skuhn

It may be that your theater just hasn't announced showtimes for Thursday and after (beyond whatever the big release is), which is usually when schedule changes are made.

It is an indie film, in that it's being distributed by A24 and not a major studio. It's also incredible and I highly recommend seeing it.

The rollout has been a little unclearly messaged, but it's:

March 11 2022 - SXSW premiere

March 25 2022 - NY/LA/SF limited release (including some IMAX theaters)

April 8 2022 - Wider release

April 15 2022 - Full release

So your best bet is likely the end of this week for it to get closer to you. If a theater isn't showing it by then, it probably won't before the theatrical window closes.

The movie's own ticketing site might be helpful too: https://tickets.everythingeverywhereallatonce.movie

At the scale I presume Vimeo operates at, for US/EU CDN traffic they should be under 1 cent per gigabyte transferred.

Perhaps a bit more since it requires more work to obtain competitive pricing from Akamai, and Akamai AMD is a value added service and not just the bulk data CDN.

To take the situation to an extreme conclusion:

Why doesn’t Putin just have his army start on the east end of Ukraine and proceed west, killing every single person and destroying every piece of infrastructure in their way?

Anything up to (and perhaps including) that point clearly won’t result in direct intervention, whether due to the fear of nuclear holocaust or for other reasons.

So then why not? If he needs to win at all costs, and he doesn’t care about anything but power, what is holding him back?

Is it because he wants to occupy Ukraine and get its people to contribute to his GDP and their resources to sell? Russia is already devastating Ukraine to such a degree that there will be constant guerrilla fighting as an occupied state and it will take substantial investment to rebuild industry. Russia doesn’t seem to have the people or resources for a long term occupation.

Because there are escalations that can still happen besides direct intervention? The US and EU could do more, but not that much more. China is the only one that can really put the heat on at this point, and they probably do have a limit at which they would.

Or is it because he can’t? Even with the total commitment of all of Russia’s resources, can they not utterly annihilate Ukraine? That seems unlikely (although the cost seems to be far greater than previously believed), although it may require nuclear escalation.

So it seems to me like we’re in a waiting game for Russia’s other trade partners (mostly China) to drop severe sanctions, or for Russia to escalate to nuclear conflict and let that genie out of the bottle, or for Russia to bow out due to lack of resources or regime change.

I think of those options, the most likely is that Russia continues throwing bodies into the Ukrainian meat grinder until they can finally claim a pyrrhic victory. I can’t imagine NATO intervening, no matter how terrible the events, when nukes are on the table.

Actually, divers recovered them in 2014 to augment a digital reconstruction of the typeface: https://typespec.co.uk/doves-type/

It's non-trivial to determine if your response will fit into the UDP packet size, other than erring heavily on the side of caution.

Part of the request query is included in the response, IPv6 AAAA records are considerably larger than IPv4 A records, DNSSEC adds size, RFC 1035 message compression comes into play, EDNS0 comes into play, etc.

Which is all to say that you're right that for maximum compatibility you should endeavor to fit all responses into a UDP packet, but most places lack the sophistication to ensure that is always the case.

Supporting TCP DNS on the client side should not be considered optional if you want to successfully resolve records that you don't control.

Which leads to Russia's next demand: to reduce NATO military deployments in NATO member states who joined after 1997.

Poland joined in 1999, and generally speaking all of the eastern European nations that joined were after 1997.

I believe that point is directly addressed by my quote from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, namely that we do not have a national incentive to ensure that aspirin usage is at herd immunity levels.

From US Code Title 42 [1]:

"(1) No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings."

This is not new. This is not specific to mRNA vaccines. The simple math is that if you prepare a treatment and give it to 300 million people, 300 people with adverse reactions may make the entire endeavor unwise financially.

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was established to partially resolve this [2]. They state:

"[The VICP] was created in the 1980s, after lawsuits against vaccine companies and health care providers threatened to cause vaccine shortages and reduce U.S. vaccination rates, which could have caused a resurgence of vaccine preventable diseases."

If you're interested in looking into the reasons why things are done a certain way, I suggest reading the law and understanding how historical events have led us to the (imperfect) system we have today.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22

[2] https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html

I think that's the case in most US states, but it isn't provided in California.

Paying for the AMEX primary coverage is usually much cheaper than rental car coverage (since it's one-time instead of daily). Some Chase cards also offer primary coverage without a fee (but they are generally cards with significant annual fees).

There are some unfortunate subtleties to this. Coverage from most credit cards that offer rental car insurance is secondary to your personal vehicle insurance -- which means that your vehicle insurance premiums would be impacted by an incident. Only a few cards offer primary rental car insurance.

They also don't cover damage to other cars, only to the rental vehicle itself. That's back on your personal insurance again.

They also may not cover all types of rental vehicles, such as vans.

Above 75% is roughly considered to be high occupancy. Efficiency drops at that point for various reasons, such as the difficulty in moving patients between units due to a lack of beds. These numbers are also comprised of large regions of the state with multiple facilities, but the facilities still operate independently.

