floatingatoll

The above link contains the answers applicable to your question.

For example, exercise, where you damaging muscle fibers to heal, maintain, and/or improve the body.

Also for example, intoxication, by virtually every vector known to exist, often damaging the body in order to maintain the body.

Being alive is about tradeoffs, not about minmaxing. You can max out any statistic, but only at the cost of the others — sanity included. Alternately, being alive is about the exquisite joy of minmaxing, being able to hyper focus on one specific body goal at the cost of everything else in your life, including sanity (if you’re not careful).

“I’m sane without intoxicants”: so no nature, no music, no games, no social joy, then.

For example, this is either a description of an acid trip or of someone listening to orchestral music on the radio:

“It was so amazing. I’ve never felt so alive. It was, like, there was a train running through the mountains, and my room was one of the train cars, and I could see it right there, and I just stared at the wall for like half an hour and enjoyed the ride.”

I find it simpler to discuss mind and body in separate terms since people have trouble seeing transcendent experiences as intoxicants, but I hope this use of your terms helps clarify my viewpoint.

The Register is only showing an example of #3, but leaves #1 and #2 unaddressed:

1. Your Identity (who everyone is)

2. Your Conversations (with whom, when)

3. Your Content (what was said)

Does the UK government have the ability to identify #1 and #2 for E2EE connections, and they desire #3 (content)?

Is the UK government only able to identify #2, and they desire #1 (identities) and #3 (content)? If so, which is more important to them: Identity, or Content?

I suspect they are much more desperate for Identity and Connections, than they necessarily are for Content, and that their attempt to overreach and backdoor all encryption could be shutdown by offering them #1 and #2 but not #3.

This is obviously unpalatable to consider to "perfect anonymity is the only way" adherents, but it's probably time to consider discussing it, when the alternative is a government backdooring or banning all encryption. It's too bad The Register didn't take that chance, but we could at any time.

https://github.com/be5invis/Iosevka/blob/master/doc/custom-b...

For example:

> K with symmetric legs disconnected to the vertical bar, and serifs at top left

> Ratio of the thickness of the neck of S/s/?, to the normal stroke width. essRatioUpper, essRatioLower and rssRatioQuestion will override this value for corresponded glyph categories when set.

> Extra-high _, placed right below baseline

> The lower bar of <= and >= ligation is slanted

    bash$ curl ... --jp "foo=$foo" ...

There are fancier ways to accept multi-arg, but they all have weaknesses, and this matches the way curl handles -H arguments already today (one per header, stack them if you want many), so I think it's a sound way to handle CLI arguments.

(I don't have any specific views on whether this is how curl should do JSON or not, but I recognized the CLI safety mechanism immediately.)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29989927

Plaid could file a friend-of-the-court brief here, since they have (presumably!) strong legal grounds to assert that they are legally within their rights to scrape bank websites, as they're doing so as an authorized user-agent, and since browsers are just user-agents, etc.

“Conveying without convincing.”

I think this guide is generally applicable to everyone interacting on HN, not just GitLab PRops, and while considering that I uncovered something I think would improve the value the guidelines.

Lots of online conversations get mired in back-and-forth persuasion, where each side is trying to convince the other of their viewpoint rather than just trying to convey it. This is essentially an impossible conversation to walk away from satisfied, because it’s rare that anyone can be convinced.

So, instead, focus on conveying. Ensure the facts are made clear and point out disagreements. Share your motivations and reasoning. Ask people to clarify when they say something you don’t understand, or could parse multiple ways. Leave disagreement alone, and don’t press it to change into agreement.

This is the toughest thing for anyone to do in conversation (“someone is wrong in the internet” xkcd here), but it’s absolutely the most essential skill and I don’t see it clearly called out. (Maybe I missed it though, it’s late!)

So, I would love to see that concept applied in guideline form. Teaching people to ensure comprehension rather than convincing, and to move on if it isn’t getting through, is the ultimate win in online chat, and I encourage adding it the the guide.

Your point that their usage doesn’t accelerate over time is valid, but as the link notes, this is still a significant energy burden on the country and should be addressed over time. It can be worked on in parallel to efforts to curb the growth of crypto coin energy waste, so there’s no harm in encouraging reductions to both.

The deletion here was more complex, and most likely a human was assigned to review user reports to GitHub Security, who accurately determined it was a defacement from someone claiming to be the author’s credentials.

Turns out the author was the attacker, and with that confirmed, it appears that their access was restored so they could proceed with it.

One’s individual right to remain anonymous does not necessarily take precedence over the societal right to hold one accountable. The pendulum of that tension swung all the way to fully anonymous over the past decades, and we now have the most unsafe Internet that has ever existed.

It will, guaranteed, swing back from full anonymity, as already began with many things one could previously access anonymously (such as email verification only) online or in person: Cellular service (ID required), FedEx shipping (ID required), many Discord chats (verified phone number required to defend against sock puppet attacks), and LinkedIn name changes (birth certificate and photo ID required). Whether it swings back to “no right to pseudonyms” or instead cones to rest on lesser outcomes such as “identity protected by law” and “a warrant is required” is up to politicians to decide.

Politicians do not accept and consider anonymous letters, so adhering to the outgoing belief in perfect anonymity may severely construct your ability to influence the outcome of the pendulum’s backswing away from it. I hope that when you write your politicians about this issue, you are doing so in handwriting from your registered voter name and address, so that they are considering your input at all.

Apply a map of retailer container shipping traffic per postal code (where LA would, again, figure in the top 5, due to the ports and their surrounding infrastructure such as warehouses and garment manufacturing).

What other areas of high homeless density also have as high a density of goods throughout as this particular cluster route in LA?

Is the security and prosecution of crimes in those areas as lax as it is in the LA train yard?

If so, then perhaps the only thing preventing thefts there is that no one’s done the math yet and found it. Or that they’re keeping it to themselves and not earning national attention, because no reporter has done a drone flyover of the carnage yet, or because they’re keeping it to such a low volume that no one has noticed.

I would expect this is the work of a small group of people who are spreading word about the security gap left by too few security guards on the ground, and that Southern Pacific has been trying to maximize profits by not hiring more security guards for their LA interchange and having all the insurance companies involved pay for the lost items. I suspect the nationwide news showing these photos is going to antagonize those insurance companies into spiking the rates of all involved shippers, but it’s unclear to me whether Southern Pacific is vulnerable to — or insulated from — insurance company outrage in this regard.

So maybe it’s a bit soon to pass moral judgment upon homeless people, and instead wonder “what group of opportunists are exploiting a logistics weakness and inviting desperate homeless people to join the free money party?”. Hard to imagine desperate people turning down free money at essentially zero risk, but they weren’t doing this on their own before. Find the ringleaders and deal with them instead.