stagbeetle

Sure, do you want evidence that generic manufacturers don't follow strict quality control and equivalency testing? I can dig those up from the FDA's database.

Do you want evidence that generics manufacturers fake their equivalency tests? This is going to be harder, because the FDA doesn't publish the private sector data. I can try to see what I have on hand.

Do you want evidence that the FDA doesn't prosecute these huge problems? I can only point to the routine handing out of the equivalent of "yellow cards," i.e warnings of misconduct, but still allowing repeat-offenders to sell in the U.S.

I believe 13% of people+families survive under $12k/year in the U.S, i.e poverty. Stretching $7k with one person living in a city, is by no means impossible. Extremely uncomfortable by what you may have become accustomed to? Of course.

You can buy a day's meal at Walmart for $2. You can also couch surf indefinitely. And repair all of your current possessions, instead of replacing them. Such as clothes and electronics. There is a world of possibility.

Hey, sorry for the late reply. I got flagged for "posting too often," and just gave up after not being able to post this for a few hours:

Qubes is marketed as a VM for the "intermediate IT professional," i.e one that can setup a server from scratch and mess with configuration settings, even compile everything he needs from scratch, but not be able to make the informed decisions needed to harden things by himself.

So, this IT professional could install his own VM, set it up to sandbox his connections and programs, after reading documents and how-tos.

The benefits for bespoke:

1). Known toolset

This is pretty common in the "real world," where most would take a tool they're familiar with, than one they're not. In this case it would be the Linux environment. Why? Because the IT professional is already aware of the possible holes that he may need to fill and how to do it "correctly." I'm sure we all have had the experience of trying a new technology, messing up our first attempts at something decent, but then being able to make something good after practice. This is the same here. If you already know Qubes, great. If you don't and you're thinking about using it for your next project, make sure that project isn't mission critical.

2). Better documentation

Qubes OS is laughably under-documented (to parrot someone else's wording). With this comes the inability to be as flexible with the massivley-documented *BSD/Linux environment, limiting your overall productivity, and likewise, security and privacy. This also means you won't know where possible holes could develop, stemming from how the sandboxing really works in RT. This is a mostly solved problem with Unixes. You can harden your setup easily and with confidence, knowing you'll only be hit by massive zero days, if it all. With Qubes, you just don't know. Segue:

3). Qubes isn't battle-tested

The Xen debacle showed this. While Linux is not secure in any sense, we know where those insecurities lie through decades of use and misuse. This isn't the case for Qubes, which has been around less than Android.

4). Xen

Qubes uses stock Xen, which is not terribly good for security (direct access to hardware? What are you doing!?). You could better security by compiling your own version of Xen and removing all of the "niceties" that make Qubes not horrible to use. Or better yet, get a better hypervisor that's made for security in mind.

5). "A reasonably secure operating system"

Need I say more?

Living off $12k is not in any realm of "impossible" in a first world country. It may come as a surprise (halfly sorry for the snark), but most of the world (60%) lives under less than $1800/yr. The dreadfulness and despair of it goes away when it's a personal choice to live frugally.

There's a lot of things you can get for free or dirt cheap, when you choose to see the deals.

I'm not sure you've personally used "'pretty good'" treatment. There's a reason why generics and off-branded items are so cheap, and it's not because they don't do marketing. If you don't know: they're shit and the FDA will not prosecute large equivalency discrepancies.

I'm also not sure you've visited small town/rural doctors. While perhaps in the city (and under private coverage), doctors have natural competition with other professionals to provide the best service. Whereas doctors under relatively "public" coverage and in small areas without competition/alternatives, they really don't need to offer good, or even ethical service. It may not even be hugely unethical, like pulling wisdom teeth, when they're not causing issue or doing unneeded surgeries for "preventative" measure, or liberally prescribing medication under the guise of "quality of life improvement."

This post gives off a very strong sense of disassociation from the reality of things for the not-so well-off, i.e more than 90% of the population.

YES, BUT WHOSE SITES ARE THESE?

I had a tough time trying to find some of these websites, like "Scale." Which doesn't own scale.com or scale.io or any other derivative, but "scaleapp.com."

I did too and I got "Kodi | Open Source Home Theater"

On https://www.searx.me/

The greatest trick the devil ever played, was to convince everyone he was stupid.

The second part of Hanlon's Razor, was to not rule out malice.

It's a cultural-fit thing. You can, but there are the zealous who will deny you.

With full snark intended: "Yeah, just ask Kalanick."

Hey, this is neat! Unfortunately, after skimming the changelog, it still seems they're trotting along with Xen, and any "intermediate IT" person would still be using a bespoke solution.

I think anyone that's looking for porn on Google is too lost to save. Polite society has moved on to better SERPs like Bing, Yandex, and thou that shalt not be shared.

And that more than 90% of all searches with "girl" are for porn. Google already killed most of its porn-lovin' demographic with the beheading of Google Videos in ~2009.

Also, I don't understand what you're trying to say here. I'm reading sentences, and I comprehend them, but there lacks an overarching idea to bring it all together.

Not really. If you know the patterns threat actors are using to deanonymize you, you can spoof yours to mimic the mean. You can even spoof them to create "writing profiles" for each of your identities. I know I already do.

Hosts list. Doesn't work as well on mobile. Unsure how Waze does their ads, but on mobile you get a white box with "Couldn't load!" or something of that sort instead of no ad at all.

> I read the whole thing and all I came away with is that basically no one has a fucking clue

Careful! You may be onto something here.

I tried doing this, but many subreddits have a restriction against account ages. I frequently find myself being unable to post (or I am, but my posts are in the "shadows" with no notice), without getting an AutoMod telling me:

1). Your karma is too low

2). Your account is too young

3). You haven't been subscribed long enough

It's always a turn off when you've written a long and properly sourced info dump, but then the automod deletes it and you have to go fish it out of ceddit et al. And then asking admins to make an exception is always as fun as getting your license renewed. So I do what the OG does: Keep a couple of accounts dedicated to each subject-matter, and delete my posts routinely.

If what I post is important enough, it'll propagate. If it doesn't, it dies. That's not the reason I do it, however. It's a boycott against Reddit as the world's discussion platform. Good luck figuring out the answers to those really important questions or why all the commentators are applauding [deleted] ;)

I disagree that glue is expensive and complex. When you build a ply-wood tower in school to see who's holds up the most to compression, you don't douse your entire structure in glue. You get points off, because it adds so much to weight!

People are the plywood, fragile, finicky, and useless if left to their own devices. Management is the middle school kid who needs to take the wood he's been given and make something that will hold up to all the weight that'll be put on top it. In order to do this, he's been given a hot glue gun and enough glue to mummify the entire thing if he so chooses. Most of the kids will rush bullheadedly (or should I say uncaringly) into gluing the sticks together into something that "looks like it should work." They use too much glue, the structure isn't optimized for load handling, and when the day of truth comes, it crumbles down when the bucket that's supposed to hold the weight, destroys it!

What is glue? Whatever management wants it to be. It can be a team leader or a hastily configured IRC channel. In my experience (this includes organizing, delegating, and making sure that 40 devs-et-al get what's needed done), if you choose your sticks right, taking the time to make sure they're not hiding any structural faults, you can make the job 65% easier. If you lament that choosing sticks if difficult, I reply with "it's just practice."

The main issue I've seen, has been the all too common "there are no good managers." Especially in technology. The remedies for this? There's no bandaid. Each manager has to realize his personal shortcomings and fix them. But, to throw up his hands and say "the more people working on a project, the slower it'll get done," is a nice way to say "I can't handle all these people, but I'll excuse that away by saying it's inevitable. It's even industry 'common sense!'"

"Stratechery." When I first read it, it sounded like a break-down on startup founders' stretching of their "trajectory" as a sure thing. This includes their "strategy," i.e their well-typeset pitch deck that says they'll be making $400B in revenues next year. Then you mash those two with "treachery" for a play on words.

"Stratechery: How founders false-advertise, legally." It's almost like Amazon's Cadabra | "Cadaver."

Don't even know what the company is, but will read now.

Anything sufficiently complex can be broken down into simpler pieces. This includes most developer generalists.

Retort: That's where you're wrong! If we hooked up nine mothers to one single faetus, we could get the job done in 9 months.[0] The same way, if we hooked up our dev teams to a lead that could delegate the work properly, we could pump out a Meltdown patch in around a month and a half.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/28/1205282109?sid=...

You don't get to live under daddy's roof unless you're following his rules. If you rise into the same industry as your father, with your career-minded father guiding you along the way, you're not off scot-free when you've "paid your dues." You can take the entire Trump lineage for a very notable and public example. Trump Sr. held Trump Jr. under his thumb, Trump Jr. holds Ivanka et al. under his thumb.

As long as the person that helped you get to where you are today is still in "power," you're indebted until he loses his throne.

Hollywood is another example.

>This sentence reads to me like "It's not that professionals can't effectively use other peoples first hand experience , it's that they can't effectively use other peoples first hand experience".

It was reinforcing the point you were disagreeing with. They can make use of it, but not efficient use of it.

>They don't need to know exactly what's going on. It's impossible for anyone to ever know exactly what is going on in another person's mind. Psychology as a profession is completely useless if that's the bar for it being useful.

To use anecdotes: I've seen assistance from friend's and loved ones, who've experienced first-hand the illness, to have a more profound effect on the quality-of-life and recovery of the person suffering, than the average medical professional (psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, etc. ranked in their own groups). There are some astounding medical professionals out there that will definitely be very helpful in getting someone "back on track," but in my experience, they're never covered under your average joe's insurance. That leaves the bulk of available professionals' quality to be lack-luster, and arguably, a waste of time -- even detrimental in some specific cases.

The bar for doctor involvement and vested interest is nearing the ground, in the U.S.A. Unless surgery or extremely specialized treatment is needed (chemotherapy, gene therapy, etc.), you'll almost always get better care doing the research and treatment yourself.

>I apologize if my response comes off as aggressive, but I strongly believe that propagating the idea that mental health professionals can't really help people is dangerous for those that would benefit from their help.

And I believe if you don't first become aware of shortcomings, you'll never be able to fix problems. And mental health treatment, as an industry, has a lot of problems.

It is not that it cannot be translated into knowledge by professionals, it's that they'll never be able to comprehend what exactly is going on unless they've also suffered from mental illness. I can tell you how to catch a fish, because I've read all of the books on catching fish. I've watched fishing tournaments, and I've even helped people get into fishing. But I've never fished before. I won't be able to tell you how to really work the line. I can fill in the gaps, but it's usually not as effective as first-hand account.

There's also the other side that most trained professionals are not equipped to handle serious cases. The lack of literature on quality-of-life increasing treatments for serious illnesses (major depressives, schizophrenics, etc.) is another factor. Most professionals get their information second-hand from textbooks and their education. Then secondly, from practice. Where as the first-hand experience of mental illness is the primary source of practical guidelines for those who suffer from them.

There's also the statistic that around 60% of people with mental illness don't get or stop getting treatment. With schizophrenics and more serious sufferers being on the tail end of that.

It could be argued that Aaron was in the prime position to dish out mental health advice, being a sufferer of mental illness. Compare that to mental health professionals who, while educated and more knowledgeable than your average joe about mental health, might not have first-hand insight on practical coping strategies that actually work (as opposed to some of the "let's talk about it -- we're out of time, here's a script").

Here is the issue with the OG:

1). He has no sources. [0]

2). Sample size for Uber deaths is 1

3). Miles driven is also sampled at 1

2+3). With only one pair, it is a rate, not "rates" of death by Uber. There has been 1 death by Uber. As opposed to the many deaths motor vehicles accidents have caused

4). Per mile is an arbitrary metric, and in this case, false equivalency due to n=1. One Uber car killed one person. As opposed to millions of cars killing thousands of people. You cannot compare the cumulative results of the many to the single result of the one.

4.1). Per mile is an arbitrary metric. It tells us nothing but how many miles of road must be driven by every single driver until 1 death will happen. How do we measure total miles driven in a practical fashion? We can't. We estimate months later.

4.2) Per mile is an arbitrary metric. It doesn't let us know how quickly deaths happen. Do they happen every 1,000 hours? Every 10 hours? Every 100 years?

6). Comparison is unstandardized. 1 kill per ~100m miles is an aggregate and 1 kill per ~3m miles is an absolute. To normalize the data, you would take all the drivers who killed people, their total aggregate miles driven, and graph them on a standard distribution. Plop Uber in there to get your real likelihood of an Uber killing you compared to a regular human.

I might even do #6 if I can find the data.

[0]https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

And I was specifically referring to the absurdity of comparing Uber's death rate to humans'.

I'm only getting typekit, squarespace, the auther's other domain for the blog, and google analytics -- with ublock off for all pages.

Out of the 95 billion or so[0] people that have ever breathed air before the year 1900, all are dead dead.[1] Every year on average, 500 people die of carbon monoxide poisoning[2]. If that rate was steady for the amount of time humans have been alive, that's a total of 25,950,000 deaths ever from carbon monoxide poisoning.

"Carbon monoxide exposure kills 1 person every 18 hours (500/8766h).

Oxygen has killed 1944 people every 18 hours (108x18)[3].

Yes, I would absolutely replace a gas that kills 155,000 (108x60x24) people/day[3] in favor of a gas that kills 1 person/day."

This is lying with statistics. It's not the right way to use data.

[0]https://www.prb.org/howmanypeoplehaveeverlivedonearth/

[1]http://supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/TableE.aspx

[2]https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6303a6.htm

[3]https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...

After doing a quick sweep of the network and processes, I didn't find anything overtly malicious (unless you count 6 MB pages for a blog, 150k lines for squarespace's JS, and 3000 rules over 400KB).

Google has removed literals. You can no longer do 'how to setup obscure program "LINUX" "NGINX"'

What you get in return is a bunch of slashed out "Linux"s and "Nginx"s and a bunch of "How to setup obscure program... On windows" and "How to setup obscure program... on Apache". It's downright infuriating having to learn some of the tools I cannot do without. Ones where documentation is spotty, but user forums/mailing lists/etc are top notch, even for Linux and Nginx. But, you won't know that even if you specifically type: 'setup obscure program "Linux" "Nginx" -apache -windows'.

It has changed. You don't have the right to find what you're actually looking for. You have the privilege to only look in places Google approves.