just-ok

> Putting 12oz of Oatly into your latte and adjusting for the higher GI of maltose means adding almost a tablespoon of table sugar to your drink.

That’s not a latte; that’s a glass of milk.

> Oatly compares their sugar to the sugar in cow’s milk, but they’re not the same sugar.

This was insightful, though, as it’s a rationalization I’ve made when choosing oat milk but it’s now clear that it was a misguided one.

I mean, yeah. Physical replicas of art are imperfect, and their existence doesn’t devalue the original. Even two copies of the same piece by the same painter aren’t identical.

This is amazing! I have very fond memories of dominating my fellow middle schoolers in this game years ago; I wonder how I’d do in this version. :)

What kind of tricks did you employ to account for things like latency, etc. when calculating reaction time?

> special in the universe

This is such a weird qualifier to me. Why wouldn’t you think this? We’re the only beings capable of so many things that others can’t even begin to comprehend. Even if you think other beings are capable of achieving certain higher tiers of life (or however it is you define “special”), we’re the only ones that actually can; of course we’re special. So yeah, is it ethical to consume the literal highest level of evolution and dominance of life we’ve ever seen?

Surveillance doesn’t physically harm anyone, either, but does that also reduce conscious suffering in the long run? Sibling comments are right: physical harm != harm.

If I recall correctly, the checkm8 exploit they use is a bootrom exploit, meaning it occurs at a low-enough level exploit that it can only be patched with new hardware. Every iOS version on vulnerable hardware will forever be exploitable.

See “iDevice Compatibility” on this page: https://pangu8.com/jailbreak/checkm8/

Excellent point, way less tinfoil-y.

> they have no access to the text of the messages due to E2EE.

Correction: they might not have access to the message text. It's entirely possible (if not plausible: FB doesn't exactly have a good track record) for FB to just self-MitM the E2EE and see everything that passes through their servers.

From their site:

> The verification process is optional for end-to-end encrypted chats, and only used to confirm that the messages and calls you send are end-to-end encrypted.

Even this process--which I'm sure very few people do--is fallible given the lack of authenticity: there's no way to confirm that the given keys are what's actually used for encryption.

Yes, this may come across as very "tinfoil-hat-y," but do you really trust FB to not be exploring every possible avenue to increase their data streams?

As the parent commenter mentioned, this technique comes from RTS games, so you could start here: https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131503/1500_archers_o...

Which includes your full name and address, right? I’m sure at that point it’s pretty trivial to link it to the data hoard dedicated trackers have on you.

Yep, this is exactly where I'm at. Opening up the AppStore is a slippery slope to having 3rd party stores rife with apps that abuse private APIs and go well beyond the gated access to the iOS sandbox that the SDK provides.

To be fair it's perfectly possible to be against a free market in one scenario and for one in another.

I would argue that this is because there's far less to gain on Android vs. iOS in terms of data collection and privacy by leaving the Play Store. It's pretty apparent just by perusing the two SDKs how much less information you can gain about devices through Apple's APIs.

You can use !s for StartPage for the “Google can’t see my queries” layer.

Ah, didn’t see that bit, but at least we know the tech exists beyond Oculus’ labs.

Well, both Linux and Windows let you have offline accounts (though the latter heavily discourages it, and I can’t speak for macOS), so there’s precedent in the desktop world for that functionality. Of course, why would Facebook bother to support it?

How about Pico’s line of devices?

https://www.pico-interactive.com/us/neo2.html

In our case they definitely do. We finally had an opportunity to ditch AT&T’s pathetic 3Mbps DSL offering in our area (which was their best plan...) recently in favor of Comcast’s 200Mbps which was cable-based (so obviously different infra). Same price, too...

At the very least, you could use !s (for StartPage) to get Google’s results without the tracking.

Combining technologies would absolutely be a great way to pivot, as the article shows. Maybe it’s a dumb question, but why don’t we have sails on modern ships as a supplement?