For adults, those regions of Michigan have the following ICU utilizations:

Region 1: 90%

Region 2N: 82%

Region 2S: 89%

Region 3: 94%

Region 5: 85%

Region 6: 87%

Region 7: 94%

Region 8: 72%

The NYT compiles per-hospital stats at [1], although the data is incomplete.

If Detroit were to not have beds available for patients, one option might be to transport patients as far away as Cleveland. There's a recent article discussing the situation at the Cleveland Clinic's 64 bed MICU [2].

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/covid-hospitals-...

[2] https://fox59.com/news/national-world/not-gonna-make-it-out-...

Your claim is directly contradicted by the abstract of the paper you linked to:

"We estimated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273. This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test."

1 shot of mRNA vaccine = 6 per 1 million = 0.0006%

2 shot of mRNA vaccine = 10 per 1 million = 0.001%

COVID infection = 40 per 1 million = 0.004%

COVID infection has a 4 times higher chance of myocarditis than the vaccine. It also has significantly higher risks of many other things, some of which are also touched on in the abstract.

You make a great point: there are other potential sources of conflicts besides vendor kickbacks, and they all need to be handled with care.

It isn't always feasible, but when I'm faced with a decision where my judgment may be (or at least appear) compromised, I like to assemble the details and let my team or my management make the call. Nothing in life happens 100% without bias, but I think this helps to build trust in a similar way to your disclosing of financial ties.

The industry is quite small in a lot of ways, and reputation is everything. If people sense that you aren't trustworthy, you may still be able to find work -- but everything will get harder.

I'm glad to hear that you see value in professional trust as well and take the steps to earn it and keep it.

I'm glad to see the verdict and a relatively severe sentence handed down (I expected 6-12 months).

What Mike did was indeed unethical and fraudulent. It's also extremely foolish and shows poor judgment on his part -- his role at Netflix was to lead the organization to identify and implement the best solutions for the company and its customers. Instead he saw the opportunity for short-term personal gain at the company's expense, and by doing so he jeopardized his lifetime earnings potential that would have been many times greater. I hope this sends a message to anyone else in his position that there can be consequences.

I've been responsible for tens to hundreds of millions in annual expenditure, and to even have the appearance of vendor favoritism (let alone kickbacks, bribes, payoffs) is anathema to me. I have vendors that I like to work with because they do good work and they help me to make things happen, but even my favorite vendor is evaluated and earns the business on the merits every single time.

I have declined seemingly innocent gifts from vendors (and notified my management). I always turn down things like sports tickets and paid trips. I do let vendors pay for the occasional lunch, but only up to a point that I feel comfortable. Maintaining my independence is absolutely key to my role and my career.

I've also worked at places where even a paid for lunch is not acceptable. That won't influence my decision-making one iota, but if those are the rules then I follow them.

Not everyone does that, but I don't know anyone in the industry who thinks Mike's behavior is OK. Anyone working for me who made unjustifiable decisions with vendor agreements would make me re-evaluate their position -- and if I found a pattern along the lines of Mike's behavior, they would be dismissed and sued just like him.

Cloudflare only has access to DNS requests made to their resolvers, not the amount of bandwidth utilized (which would certainly push Netflix and YouTube up) or the number of requests made. They also have some vaguely defined fudge factors to their rankings.

To take a guess at why Apple is so high, I think bundling all of these together might help their rank:

- App store downloads

- iOS updates

- Apple TV+ streaming

- Services that iOS / tvOS / macOS devices utilize

- Apple Music / iTunes downloads

- iCloud (including Private Relay and related traffic)

If the market declines, then it may be a good time for you to buy. Over a long enough period of time, the average house price in modern history only increases.

The concerns for you in this scenario may be:

1. Has the property been poorly maintained for some time because the previous owner could not afford repairs after buying at a high price?

2. Has the property recently been poorly maintained because the owner knows it will be foreclosed on?

3. Will prices continue to drop, potentially putting you into the same situation as the current owner, or is now the right time? It's generally impossible to time the exact bottom of the market -- and what seems like the bottom may be far from it.

I think you're seriously underestimating the problems a homeowner faces if they purchase a home (with a mortgage) and it later experiences a large reduction in value. This, by the way, is going to happen to a lot of people who have recently bought houses.

First of all, buying a house for $1 million that is later worth $700,000 has no bearing on what is owed to the mortgage company. The mortgaged amount has already been paid to the original seller, that money is gone and the buyer has agreed to repay it. Defaulting on the mortgage can be done, but any money already paid will be lost and the borrower won't be able to obtain another mortgage for 7 years.

Or the homeowner can continue to live in the home, but there are a few potential problems:

1. They cannot sell the house should their life situation change. Depending on the overall real estate market, they may also not be able to rent the house out for an amount that covers the mortgage payment.

2. Not only did they agree to pay $300,000 too much at purchase time, they also are continuing to pay interest on that amount. $1 million for 30 years at 3.5% is $616,000 in interest; $700,000 is $431,000 in interest.

3. The loan cannot be refinanced, because they don't have at least 20% equity in the house. Say that interest rates drop from 3.5% to 3.0% -- that would save $100,000 in interest over 30 years. But in order to refinance, they would need to pay the mortgage down to the point that they have 20% equity in the house (in this example pay the mortgage down to $440,000).

4. Since they have no equity, they cannot obtain a HELOC to help finance home repairs or life events in an emergency.

So yes, investors and speculators will be hurt when their portfolio value drops and those are the risks you take when investing. Homeowners, however, are also hurt by the decline of home values.

Apple's Music app and their devices don't support FLAC, but they do support Apple Lossless format. It's annoying to have 2x the files if you want to support both ecosystems, but if you only want to have lossless music in Apple-land, you can use XLD to do a one-time convert.

The scenario from the post is acceptable only because it is running on a Mac Mini running Linux. If it were running on any non-Apple hardware it would not be permissible -- even if he bought an Mac Mini and never used to attempt to "buy a seat", because the Apple license states:

"The grants set forth in this License do not permit you to, and you agree not to, install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so."

I'm guessing its not physically compatible, since they made a point of calling it MagSafe 3. But we won't know until a machine lands in the wild.

You can still charge with the USB-C ports. The supplied power adapter is a USB-C charger with a detachable USB-C to Magsafe cord.

The person in Japan who endorsed ivermectin is not a government minister. [1]

If you're referring to the Elgazzar paper from Egypt (as the "population studies in [..] Africa"), then it has been withdrawn from pre-print distribution. [2]

And, in general, the studies that have been performed are not sufficient to support ivermectin use among the general public at this time. [3]

[1] https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-s...

[3] https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/ivermectin-still-...

You are spreading misinformation.

mRNA vaccines are not gene therapy. They do not alter DNA.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-mrna-gene/fa...

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210719/covid-19-vaccines-n...

https://www.genomicseducation.hee.nhs.uk/blog/why-mrna-vacci...

I feel like where we're at odds is in four places:

1. This is not a mainstream political belief. The law at the root of the current issue in Texas is far beyond the mainstream. The intention at some level is to shift the Overton window of what is mainstream in its favor, but that has not occurred yet.

2. It's not my responsibility to educate this guy to my point of view. I don't know him and I don't work with him. Actually the only thing I know about him is that he doesn't respect the rights of others that I feel are important, so I'm doubly disinclined to make his acquaintance. I would presume that some amount of discourse did occur within Tripwire, but I don't think we know.

3. I'm allowed to vote with my dollars. It doesn't have to be a glorious public crusade, and it may not make the slightest bit of difference. In this case, it certainly won't. But those dollars work for me, and I can choose to deploy them so as not to (tacitly or actively) support people or business who wish to harm myself and people who I identify with. That's what I have chosen to do, and others should make their own choices.

4. In a different scenario, I might indeed feel differently. I don't find that the slippery slope is a solid argument for why I can't take (lawful) action to preserve my values though.

Just to be clear, I didn't say he was evil -- and in my opinion, evil is a pointless concept. People are people, and they do people things. This guy presumably said what he said and thinks what he thinks for a variety of reasons, and I think at a fundamental level the only way to change those reasons is to acknowledge and engage them. But I'm not here to do that with him.

I don't believe that "voting with my wallet" is impractical. Taken to extremes, it does indeed cause polarization but I also think that it can cause real change in the world -- because it's capitalism, you know? Certainly the cost to me depends on how far I take it, but as I said in this case the hardship is minimal.

As a general rule, I don't make my personal views known at work or on social media. This comment thread is maybe the only time I have ever blurred that line. If someone were to find it and disagree so vehemently, then I suppose they are entitled to take the (legal) course of action they deem fit. I stand behind my words.

Yes, he got to voice his opinion on social media. His opinion is gross to me, because the Texas law he is celebrating is (in my opinion) a terrible blow to gender equality, privacy and healthcare access -- which are particularly important things to me.

Based on his statement, my response is that I do not want to conduct any sort of business with his company. That's not a major hardship to me (I didn't like Killing Floor), and it's not a major hardship to them. However, there are more people who feel like I do, and apparently some of them WORK at Tripwire. If I was in their position, I would have quit. Perhaps the company leadership didn't want that to happen?

In short: who here has misbehaved to your mind? I am not legally required to financially support people who wish harm on me, am I? And let's be clear, people are already being harmed by this law -- this is not a mere disagreement on the finer points of jurisprudence.

Did you attend elementary school in the US?

To attend kindergarten in California, you need to be vaccinated for polio, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatisis B, chickenpox.

To attend 7th grade in California, you need to be vaccinated again for tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis and chickenpox.

Did you attend college in the US?

Many states (not California) require you to be vaccinated against meningitis before attending freshman year.

The specific requirements depend on where you live and attend school [1].

The "normal lives" that we have been able to lead (pre-covid) are in part because of these requirements -- we don't have outbreaks of 50,000 polio cases a year like we did in 1952.

[1] https://www.immunize.org/laws/

AWS has that inefficiency baked in to their design, but I'm guessing that they do efficiently deploy their IPv4 space.

That is still a problem for sure, but I thinking of places doing things like giving a printer its own subnet just because they have no incentive to be efficient.