htfu

A lot of your points look suspect to me, could you link to some studies? While light surely ought to affect dopamine levels[0] isn't this in both senses secondary to - downstream from, the main melatonin/cortisol cycle driving our circadian rhythms? Your linked wiki article contains zero mentions of dopamine.

If 30 minute+ light-therapy made you manic so would working a field in summer, a hundred times over. Outside of drugs and illness there is little one can do to escape even short-term homeostasis. Nothing is linear and everything has feedback limiting it.

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3819153/#!po=50...

FB procured the exploit, LEO executed it. There are no legal implications, only moral ones, and I'd say the only debate there is over lack of disclosure _after_ use. That's really sketchy.

But developing it in the first place, handing it to those legally authorized to use it, and catching someone like this - I don't understand how anyone could be against that... again, as long as the exploit is burned afterwards.

If you look at the linked talk page almost all votes are yes, include. It is currently included. You appear to be railing not against what is, but against an unrealized possibility which was in fact stopped by the very hive-mind you falsely assume would push, or at least accept it.

Call me slanted all you want, but this, the current state of comments here, that's what an agenda looks like.

The current name of the article is "George Floyd protests in Minnesota", and first paragraph contains "The course of events in Minnesota has also been referred to as the Minneapolis riots".

I disagree riots is a more conservative name - this would imply an article solely about the riots, necessiting an additional article about the protests, one which, being written in a way as to minimize overlap, would probably be accused of downplaying the very much existing riots. Or at the very least balkanize coverage.

Apart from a return of the dreaded Win-style endless installer progress bar surely doing it on the host, once, wouldn't be a problem. The "issue" would be squaring the result with notarization and bundle integrity, but that solves itself since it means Apple is already sitting on the (in this case bitcode) app whether it's in store or not.

But they'd probably use it as an incentive to drive stuff further towards the app store.

There is already plenty enough built-in momentum to not properly educate the public - "if we fuck up they don't get to vote" is some next level shit.

One of the sources also mentions tracking dogs, so it seems to have been quite multi-purpose!

Wouldn’t that argue in favor of

  val breakfast: “eggs and bacon” = String

and not

  val breakfast: String = “eggs and bacon”

It would appear judge may want to consider suing ABC to force them have you consult on any further reporting. Thanks for clearing things up.

Thanks for this, seems then things aren't quite as bizarre as the article makes them appear.

Any more background info? Mostly in terms of the takedown request. A successful suit giving the right to get anything directly based on the source material scrubbed elsewhere seems fair enough.

But how is an entity like Google supposed to supervise the validity of such claims? Seems ripe for abuse and no-questions-asked compliance lest they be sued. Clear ground rules as in the EU seem like the only answer here.

I hope you realize your personal Overton window will appear to many, here and elsewhere, as more of a slanted slit.

Angela Merkel is a right-leaning centrist where I'm from. I'll leave it at that.

This is an entirely uneducated guess, but look closer at the spin over time, and consider the objects low density. Think timeline of a highly elliptical orbit, but with energy and work concentrated on angular momentum.

> The most prominent example is supporters of Donald Trump being forced off-site, but any kind of conservative or right-leaning community or politically incorrect community is being forced out.

Do you have any concrete examples of this? I won't pretend I'm up to speed on the subject but this just strikes me as incredibly heavily exaggerated.

Disingenuous. A belief that asymptomatic carriers aren't the primary drivers of the epidemic may well be incorrect, but in no way is it equivalent to "actively denying [they] exist", or saying they don't at all contribute to the spread.

It's important to stick to the facts in the material when linking. Doubly so when sources are behind paywall and/or in a language understood by very few.

Without that presumption how could anything ever be considered Turing complete? If you're simulating something with infinite memory you get to pretend you have infinite memory. Feasibility has already been suspended.

Edit: ok I get it. Still, GP observation is hardly at that level from my (limited) perspective. Not being able to advance by itself means it's not a standalone system - otoh external actor is obviously implicit for many other examples as well. I suppose they (and me) are taking the word machine too literally.

But "pens are Turing-complete" seems a bit, well, diluted.

You're not reading it wrong, however what they're saying is incorrect.

As far as scheduling goes that basically mirrors the US and UN. Those categories aren't "levels of danger", but whether something has accepted medical use.

That will always vary country to country - in the UK diacetylmorphine is medicine, despite being highest schedule. And poppy straw is class A just as fentanyl. Does that make it correct to say they are "literally equated"? That's absurd.

