radiofreeeuropa

You've got some serious biases sending you some weird places in evaluating my posts.

> 1) Here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44813704 you regurgitate the classic Apple propaganda of "web apps are akshually not 'real' apps" - what makes apps 'real' for Apple propagandists is clearly when everybody is forced to pay Apple 30% tax.

Yeah, that's my opinion on every platform, including back when I used Android. It's my opinion on Void Linux. It's my opinion everywhere, whether or not Apple's getting a cut (why would I possibly care that they make more money? Hell I'd love for them to have actual competition in their specific niches, to put downward pressure on their profitability, as far as their actual products they sell go). I've come to it through extensive engagement with the Web and various native ecosystems over decades, as both a user and developer. Webtech is a steaming pile of ass. It's so bad it makes the prior standard-setters for "steaming pile of ass" in its field look good. If I were somehow made Dictator of Technology for the World by a wish-granting genie, I would ban web apps, flat out (and do a lot of other things that would make market-distorting massive tech companies, including Apple, very sad)

> Then you disingenuously claim

Frankly, fuck off. You're being a dick for absolutely no reason. That's the flat-out truth. I could wrap that in HN-friendly passive-aggression, but screw that, you need to chill the fuck out, to be blunt.

... a simple compound that was already developed and in-use, so the current patent (the one that's made it a big, ongoing news story and a kind of social phenomenon) is rewarding only going through the approval process for using it for weight loss, specifically, not development of a new drug.

Of course there's conflict of interest. I'd prefer we address all the things their actions motivated by that conflict of interest are shielding me from before we smack them down, though. After that, yeah, I'll take up a pitchfork, too.

For now, they're my AnCap-approved optional private enforcement regime against a bunch of the antisocial and market-capturing behavior of the rest of tech, since public regulators are asleep at the wheel. I'd much prefer real, very aggressive (by modern standards, if not historical) enforcement of meaningful consumer protection, standards mandates, and trust-busting across the board, but this is the only option I've got (aside from "just use less tech, and far less-usefully")

All hurting them now does is hand more control of the tech ecosystem to Google.

Meanwhile: yes they in fact have the best mainstream browser, and it's not even close.

I don't want web apps on my phone (or, in an ideal world, anywhere else) so that's also a good thing. If they're not viable, it forces developers to make real apps or else just make a web page instead of whatever awful-UX nonsense they were planning.

> I'm not a Mac user, but I wish I had Safari on desktop as an option today.

Webkit browsers do exist on other platforms. They're far and away the best-performing sorts of actually-usable (in terms of supported Web features and ability to render real pages in the wild—sure, lynx works, but...) browsers on low-end machines, should you have to use one, to the point that they may be viable on a machine that's otherwise basically incapable of using the modern Web at all (which confirms for me that there's some fundamental, deep-down plumbing reasons behind why Safari's so much better on battery life than Firefox or Chrome-based browsers)

None of them are Safari and I can't vouch for how they are as daily drivers long-term, but it's nice to have one semi-up-to-date engine around that still kinda works on bad hardware (and by "bad" I mean still several times stronger than my workhorse many-tabs-browsing multi-tasking machine circa 2003—you'd be amazed how strong a machine has to be these days before trying to use the Web at-all normally in Chrome or Firefox is anything but terribly painful).

It's the only reason you don't see a lot more broken websites on Firefox, which would drive its market share even lower.

Lots and lots of Web development projects target Chrome, then make sure it works on Safari. In that second step, they accidentally fix a lot of bugs that'd show up on Firefox, too.

Not a lot of them are bothering to check Firefox directly these days. Hell, a decade ago it wasn't making the test list in tons of cases.

Chrome did that three ways: 1) performing better and crashing less than mainstream alternatives (just IE and Firefox, then) on non-Mac platforms (so, most desktop computers) for a good long while; 2) aggressive advertising to trick people who don't actually give a shit what browser they're running (or even know) into downloading it because "google said it would make my gmail work better" or "I dunno, google just told me to download this so I did"; and, later in the race, by 3) being the default on most Android installations.

One of three major factors involved actually being good, and I'd bet the other two factors overwhelm that one.

Counterpoint: Safari is by far the best mainstream browser, because it's got the only engine that gives half a shit about battery life, and because they push back on shitty features Google wants to make "standard" so they can trash my UX and the computing ecosystem even more.