I just lament that we basically completely abandoned such a great mechanism (sails) so haphazardly just because coal was cheap & reliable; now the environment pays the price.

I’m no expert, but it’s possible that advances in material science, our understanding of wind & ocean currents, GPS, etc. over the last, what, 150 years? all could massively improve efficiency.

As far as I know, humanity was still improving sailing tech till the steam engine dominated it. I guess my point is that it’s impossible to tell where we could’ve been now without actually having those years of iteration & innovation; the steam engine quickly and abruptly stymied all developments on that front.

It’s honestly a shame that we didn’t keep pursuing sail technology. It’s great that we’re finally getting somewhere environmentally-friendly with ship tech nowadays as in the OP, but if we’d put the same amount of effort to innovate and advance sails like we did steam, I imagine we’d have pretty amazing (and completely green) methods of transport for all but the heaviest cargo loads (and even then, just split the load across multiple ships?).

Of course, nowadays the tech is probably so far behind that the cost of the necessary innovations to “catch up” sails to modern powering methods is completely prohibitive; I guess the environment will continue to take one for the team...

So there's going to be a model that controls the output of other models? I guess it really is turtles all the way down...

Thanks for saving me a click. :)

That’s definitely true, re: inline citations getting in the way. When I typeset, I typically have citations use the ^[1] form I described above (like on Wikipedia) to alleviate this, and typically also use a lighter font color to make them easier to ignore.

Footnotes are great when done right.

If you're using footnotes to cite things, you're doing it wrong: inline citations exist. If that's not enough for you, use a different syntax (say, ^[1] instead of ^1). If you're using it to define terms, you're doing it wrong: use a margin note. If that's not enough, you should probably typeset a nice box that makes definitions easy to identify. Footnotes (imo, of course) should only be used as a "here's more information for the curious" and should similarly only appear at the actual foot of a page (I despise endnotes).

My experience is biased towards print and print-like (PDF) use of footnotes, but I don't think it's much of a problem to expect users to click every footnote when provided with a convenient pop-up UI like in the OP, provided that you've clearly defined a convention or pattern of their usage to your readers.

I do wish websites showed footnotes on hover, though... jumping within the page is nonsense and often mucks with URL sharing.

Wow, I should find a job I’d be happy staying at for a few decades so that I don’t have to deal with this nonsense come hiring time. Is this really what we want recruiting to become?

Wow; I don’t think I’ve ever watched a hour-plus lecture recommended by an Internet stranger before today. Thank you for sharing this. I was compelled by zomglings’ review and the value (heh) was apparent by minute ~15 as promised. Reframing how I think about writing has me wanting to rewrite the thousand-odd pages I’ve published (blog posts, notes, etc.) over the past few years...

URL without redirects & tracking IDs: https://research.google.com/pubs/archive/45861.pdf

Sorry, I don't check HN often and it took me a while to formulate a worthwhile response.

It depends what you consider significant; regardless, it's a really good question. I think I'll actually ask people I know when I get the chance to see how much they think Wayfarers cost to make / are intrinsically worth. I hypothesize that few will say something under $10, but I could be wrong!

I get what you're saying in that the consumers dictate what something is worth, but that's a fundamental premise I have can't subscribe to: all you have to do as the seller is convince the consumer that it's worth more and poof! more profit. Is that ethical, or should the seller just take it upon themselves to behave responsibility and not have a 5000% margin? So yes, obviously fulfilling an unmet desire should be rewarded, but by 50x the cost of the actual thing you're selling? I just struggle to reconcile the value gap between the actual labor+physical good and the... virtual marketing.

Your Zenni example again ties into the above: you may be happy to pay that (and I probably would be too, if I liked them enough! thankfully we can afford it), but selling them to you for a 10x markup would be a dick move.

This is probably my fundamental thesis, on which we may have to agree to disagree: just because someone is willing to pay X for Y, doesn't suddenly make it okay to charge X for Y.