(Not saying there aren't very dumb things about the national anti-harm reduction approach, but the scheduling isn't exactly unique internationally, nor really an aspect of what makes the system a massive mess).

Sex work is not criminalized, as you yourself point out.

For those nitpicking the preprint's (gasp!) lack of editing and clarity here's an article with some further (rather convincing) background and stats. "French researchers to test nicotine patches on coronavirus patients"[1]

> The results confirm a Chinese study published at the end of March in the New England Journal of Medicine that suggested only 12.6% of 1,000 people infected with the virus were smokers while the number of smokers in China is around 28%.

In France, figures from Paris hospitals showed that of 11,000 patients admitted to hospital with Covid-19, 8.5% were smokers. The total number of smokers in France is estimated at around 25.4%.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/22/french-study-s...

Right, I'm saying these expectations - and evidently some of the source data - are a bit out of sync with the ones in play on the ground. Any model is only as good as its inputs, after all.

Daily numbers made me react as well, they say it's a post-weekend thing. Perplexing to me but then that's what rolling averages and trends are for, I suppose.

[3] says 1000+ ICU beds needed and capacity 79 (!?) when actual numbers are 1000+ beds, of which about half are in use. So I would heavily discount its conclusion that deaths in Sweden will somehow surpass Germany (!?). In any case be mindful of the confidence intervals, they are huge and the projections seem much more volatile in general than local ones.

Overdiagnosis & misuse etc aside the number of people using amphetamines therapeutically may well outnumber your "unambiguous" cohort by a larger fraction than drinkers do alcoholics.

Tasteless comment.

> That Defendants be enjoined from infringing the Asserted Patents, or if their infringement is not enjoined, that Defendants be ordered to pay ongoing royalties to Labrador for any post-judgment infringement of the Asserted Patents;

I'm trying to figure out what on Earth could make the first approach appear like a sane course of action to anyone. Apart from reeking of evil it's not like they have their own production line ready to go - they'd get nothing from it. Lawyers being lawyers playing hardball and forgetting what time it is while PR dozed off? Obviously they have to assert the patents however bullshit they may be, but goddamn.

(Yes, the stupidity basically irks me more than anything else)

What does this even mean? Of course they could if the law said so, which is what the GP is asking.

Isn't point #1 and (partly) #2 incredibly dangerous? Sender field is easy to spoof, and while advice to go directly to their website is sound, it doesn't explain what "checking the link" actually entails, and many might not know a link in an email can say one thing and take you somewhere different.

So people reading this might be _more_ susceptible to future, more sofisticated, attempts of the same type, rather than less.

Interesting read! Sounds like however it turns out... they had it coming.

How common are setups like this, anyone know?

Though what's a bit silly here is that all the information you need is right there in the two words "inverse square", it's only the word "law" tacked on that made you (presumably) assume there had to be more to the concept.

You'd assume a competent enough interviewer wouldn't be so rigid and at least hint that you shouldn't overthink it...

Yup. Or even just popups originally appearing behind other windows and missed. Or accidentally clicking the wrong option, or as with Mojave when apps requesting to record sound couldn't successfully trigger the popup in many cases.

The execution is where Apple is fucking up, yet people are hating on the concept, as if poor UX is somehow mandatory for something like this. Worries me a bit.

Isn't this something (likely even more) granularity ought to counteract something fierce?

The annoyance is still there/potentially larger, but it's easier to make an informed decision about something specific, rather than the usual "enter your admin password to allow... potentially anything, probably persistently. Or don't, then no app for you." binary which seems easier to just blindly go along with, since auditing is the only way to find out what exactly the privileges are for.

The question is rather where sheer request volume overwhelms gains from actually knowing what's being asked for, but better tools letting user set a base comfort level as far as common requests like disk access etc should help with that.

I am however struggling to articulate my opinion in a way that doesn't boil down to essentially "the issue with the dreaded Vista popup was that there weren't ten different varieties!", heh. Nah, just comes down to asking once vs. every time.

That sounds slightly excessive if flying long-haul is about on par with solo car travel per passenger per km. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566

Agreed with rest of points, it's a shame flying is so much cheaper. In the end it doesn't matter whether something is available if it's too expensive for mainstream use.

Hammerspoon can change focus by relative direction. Can be a bit iffy sometimes but between that and HyperSwitch I'm never really at a loss.