... and drugs.

And they had 86% adherence for a year. If they'd studied this farther out and it went the same way as basically any study that's done that, adherence would be a lot worse in another couple years. And that's in a group that's exceptionally motivated vs. the general population—has an actual illness they're trying to treat, and has opted in to the study knowing what it's asking of them and for how long.

Yep, overeating (and, to some degree, not enough moving around) is the reason. True.

But “just personally do better” doesn’t work very well when applied as a medical intervention (they have tried, and checked, over and over, a hundred different ways), even with lots of follow-up and monitoring, and it also doesn’t appear to be how other countries manage to be skinnier than the US. Between those two things, it really doesn’t look like a viable way to solve the obesity crisis—it doesn’t work when we try it, and it doesn’t seem to be what’s working anywhere else.

Yes, it’s a google away.

Run a study of your approach and show good results over a cohort for 2+ years and you'll make an entire sub-field of medical scientists very happy.

[EDIT] It's not that your approach can't work, it's that if (for example) people had as hard a time following the directions for condoms as they do following diet & workout plans, we'd never allow condoms to be sold as contraceptives, they'd not even be close to being OK to promote as useful for that purpose. It wouldn't matter if a few people could follow the directions and it worked 100% of the time for them.

There's anecdotes, and there's science.

Individually, there's (previously) been nothing better to suggest than "try harder (and, maybe, smarter)".

Statistically it was almost useless, but it's the best we had. It's not bad advice exactly, it's just extremely unlikely to work for long-term, sustained weight loss.

It also very much appears to be the case that weight gain and loss are heavily influenced by environmental factors. Skinnier countries aren't skinnier because the people there have more willpower, it seems, but because they live in a skinnier country and are surrounded by the culture, laws, physical layouts of the created world, et c., that come with that. It'd be kinda weird if we expected "just try harder" to work very well when that's evidently not the mechanism by which skinny countries are skinny. Alternatively, if it is willpower doing it, we're just adding a step, because then it appears that environment strongly influences willpower, instead, since the same observations hold.

Sure, sometimes it works for individuals. In fact, it often works temporarily, causing a yo-yo effect. It can work for long periods (many years without a slip) but that's rare.

If your solution to the obesity crisis is "people need to try harder" your solution is demonstrably not helpful. Can it work for one person? Yes. Over a population, will it? No, it won't, it's amazingly ineffective, even very expensive high-touch interventions involving multiple experts aimed at weight loss and lifestyle change and such are wildly less effective than "inject GLP-1 agonists" or "move somewhere skinnier".

Under-discussed benefit: being able to have all your clothes actually fit at the same time (no wardrobe scattered between your "skinny" weight and your "fat" weight and rarely being in the right place for more than a handful of pieces to fit entirely correctly) so you can spend up a little on nicer clothes without worrying you'll only be able to wear them part of the time. Worst case, you start to pack on a little too much and they start getting tight, you increase the dose or go back on the drugs for a week or three (or just do it the old fashioned way—hey, it works some of the time, temporarily) and ta-da, right back where you want to be—you're not going to pack on weight and find yourself unable to lose, so buying "skinny clothes" isn't mortgaged against your future success at forcing yourself to eat less.

I'd describe the effects as basically the opposite of self-torture. Self-torture is dieting/fasting without the drugs. With them, it's great. No afternoon light-headedness and difficulty concentrating, no hunger pangs, no "hangry" effect, no cravings you have to keep suppressing. Just smooth sailing. (though experiences do seem to vary—as do dosage levels)

It's great because we had no other way to address this problem at a population level. Not any realistic ones, anyway.

Like, I figured we were just never going to solve it, given the two possibilities were "radically re-engineer US culture such that moving to the US doesn't make previously-skinny people fatter" (with other countries heading the same direction as us needing to make similar moves, one supposes) or "find a miracle drug". Neither seemed likely. Turns out, decent odds we've managed the latter! Which was always the more likely of the two, but I still wouldn't have rated it as very likely.

There's a whole little online subculture of people in the US importing the precursors and making it themselves at home for dirt-cheap.

I gather it's extremely easy and basically fool-proof, as far as producing the desired drug and not producing some other, undesired drug. Much easier than, say, home-brewing beer. The risk is all in contamination, which presents a vector for infection.

[EDIT] I don't mean to downplay the risks or suggest people go do this, only to highlight that there's enough demand for this that we're well into "life, uh, finds a way" territory, and also just how lucky (assuming these hold up as no-brainers to take for a large proportion of the population) we are that these things are so incredibly cheap and simple to make, if you take the patents out of the picture.

Any means of attaining weight loss at a similar rate will tend to do the same thing. Especially if you’re starting from quite-heavy, not just dropping 20lb or something.

Does there exist another source for a good, broad web index that can provide results like mid-'00s Google?

I use DDG mostly but if I need to actually search the web I go to Yandex (I don't have Kagi... at least not yet). I don't know of another place that can do that.

Like, is there a viable alternative for Kagi?

I'm 40 and it's been getting faster consistently since my mid-20s or so.

I'd say a year now feels about as long as 3 months did c. 10 years old. Summer rolls around and I blink and it's already getting too cold for the beach again.

People come up with various reasons for it, with a popular explanation being novelty or something, but I've had a bunch of very novel years and it never seemed to make a difference. It's just a little faster every year.

Kinda depressing to think that, by subjective perception of time, I'm likely already in the last 20% or so of my life.

> Even in this thread it’s more praise for Bandit than anger at Homer’s portrayal.

Initially, and more-or-less consistently for the first 7-9 seasons or so before it switched format and kinda became a straight (if goofy and heightened) version of the thing they'd been satirizing, The Simpsons was a satire of the standard family sitcom format developed over the preceding decades (with roots going back to radio).

At least in those seasons, the characters should be immune from criticism of being too stereotypical (for TV) since that's exactly what it was deliberately leaning into and satirizing—it's a combination of played-straight (and amped-up, even, for Homer) sitcom tropes with subversions of other tropes, with the latter mostly revolving around introducing more-"real" (if still played for laughs and caricatured) characters to the family sitcom format, especially when it comes to authority figures—the principal, teachers, mayor, et c.

I can't think of another cartoon targeted at that young an audience that I'd even consider sitting down and watching a half-dozen episodes of without a kid around, but I can imagine doing that with Bluey. Like I've for-sure left it running for multiple episodes after the kids left the room, and enjoyed it.

Older-audience stuff like Avatar: The Last Airbender or Justice League Unlimited, oh yeah, for sure, but something specifically aimed at lower-grades elementary school kids? Nope, can't think of another, not even nostalgia shows from my own childhood. I'd maybe do an episode just like "oh wow, remember this?" but not a session watch.

It's been like that since before "AI" (before ChatGPT's big marketing break-out)

Google's revenue is largely from promoting scams and tricking old people into clicking ads that look like normal search results. They're a total scumbag company, it's a sign of how broken consumer protection is that they've gotten away with it for years with no meaningful legal consequences.

[EDIT] Downvotes are warranted, I missed the large part of their revenue that comes from extorting companies into paying for ads for their own brand name so competitors and scams don't top searches for them.

My boomer dad grew up poor & rural enough he started life with a dirt floor and outhouse, puttered around doing odd & entry-level jobs but nothing that could be called a career until he was 30 (no college, of course), had kids and a divorce and child support before marrying my mom, then finally started entry-level at a railroad and worked his way up. Retired a millionaire, liquid, not counting the paid off house (their houses had all been bought cash since he was 35 or so)

So made or suffered about three “blunders” or catastrophes that’d make life extremely hard now… and his was on easy mode anyway. Five total kids, divorce and tons of expenses, not getting into his career until his 30s, no degree.

We still took a two-week driving or sometimes flying vacation every summer. By the time he was 45 or so our houses were huge and nice. He spent many thousands (when $1,000 was still a lot of money, and not two costco trips…) a year on hobbies.

Retired with more than a million liquid. Despite all that. And a million was still a lot around the year 2000.

It really was different for them. Way, way, way easier.

[edit] oh and my mom quit her federal government job after they got married and never worked a paying job again. That was on one fucking income. A guy with no degree or connections or family money working on the railroad.

> It is a lazy dodge around the traditional responsibility of regulators to identify and regulate actual anti-competitive behavior when it actually happens

Traditional since the ‘70s, when Chicago school jackasses got their way and all but destroyed antitrust enforcement, in practice.

A shift back would be great. Let’s get a little more traditional.

Mosh is excellent. It lets remote sessions survive (well, automatically and transparently recover from) disruption that reliably kills ssh.

