pushcx

> Most of the media is in cahoots with those elites, peddling political narratives rather than pursuing the truth.

In this context of a conspiracy to control the media as a stepping-stone to control political systems, the word "elites" is a dogwhistle to deniably say "jews".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitic_trope#:~:text=one%...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)

The workaround I've seen is to issue a user two 2FAs keys, one for regular use and one to store securely as a backup. If they lose their primary key, they have the backup until a new backup can be sent to them. Using a backup may prompt partial or total restriction until a security check can be done. If they lose both, yes, there needs to be some kind of a reauth. In workplace context like this it's straightforward to design a high-quality reauth procedure.

Game Maker is still available: https://gamemaker.io/en

Substack has a secretive “Substack Pro” program where they act as a traditional publisher, paying selected authors to start columns. Unlike other publishers they don’t disclose anything about these relationships. When the program was exposed in 2021, McKenzie committed to expanding it with continued secrecy. Even if there weren’t centuries of publishing norms being ignored here, the last decade of high activity in state-funded political media makes Substack’s public commitment to secret publishing arrangements in politics especially disconcerting.

The text is still online at the original site: https://www.theregister.com/2006/12/23/iphone_will_fail/

The outlet's snarky responses to reader letters are also available: https://www.theregister.com/2007/01/09/apple_iphone_letters/

According to the paper's recent reporting, a prominent local businessperson, Kari Newell, had been driving while her licence was suspended for drunk driving, with the knowledge of local police.

http://marionrecord.com/dispatch/police_raid_newspaper_offic...

Previously she had accused the newspaper of obtaining the information illegally.

http://marionrecord.com/dispatch/restaurateur_accuses_paper_...

There's also a headline from their last week's issue, "Media ejected from open forum" that seems likely to be related. Google's cache of the article is at: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http%3... so I'll give a relevant quote for when that expires:

> Two representatives of the news media were ordered by Marion police chief Gideon Cody to leave a public reception Tuesday for U.S. Rep. Jake LaTurner.

> Cody’s directions came at the behest of Kari Newell, proprietor of Chef’s Plate in Marion’s Historic Elgin Hotel and its coffee shop across the street, Kari’s Kitchen, where the event was taking place.

> Cody said that Newell asked that Record publisher Eric Meyer and Record reporter Phyllis Zorn be evicted before LaTurner arrived.

> Moments before Cody ordered Meyer and Zorn to leave, Newell had told Zorn: “I will not have members of the media in my establishment. You have to leave.”

Billing is why tarsnap was too unreliable for prod usage for me. You deposit funds with a credit card, a difficult-to-predict usage calculation occurs based on how many deduplicated blocks of new data and how many API calls you will use in the next few weeks and months, and then eventually, at an essentially random time, you get an email from tarsnap guessing you have about a week of funds left and warning that your data will be deleted a week after that happens. Then a human with admin backup credentials and the org’s credit card in hand must log into the tarsnap website to add funds, resetting the time bomb for another few weeks or months.

Tarsnap is technically impressive and was reliable software, but the billing system requires an unpredictable manual process requiring two credentials held separately in most orgs. Colin has told me in private email that customer deletion is a manual step not taken lightly, but I didn’t feel that one unscheduled manual process was fixed by epicycling on another one.

I migrated away several prod installs to pay more for predictable and automated billing. Even with usage billing that’s not easy to predict, the date of next intervention is printed on the back of the credit card. (Though really, it does cost less - the engineer time it takes to manually add funds costs significantly more than a picodollar.)

This is not the case. (For context, I am the admin responsible for the bans.) I left a longer comment in response to the original misunderstanding to explain what happened here.

I'm the Lobsters admin and I enforced this ban. You misread the modlog, only jart's invitee i2 was sockpuppeting. As jart is here claiming that this is all mistaken sockpuppeting, let me explain what happened.

Lobsters has had serious problems with users who try to exploit the site for self-promotion, and it's more serious for us than HN when a few votes is enough to move something to our homepage. As part of addressing it, we have a bright-line rule prohibiting new users from submitting stories from new, unseen domains in their first 70 days on the site.

