.io, etc. how many downloads have occurred (no chance that they'll all agree to that), then their system is just going to make a guess, which they'll charge you for, and hope that holds up in court.

johnfernow··on Firefox users may import Chrome extensions now
It's still using Firefox extensions, this is for people switching from Chrome to Firefox (or those who want to use both browsers with the same extensions.) From the article:

"Mozilla decided to create a list of extension pairs for extensions that are available on the Chrome Web Store and the Mozilla Add-ons Store. Instead of importing the Chrome extension directly, Firefox is installing the Firefox version of the extension from Mozilla's own extension store."

So far they have 73 pairs, but should increase overtime and likely cover the most commonly used extensions.

johnfernow··on PDF Tool – Modify PDFs in the browser without uploading
> Not paranoid but just want to know if this tool can be downloaded once and run from browser forever -- without having to disable internet.

You can turn off Internet for a single tab through Chrome's dev tools. F12, Network, change from "No throttling" to "Offline." Would be a bit annoying to do each time you use the app though.

Unfortunately not aware of a quick easy way to cut off Internet to a single tab in Firefox, but if you're fine temporarily killing Internet access to the entire browser (all tabs), you can do Alt > File > Work Offline. With the keyboard shortcuts (Alt > F > K) it's actually very fast to do.

It would be nice though if you opened a local .html file if it by default was cut off from accessing the Internet until it asked for and was granted permission by the user, much like GPS, webcam and mic use are. Would be much more convenient than the two options above (which require you to remember to do that each time you use the app.)

johnfernow··on Google has a secret browser hidden inside the settings
In order to login through some captive portals on restricted networks you need a browser. Presumably you sometimes even need JavaScript, or else Nintendo likely wouldn't have included a JS engine since that greatly increases the attack vector.

It would have been possible to design a system of letting users read the ToS of a network and enter login information without needing an entire browser. Granted, it's probably safe to assume most captive portals aren't trying to exploit your non-traditional computing device (such as a Nintendo Switch), and if a user is changing the DNS to evade a captive portal and go to some other site, then any exploits that occur on their device are kind of their own fault, but it still seems like a suboptimal system. Either you're going to have a bunch of exploitable devices that otherwise would in practice be secure since they need to have a web browser, or you're going to have devices that straight up can't access many networks (since they don't have a built-in browser.) I'd argue the latter problem is even greater than the former: web browsers are incredibly complex! If your device is capable of running an already existing browser (e.g. Linux or BSD based systems), then it's not that big of a deal. But if it isn't (e.g. certain embedded systems), then it sucks, though there are sometimes workarounds to accessing captive networks without an on-device browser (e.g. AppleTV lets you login through captive portals on iPhone or iPad — works for people in the Apple ecosystem, but that integration isn't as easy with devices from unaffiliated companies.)

← PreviousPage 2 of 4Next →