I basically don't use ssh at all any more for interactive sessions, because I'm sick of a few lost packets on wifi or a weak cell signal dropping my connections and forcing me to start over.

Tmux, I used to use and eventually abandoned. I decided I didn't need two keyboard-based window managers (I use Spectacle on Mac) and the one that was only for shells was the one that could go. I have replaced it with nothing, so far, aside from that I just open more Terminal.app windows now (I also used to use iTerm2, for years, until it dawned on me that I was using exactly nothing in it that's not also provided by Terminal.app, and the latter's got better input latency, so I was suffering an extra installed program and slightly less responsive typing for no reason at all)

I came to this book too late for the core message to resonate as far as mindset and methods (yeah, yeah, I found this path and walked at least this far on it already, you're preaching to the choir, should have read this when I was like 10 or 12 I guess...) but did make the mistake of dismissing an absolute chorus of warnings about anti-intellectualism from Sagan and a dozen other authors I read as a kid and in my 20s (which warnings, yes, were a significant component of this book)

They were all from roughly the same time period, and I thought their focus on that particular issue was overblown. A relic of the time they'd lived through and their efforts, which efforts had gotten us here, where anti-intellectualism is a curiosity, periodically an annoyance, but not a threat. Sure, we could swing back toward that being a real concern, but it'd take a while. We'd see it.

What's weird is I could also list a bunch of ways that we were swinging back toward it. I think on some level I just didn't believe that these kinds of big shifts backwards could happen, actually and not just in shootin'-the-shit discussions with friends, in my lifetime. Bumps on the road of progress, sure, but going backwards entirely? I even shied away from labeling authoritarian-enabling changes, policies, or actions "fascist", even as I literally protested some of them in the street—well, that's alarmist, surely. It's silly and childish that I was embarrassed of the term.

It's so damn foolish when I look back on it. I had so many of the particulars right, but just couldn't believe in something so big actually happening, I guess. I'd have told you that sure, it could, if you'd asked, even outlined a plausible path from here to there based on recent and current goings-on... but I didn't believe it might happen. Not really.

In medical jargon, sure. In common usage, including among medical professionals, it's extremely common to just say "baby" in many contexts, especially when the baby is wanted and expected to be viable and brought to term. Nobody but a few weirdos or people trying to make some kind of a joke are gonna say to their partner "oh, did they give you any pictures of our fetus from the ultrasound? Oh look at our fetus' tiny little hands!"

(I'm pro-choice but think the "acksually they're fetuses" angle is fucking gross, both on an intellectually-honest debate level because it's semantic bullshit, and because it absolutely reads as a move toward dehumanization, and I hate to provide reasons for those kinds of accusations from pro-lifers to ring true)

When I'm not busy worrying about everything else, I worry that there's assuredly an explosion of local corruption, especially outside of cities large enough to still have something resembling actual local news media, that we can't even begin to get a handle on because it's... well, it's invisible now, that's why it's (surely—I mean, we can't possibly think corruption is dropping or even remaining steady, with the death of the small town paper and small-market TV news rooms, right?) happening in the first place.

I think it's, quietly and slowly, the thing that's going to doom our country to decline if something else doesn't get us first (which, there are certainly some things giving this one a run for its money). The Internet killed a pillar of democracy, replaced it with nothing that serves the same role, and we didn't even try to keep it from happening, so here we are, we doomed ourselves by embracing the Internet quickly and not trying to mitigate any harm it causes.

The comparison for something as openly partisan on the left as Fox News, in US media, would be something like Democracy Now! or maybe The Nation.

The thing is, though, there are a few components here: there's level of favorability toward a certain kind of politics, which some barely-popular left-leaning outlets roughly match Fox News on, plus propensity to lie and exaggerate. And there's reach.

Nothing left-partisan in the US that I'm aware of touches Fox on either of those latter fronts—propensity to just make shit up, and (certainly not) reach.

Nobody's putting Democracy Now! on in waiting rooms. Hell IDK maybe at Planned Parenthood, never been, wouldn't know, but not at a dentist's office or at the auto shop or what have you.

There are equivalents to Fox News on the Left (Fox News viewers think it's MSNBC because that's what Fox News and AM radio told them, LMFAO, no) in the US, in terms of level of commitment to supporting partisan causes. There's nothing like it as far as willingness to deviate from reality to do so, nor in reach. Nothing remotely close.