Five hours after jart invited woodrush, at 2022-01-12 02:26, they tried to violate the rule and got this error message:

> woodrush.github.io is an unseen domain from a new user. We restrict this to discourage self-promotion and give you time to learn about topicality. Skirting this with a URL shortener or tweet or something will probably earn a ban.

At 2022-01-12 02:40, jart submitted the exact same link to break the restriction, and woodrush submitted several posts from that domain. After that, jart started submitting stories from all of her invitees to circumvent this rule, which anyone can verify by comparing timestamps on her submitted stories at https://lobste.rs/newest/jart to creation dates for her invitees at https://lobste.rs/u#jart.

On top of repeatedly breaking a rule that has a big red background and explicitly warns of a ban, two of jart's invitees were manually warned and banned for other inappropriate self-promotion. Finally, when another of her invitees started obvious sockpuppeting, I looked at the invite tree, saw this pattern of abuse, and cleaned up after it.

To rebut another claim repeated a couple times elsewhere in the comment tree, all banned users get an email notifying them of a ban with the Reply-To header set to my email: https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters/blob/master/app/mailers... None of the users banned in this action have clicked reply to explain how I've made a mistake enforcing an unambiguous rule of ours.

For more info and examples, the term for this is "isochrone map": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isochrone_map

The paper itself: https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614562862

This book has serious issues. https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/ The only mention of daylight savings time in Why We Sleep is:

> In the Northern Hemisphere, the switch to daylight savings time in March results in most people losing an hour of sleep opportunity. Should you tabulate millions of daily hospital records, as researchers have done, you discover that this seemingly trivial sleep reduction comes with a frightening spike in heart attacks the following day. Impressively, it works both ways. In the autumn within the Northern Hemisphere, when the clocks move forward and we gain an hour of sleep opportunity time, rates of heart attacks plummet the day after.

I don't see a specific study cited, but my ebook copy doesn't seem to have all the footnotes.

I pulled up the article you linked on sci-hub: https://sci-hub.se/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18971502/ The only use of the number "24" refers to hours in the day, and its summary doesn't seem to match your claim:

> The incidence of acute myocardial infarction was significantly increased for the first 3 week-days after the transition to daylight saving time in the spring (Fig. 1A). The incidence ratio for the first week after the spring shift, calculated as the incidence for all 7 days divided by the mean of the weekly incidences 2 weeks before and 2 weeks after, was 1.051 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.032 to 1.071). In contrast, after the transition out of daylight saving time in the autumn, only the first weekday was affected significantly (Fig. 1B); the incidence ratio for the whole week was 0.985 (95% CI, 0.969 to 1.002

Don't offer to save 20%, that's a minor benefit. The sales team will still be working that time. Offer to increase sales 25%. That's a serious improvement. ((100-80)/100 = 25%)

> Back in the day, all the tech folks hung out online at a place called slashdot (/. – CLI folks will get it)

It's not a CLI reference. Slashdot was named for how it sounds read aloud: https://slashdot.org/faq/slashmeta.shtml

> "Slashdot" is an intentionally obnoxious URL. When Rob registered the domain http://slashdot.org, he wanted a URL that was confusing when read aloud. (Try it!)

Seems unfinished, or maybe it has a really obscure UI. I have an ipad with a couple dozen papers I've downloaded. I signed up, installed the app, and there's nothing there. The "Library" has a single how-to article that explains how keyboard commands work in a different app and that's _it_. There's no way to add articles and no help text. I don't understand why they'd do a public launch of an app that can only read one article.

You have the preference `dom.event.clipboardevents.enabled` disabled. Their js does not correctly handle the possibility of not getting those dom events.

Here's a nice intro to some of the difficulties in researching exercise science: https://sci-fit.net/research-limitations/ For more, the Stronger by Science podcast regularly discusses methodology.

For all the comments wondering what the particular movement and equipment is, see pages 5 and 6 of the supplementary materials: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S25890042220114... The equipment is an electromyography system with realtime display. It measures the muscle contraction and is displayed to the subject so they can learn to recognize the movement that properly activates the muscle. Contrary to the video, you do not need to be an academic to buy one, they're fairly common in high-end sports coaching/rehab and you can find a cheap arduino-compatible system on Amazon if you want to DIY.

