cj

I know a lot of people who survive (almost) exclusively off take out and delivery. Especially in cities like NYC.

That's their legacy product.

2nd gen is 256 Kbps

> just genuinely curious at what made you think this.

It feels like the first 2 paragraphs are doing a lot of work to downplay the seriousness of the illness:

- highlighting the "undetectable = untransmittable" PR campaign.

- reassurance that you can live a normal life with HIV, "die with virus, not of virus"

- reassurance that there's zero transmission risk with long term treatment

- reassurance that HIV is a "manageable chronic health condition"

After the first 2 paragraphs of the HIV article, I'm left thinking "okay, this isn't as bad as I thought" -- but maybe that's okay since historically there has been a lot of misinformation around HIV.

> what sort of possible conspiracy would benefit from Wikipedia readers from not being more afraid of HIV/AIDS.

De-stigmatization of HIV is the agenda. (An agenda I support)

I'm normally against conspiracy theories and BS like this, but...

There's a pretty stark difference between the first few paragraphs of the HIV/AIDS page and the first few paragraphs of the Type 2 Diabetes page.

Both are "factual", but when I read the HIV/AIDS page, I feel like someone is trying to convince me "HIV is not a bad disease".

"Yes, but who cares" is the sentiment.

That thumb looks incredibly photoshopped (or AI edited).

(Controversial take) The way I look at it, let's say 20% of users are addicts and who will jump through any hoop they need to in order to gamble. Very difficult to help this group. Banning won't stop them from betting.

The other 80% probably aren't addicts. They're people who like placing a fun $20 now and then. Which is fine. But let's not accidentally turn them into addicts by gamifying every aspect of betting. It shouldn't be so easy. And it shouldn't feel like I'm playing a video game.

And we really don't need push notifications from Kalshi reminding us to place bets every single day. (Not an exaggeration, I'm currently getting daily push notifications)

I don't agree with banning it.

But I do agree with increasing the friction involved in signing up and depositing money.

It should not be possible to 1) sign up for kalshi, 2) complete identity verification, AND 3) deposit and place a $2000 real money bet --- within 5 minutes of downloading the app.

It's just way too damn easy. Let's at least make people wait 24 hours before placing their first bet... or something.

And stop allowing deposits with credit cards. This is most important.

I also can't have more than 10 tabs. More than that and I automatically go into clean up mode.

> I feel that my cognitive ability to deal with that is not there.

I dunno, I've always thought of 100+ tab people similarly to people who don't like to clean up their bedroom. Just a different preference for tidiness/organization, rather than a greater cognitive ability.

Your goal post for acceptable profit taking for utilities is… the S&P 500?

That makes very little sense.

And stock price is not a measure of profit.

Here you go: XEL, AEP, SO, EIX, CPK, AQN, NGG, NEE

14 months. (Usually) not every day, maybe 3-4 times a week. And 8 months to taper off. How long it takes to taper depends on the level of discomfort you’re willing to tolerate.

Diazepam half life is so long that dependence can develop even when not taking it every day.

Edit: and I totally believe there are people who can take the same amount as me and not become dependent as easily as I did. Everyone is different

> a few times a year, never more than 1-2 days in a row

It takes at least a few weeks to a few months of daily use to develop dependence.

> weeks/months rather than days.

Weeks to months is actually pretty fast for benzo withdrawl IME.

For me it took nearly an entire year to feel completely normal. I was only taking 10mg diazepam per day (not a big dose).

To anyone on the journey now... hang in there. It feels never ending. But I promise you... you will wake up one day and feel completely normal.

Here's an article + video from a while ago on the same topic, without mention of a mayor:

https://thekidshouldseethis.com/post/nyc-dot-sign-shop

I wonder if anything has changed with how they make signs since 10 years ago. I can't access the NYT article.

> Assuming you're not a specialized doctor, you're in no position to interpret that information.

Why?

That's like saying no one other than a mechanic should be allowed to look under the hood.

To take it to the extreme:

If there were a risk free button that you could click to see a full breakdown of all illnesses no more how early stage, would you click the button?

It would include a report of cells that may eventually turn into cancer (or may not).

It would include things like polyps, and every other diagnosable condition.

Do you avoid pressing the button? Why?

> as much as my health anxiety would love another set of CT scans to feel relieved about, even if they do find something potentially interesting it may be worse to act on it than to do nothing

I personally have a preference for having the maximum amount of information available to make a decision.

“Don’t get that “unnecessary” test, it might give you a result that might lead to treatment you don’t need” — hearing this blows my mind every time.

Whether you need a referral typically depends on your insurance plan, not the doctor you want to see.

> I was able to get ahold of the chief surgeon at UCSF

And people like this are typically not that difficult to get in contact with via email.

Hell, I’ve successfully used LinkedIn to get an appointment when calling the main office didn’t work.

Get creative and trust no one.

You're in a top 10 metro, and Amazon doesn't give you accurate Prime delivery estimates?

That sounds incredibly unlikely unless we're missing something.

How do you put bitcoin in a bank vault?

A more charitable interpretation would be recommending a 3 star restaurant for a first date rather than 5 star if you can’t afford it.

“What kind of car should I get?”

Maybe luxury recommendations if you have money, or budget brands if you don’t.

“Help me find a good therapist”

If it knows you make a lot of money, maybe it will recommend going out of network for a better therapist.

“Give me vacation ideas”

You get the point

My general stance on things like this is to think about the intent -- why does the company have that in their TOS. Use that as a proxy for assessing the likelihood of the company enforcing the terms against you.

> The only people who really want this are hobbyists and it's not a market segment that's worth chasing. Easier to do the status quo of forgive afterwards then even open the can of worms of deleting all of a business's data and all their backups

Hit the nail on the head.

Nearly all businesses would prefer a cost overrun than services going offline.

HN guidelines

> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".

I actually have a lava lamp next to my desk for this reason. Snap a photo, compute a hash!

You can download objects from S3 from EC2 without traversing the public internet using things like gateway endpoints [0] which avoids s3 egress fees. But doesn't avoid egress fees from EC2 to the end user.

[0] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/privatelink/vpc-endpo...

Yet, at the bottom of the article:

> In the Netherlands, it is estimated that they account for about 0.1 percent of total consumption.

If that's true, what's the problem?

This is going to make for a great documentary in 5 years.