pseudoramble

I'm an amateur myself, so obviously take what I say with a grain of salt. Also I'm interpreting what you're saying is general weight/strength training but not body building (think Arnold Schwarzenegger).

Plainly put, there is isn't a super fast way. My understanding and experience is that muscle is developed over time with progressively more difficult weight. Critically, the recovery period for your muscles is required as that's when new muscle is being formed. I believe that rushing that process is what is most likely to lead to an injury, which funny enough will slow you down in the quest for strength. In other words, a heavy 6 day/week workout won't make you strong, but simply constantly exhausted.

I would advocate for the long slow road. There's no rush, and I believe you'll be stronger in the long run if you take your time. It's easier to handle mentally too in my opinion. You don't have to stress about going fast to be strong quickly. Enjoy it!

If you think weight lifting sounds cool, take up a program like Starting Strength or Strong Lifts 5x5. 3 days a week, often doing squats and throwing in bench press, dead lifts, and barbell rows. Take your time here! Look up videos on techniques and realize that people will be absolutists about form. Try and match the form, and be aware of different body types and how that will change the forms. Do this for a few cycles which would last 2-4 months. Assess your progress. It will be easy to tell because you'll be writing down your progress and adding weight each time you successfully complete a day. As it gets too difficult to maintain, look into new programs and go from there.

If you're not into weight training, I think a site like this is great. You'll want to scale back on how many reps/sets a bit, and study some techniques. You'll feel some changes over time, and in the beginning mostly a bit of confusing soreness.

Anyway, that's my recommendation! I genuinely hope you find what works for you and stick with it!

I think the wording is kinda weird, and maybe it was a bit of encouraging people to still get vaccines? Since it's effective against Delta and other variants, it's still pretty important to get them. But it sounded unclear what impact would be at this point.

The whole snippet here:

> WHO is working with technical partners to understand the potential impact of this variant on our existing countermeasures, including vaccines. Vaccines remain critical to reducing severe disease and death, including against the dominant circulating virus, Delta. Current vaccines remain effective against severe disease and death.

They do mention that it probably should not be applied to production code bases. I imagine it's intended to avoid that situation.

> Some of these should probably not be tried for the first time in a professional context where you work with other people in the same code repository, while others can. Use your judgment.

I could see the testing example still being of use in a prod code base though. If you find a useful technique and make useful tests, you can keep them. If they're not, remove them at the end of the experiment.

Maybe it was more in my head than I realized, but I was in a bad place at the time. So it feels that way looking back on it. I appreciate the kind words!

Nice post. I have nothing in particular to add to this post except that several moons ago I worked with the author for a brief time. So it was surprising to see this name pop up here again. He's an interesting fellow who does some interesting dev work, last I checked was with WebGL, and I believe was writing a book at the time too.

At that time, and due to the circumstances, I was kind of cranky and probably not terribly fun to be around. But I enjoyed getting to know @FarhadG through that time though. So if you happen to see this, hope all is well!

Pretty interesting resource! In my tiny bit of spare moments I've been trying to learn QML/QT Quick/Kirigami in hopes of someday developing Linux mobile apps on the side. I'm not so sure how I feel about QML yet. Having some slightly bigger but more complex examples like this could be really helpful.

About this specific browser: one odd behavior I noticed is that it changes the scroll behavior. On macOS it's surprising since it uses natural scroll by default. Dunno if that's an option to change, but it might be a nice tweak.

I'm glad you expanded on your previous answer. This is a take I've come to highly agree with. This even can apply to basic CRUD app work. For example, in a simple layered architecture that works like this:

[Controller] -> [Service] -> [Repository] -> Actual DB

I've found integration tests highly valuable at the Repository level. They've helped me not only catch bugs, but also guided me though migrating to a completely different DB. So, I am really happy with that choice. Unit test + mocks would have been of nearly zero value here.

I've found DB-isolated tests beneficial at the Controller and Service layers. But keeping the tests for these two layers separate was kinda silly. Ultimately I want to know that the controller + service yields the result the consumer wants. For the sake of validating the logic in these classes, why would it matter if it took path A or B? If I had put these tests together, the ration of tests to lines covered would've been way less, with a relatively minor impact on readability.

Yes that’s exactly it. There may be other more complex scenarios where it matters too but this is the most common reason for it I see at least.

In other words, it’s hard to reach the true 401k cap even with huge contribution amounts from everywhere.

I hear you, it isn't great when people are apathetic to what happens in prod, especially when there are things that can be done.

That being said, here's another way to view it: of all of those deep seated fears you have, what do you know you can do to avoid certain issues and what can you actually not do?

Let's take the database for example. What's the deep seated fear here? Maybe:

> The disks crash, the data center bursts into flames and all the data is gone!

A solution to those is perform backups and get the backups off-prem. You have to explain the risk and justifications to the company as best as you can. Once you've done that, what is left?

Technically speaking, bugs in the backup script could exist, or maybe the backups get corrupted. Beyond that, there are the human ones. Maybe somebody else manages the script and breaks it, or maybe backups get unintentionally poisoned by malware getting into the backups. Or maybe even before that happens the company goes "eh, risk worth taking to save costs!" and you don't even get to implement the backups.

Here's the thing: these things are _not_ in your control at this point! They are out of your hands, and with humans like us who make mistakes like us. So problems are going to be expected, especially ones you don't realize right now. But they're not in your control! And yet, you did your part, and things will continue on.

> It sends an email every day and I can reply to it, and the response is stored in an SQLite database, in plain text.

Maybe this is obvious to other readers, but I love this portion of it. I think it's one of the critical details to making things like this work. It's easy to built a tool that you "just remember to use" but the issue then the tool is implicitly asking the user to modify their workflow, which isn't always trivial. So well done.

Another simple example: one of my favorite features in Slack is /remind. It can do recurring reminders, reminders way out into the future, and is as simple as typing `/remind me "do the thing" in 6 months`. Critically, it's in Slack which I'm using all the time anyway. It's not tucked away into a calendar I won't look at, or in a place I have to remember to get to. It's right there, and it's really easy to set another one up. I've thought about building a separate tool to replicate this, but I know it will never have the same utility without being in an existing workflow.

Cool! This is the kind of thing I've wondered about for a while. This looks like some handy info.

Is there an option to use a higher level language like Python and these QT libraries still? I don't have a ton of time to contribute, but this might be a way forward for me someday.

EDIT: Your 2nd link is literally what I was asking about, although it's using Gtk3. I'm not familiar with either in depth, so I'm not picky there. That's really useful. Thanks for this!

Agreed - I'd like to see the list too, because I'm genuinely interested in trying to find a better health care system than what the US has.

I like poking around through here to compare and contrast options: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy.... Some things I notice mainly are that the countries with private health insurance have at least two other things the US lacks:

1. They provide universal health care.

2. They have regulations of the market.

How they go about doing that varies a bit, but I believe these are critical points we miss for all the various reasons we see in this link and in many other discussions on the topic.

I think often in the US when we talk about private-sector, we also implicitly also mean for-profit, whereas many of the other options require them to be private non-profits. I think it's notable they are de-prioritized or outright banned, though I'll admit I don't really know if this is a critical detail or not. So I think to the GP point, perhaps this is a way to change private sector options for the better?

Agreed, I was thrown off a bit too. I believe by public they mean published and advertised for public use. Often I believe API's aren't intended to be used by any users, so usage and whatnot isn't documented. The API's here appear to be available to anyone who can make an account.

This is great. It's not exactly how I feel, but the fact that it works for you and others is genuinely great.

Being more of a so-called introvert myself, I'm more of a fan of individual activities. I rotate through combinations of running, weight lifting, cycling, skiing, and walking no matter what. I find the aerobic exercises particularly meditative, similar to shutting off the "adult brain" like you said. I let my mind to wander off and process. Weight lifting I find to be a good challenge and confidence boosting. It's easy enough to track of and measure progress on too, which is satisfying for some others.

Fair enough! I over-spoke in my previous comment (I don't seem to able to edit it anymore). Thanks for pointing that out.

Using SHA256 or greater is what should be used for generating new hashes, especially if you can update old entries and files with SHA256's. Many databases still have way more MD5/SHA1 hashes which won't be updated to include the SHA256, which is why you'll see them be used often.

Sorry, I don't follow what you mean. The accept header can specify mimetypes and negotiate what the response can look like. So maybe you could stretch it to say "I'm only accepting SHA256" somehow. That might improve the API, but then you're indicating to the API to return 404's more often since it won't be able to find files with that hash.

Maybe there are other things you could do instead though? I'm not sure.

A simple practical reason is that the volume of known files that has MD5 or SHA1 hashes is huge compared to SHA256. It's preferable to have something collision-resistant, but also if your goal is to simply be able to identify files, and MD5 or SHA1 checksum can be fine. That will change over time, but realistically tons of AV scanners and tools like this need to support MD5 or SHA1.

Of course, if you're generating new files that you know about or checking existing known good files, one would include the SHA256 and SHA512 with it.

Seems like a reasonably good idea. More of a question about RFC’s than the spec itself. I noticed while reading the RFC it mentions this:

> By convention, the file is named "security.txt".

Isn’t the point of the RFC so that it wouldn’t be by convention anymore? Or are they saying the idea for the name was from prior conventions? Or maybe I’m just reading into it too much and it doesn’t really matter.

As time has gone on I’ve become a bit better about being too particular. I still sometimes point out nit picks, but critically I ask myself if I could live with what was there. If I could, then I put my approval on it and move on. If it’s something more critical, then I wait for a response, fix, or discussion about it. Seems to make the reviews easier and more worthwhile.

Looks pretty nice. I only have a little exposure to jsverify. How does fastcheck compare to that? On the surface it looks a bit more modern using TS, but that doesn’t tell one much.

No idea why this wasn’t. Often times they’re not for this reason _and_ because the hardware itself is too difficult or impossible to get online and can’t be upgraded. Forget networks for a moment - a system running Windows XP is way less risk than an upgrade to Windows 7. Plenty of companies have older systems running vital hardware that if it went offline could cause massive outages, revenue loss being only one if the impacts. So air gapped networks are pretty common in ICS environments as a result.

Your post got me thinking a bit. I see what you mean but I think it’s not the kind of thing the article is talking about. I should point out that I’m assuming conversations here are in the minutes-hours timeframe, not weeks-months timeframes.

My take on this is that it isn’t an issue of whether you can discuss truth or not, but rather if it’s philosophically relevant to the conversation. What I mean by that, and what I think the article means, is that the person isn’t questioning the meaning of truth really but instead avoiding the discussion going really any further by throwing out a catch phrase which is pertinent in a very distant and vague sense, but the person has no real intent to go into it.

It’s sort of seems like a form of “whataboutism” where somebody counters a point by going “Yeah but what about truth?!” It effectively ends the conversation because it’s not a matter of agreeing on the meaning of truth in the context of the discussion, but more of a distraction which can never be fully answered which stalls the original discussion.

Maybe in context those specific definitions do matter and should be stated assumptions, but often I don’t think they are. In addition, it truth or morals can’t be pinned down in centuries of effort, how could they be in these kinds of conversations? I don’t believe they could.

If you don’t mind me asking, how does Postgres fix this? Do they have a more sophisticated locking mechanism, or maybe a copy offline until it’s ready kind of a system?

Thanks! If you don't mind, when you say:

> ...may miss out on antibodies for other viral proteins...

Do you mean to say that a more traditional one which uses the deactivated virus can help find proteins related to the virus but not specifically targeted, or do you mean that a traditional one could target other proteins that could apply to _other_ viruses?

I really don't know a single thing about vaccines or biology really. That being said, I am curious - are there are trade offs to be made with this mRNA technique? It sounds like mostly upsides, but perhaps there are considerations for this approach over a traditional one?

About point #2, I wonder if the deaths caused by smoking remains high in the US because it's measured effect can be really delayed. Even if sales of cigarettes went down in the mid-70's, they were probably still high for quite a while. On top of that, the effects of smoking can take decades to appear. I could imagine somebody starting smoking in the mid 70's and not seeing effects until recently.

EDIT: It turns out reading even not-so-carefully results in fruit! From the article:

> But the chart also shows that smoking peaked earlier in the US. Since there is a lag of two to three decades between the peak of smoking and the peak of smoking mortality, this should be positive news for the US going forward. The country is over this mortality peak and we should expect the decline in lung cancer death rates in the US to continue in the coming years.

I hear you. I've had moments in life of similar grief and it always felt borderline absurd. What's striking to me is that it makes you feel like not only is life going to shit at that moment, you're not even allowed to be dignified as a person for a while. I get why it happens though, as I've made the same mistake to others. Cultural reflex, perhaps?

For me personally, the best interactions I ever had during those times were when people would talk to me like a normal person. Asking about things about the events themselves, the person, anything about the topic that came to mind like any curious person would. If it was too much, they were happy to move on of course. It was really nice.

I've seen ONLYOFFICE used on Nextcloud instances and I haven't seen Google Analytics loaded up. Do they provided a cloud/hosted version that has it? But agreed - I was impressed with ONLYOFFICE.

That's a neat point. My gut reaction is that there probably hasn't been enough people migrating to make a big difference. As in, I doubt enough people left CA to make it cut Republican and I doubt enough people moved to SC to make it cut Democrat. But that's just a gut reaction - I have no clue really.

It's a neat possibility to think about though. If there were enough people who did that, it would really depend on the demographics moving and where they're going. It could swing the election either way. I wonder if anyone has found numbers on this and attempted to model it.

That's a good point, and one that I've forgotten since I've been out of the JS world for a while now! Often you're trying to run the code in different environments depending on the context, which does require a lot of extra build tool support. Consolidating that is a reasonable goal, I'd say.

It will be neat to see where they draw the line. For example, will Rome include an assertion library? What about mock and fake support? That feels a bit far from what Rome is trying to do, but if they've implemented a test runner, maybe defaults provided would be good for the DX?