If you don't read much exercise science, it's worth noting the paper says "It is important to note that volunteers in Experiment I (Table S1) were typically sedentary (verified with an objective tracking device), and none of them had a high aerobic cardiorespiratory fitness (determined by treadmill VO2max or the maximal oxygen consumption test)." A common pitfall of exercise science is that almost anything works wonderfully on untrained sedentary subjects. Wait for replication.

It bombed, but it didn't kill the franchise. Another movie came out in 2021, a video game is coming out in a few months, and another movie will come out next year.

Your page is telling HN to do so with an incorrect <link rel="canonical"> tag in the <head>.

The Lobsters codebase is available, it's a straightforward Rails app with few dependencies: https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters

Also it was inaccurate in that it's only been broken 364 days, not a year.

It has been unable to log in for the last year: https://github.com/wee-slack/wee-slack/issues/844

Yep, they're a known sister site: https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters/wiki

Yep. The article points out "The stoicism that has become popular today draws on Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, three men living during the Roman Empire..." and discusses each. The same book I quoted has a similar sentence "The most important of the Roman Stoics—and the Stoics from whom, I think, modern individuals have the most to gain—were Seneca, Musonius Rufus, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius." Each of them gets a few pages of personal history, their refinements to or deviations from the Stoicism of their time, and how the two connect. I didn't want to post a ton of quotes to try to rebut every detail of the article, but you're right that I missed the opportunity to mention that's available as well.

This article ends with its thesis:

> Because if you accept your fate joyfully, as a Stoic sage should, you’ll never try to change it.

This is a common criticism. To pick one of many convenient rebuttals, here's William Irvine's book A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy, chapter 5:

> To the contrary, they were fully engaged in daily life. From this, one of two conclusions follows: Either the Stoics were hypocrites who did not act in accordance with their principles, or we have, in the above argument, somehow misinterpreted Stoic principles. I shall now argue for this second alternative.

> Remember that among the things over which we have complete control are the goals we set for ourselves. I think that when a Stoic concerns himself with things over which he has some but not complete control, such as winning a tennis match, he will be very careful about the goals he sets for himself. In particular, he will be careful to set internal rather than external goals. Thus, his goal in playing tennis will not be to win a match (something external, over which he has only partial control) but to play to the best of his ability in the match (something internal, over which he has complete control). By choosing this goal, he will spare himself frustration or disappointment should he lose the match: Since it was not his goal to win the match, he will not have failed to attain his goal, as long as he played his best. His tranquility will not be disrupted.

This is old Christian creationist propaganda. Here's an explanation and rebuttal from 1995: https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html For the curious, this site has hundreds of pages debunking these arguments.

It's not even that the evidence isn't good enough, or that the archive appears inauthentic, it's that the evidence you've supplied doesn't even attempt to support your claim. Nothing in the archive you linked implies the whitepaper is under MIT.

(And: if you think this archive may be inauthentic, perhaps you should've chosen another for your evidence.)

> The whitepaper was included with the rest of the source code, which was released with the MIT license, see e.g. this archive.

It doesn't? The archive he links to includes a copy of the whitepaper, but this repo is one archivist's collection of files, not an official distribution. The whitepaper is not in the nov08 distribution or the bitcoin-0.1.0.tgz, and the document doesn't include a license statement. I'd believe it's MIT licensed, but this post doesn't establish that fact or sound like he presented more compelling support of the idea to Amazon.

As a practical matter, it's vanishingly unlikely that Satoshi Nakamoto is going to file suit. But as a legal matter, he hasn't shown that the whitepaper was released under a license permitting redistribution or that he has permission from the author. Amazon gave him several options and opportunities, then declined to participate in apparent copyright infringement.

Amazon has a huge problem with people republishing others' books via KDP and their marketplace, even getting fake versions added to or replacing authentic listings. This process seems like it might be a pretty good way of addressing that. The inconvenience comes from not wanting to give the well-practiced scammers a guide to defeating the process, which is a common tradeoff.

That's pretty much https://reddit.com

You're also welcome to use the Lobsters code: https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters