quesera

Yesterday? So all this candy is for me now?? :)

You're right, I definitely misread that part. Apologies!

FWIW, OP's framing is still misleading though. Regulators do not test retail product as part of some kind of surreptitious sting operation, which they then do not bother to follow through on.

The Department of Public Health responds to complaints, and patterns of medical reporting to find a cause and determine whether there are legal or health code violations. The sale of 5-MeO-DMT (or psilocybin or psilocin) would be shut down, and charges filed.

The sale of 4-Aco-DMT would be legal, so instead they issue warnings that amount to "That thing you bought that was sold with claims of similarity to an illegal drug does actually have physiological effects even though it's legal, so be careful.". Which is fair enough!

That would make much more sense. :)

Legal, unregulated, and synthetic. But close enough for the moderately-savvy customer.

Well put.

We're all blind, and that might be an elephant.

You are responding with affirmative condescension to a claim that is almost certainly not true.

Apparently it feeds your biases though. Check your filters, perhaps?

I'd be astonished if any of what you wrote above is true.

State regulators do not "surreptitiously test" Schedule I drugs on the public via retail sale. That's just inane.

There is no legal classification for "magic mushrooms", but I am willing to bet that the products for sale are legal, and do not contain psilocybin or psilocin.

They're just some unregulated compound that might have come from mushrooms, but is more likely made in a lab, and may or may not be mildly psychoactive.

And they'll probably add some caffeine and theobromine, which boardwalk denizens will feel the effects of and not know precisely how to categorize.

(Vouched so I could reply.)

Why would that be a bad thing? What happens under badguy.com is badguy.com's business, is it not?

Is it any different than setting cookie scoping rules?

I'm sure OP is a good person.

But if they were not, and had ill intentions, they might see $500 as a very inexpensive way to purchase a working exploit to use against others.

That was Dole, according to the Hawaiians I know.

I get it, and I know it, but I still think it's more funny than good.

(but I did not downvote, I suspect that's other peoples' opinions about your optimism :)

I'm not normally one to quibble about software naming collisions, and I have literally never run MS Windows on any hardware ever in my life.

But this collision seems inauspicious.

Could we just publish (and cache!) TXT records at the appropriate-level domains? E.g.:

  host -t TXT github.io.
  etld_depth=2

Cough and bough would be good additions.

Esperanto was an attempt. Its obscurity is a reflection of its success.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto

FWIW it's entirely possible (and not uncommon) for a single executable to behave differently depending on the name it was launched under.

I have no idea in this case, but it's possible that "Siri" and "Siri AI" are genuinely different in behaviours and interfaces and dependencies, even if they are the same binary.

I'm sure you've considered and rejected tmux, but is this only because it has a different UI than a native OS app?

In some states, until the early 1990s, SSNs were also used as drivers license numbers.

> The situation is tragically optimal--we've achieved some kind of multiobjective local maximum on a rock in the sewer at the bottom of a picturesque alpine valley and declared victory. We should do better.

But it's a very comfortable rock. pointy in all the right places.

Well, in the early days of infrastructure growth, when designing bespoke monitoring systems and protocols would be relatively low-cost, it's still nowhere near the highest-ROI way to spend your tech team's time and energy.

And to do it right (i.e. low-risk of of having it blow up with negative effects on the larger business goals), you need someone fairly experienced or maybe even specialized in that area. If you have that person, they are on the team because of their other skills, which you need more urgently.

SaaS, COTS, and open source monitoring tools have to cater to the existing customers. The sales pitch is "easy to integrate". So even they are not incentivized to build something new.

It boils down to the fact that stream-of-bytes is extremely well-understood, and almost always good enough. Infinitely flexible, low-ceremony, no patents, and comes preinstalled on everything (emitters and consumers). It's like HTTP in that way.

And the evolution is similar too. It'll always be stream-of-bytes, but you can emit in JSON or protobuf etc, if it's worth the cognitive overhead to do so. All the hyperscalers do this, even when the original emitter (web servers, etc) is just blindly spewing atrocious CLF/quirky-SSV text.

I struggle to see the difference between "bringing an extra battery" and "bringing a power bank".

Except that the latter has more functionality than the former, and should be prefereable.

Grand solutions require broad coordination, and they often devolve back into a modified-but-equivalent version of the previous problem. :(

Stream-of-bytes is classically difficult model to escape. Many have tried.

This reads like satire, but I've been feeling that a lot lately.

All China has to do here is stay in the game and wait patiently while the US and EU press pause on data centers. See also: solar panels.

We're making this way too easy. The rationale and logic are reasonable, but ultimately irrelevant.

If benefitting the victims is a goal, then clearly sending them money now is more valuable than sending them interest-borne money later.

If the victims don't benefit from the money now, they can bear their own interest. Time-value, etc.

I think you're wrong, but I'm not a lawyer and I don't operate on the fringes of fraudulent behaviour, so I might be miscalibrated.

But my premise is that there is benefit derived from the lie, either financial or otherwise. I believe this is clearly fraud and risks civil penalties if pursued by the party who used the information to extend the benefit.

An interesting case is if you lie about previous salary to a prospective employer who does not have the ability to confirm the data. In that context, with no formal pre-employment agreements or contracts, the lie is probably just negotiation strategy with no civil liabilities. I repeat that I am not a lawyer. :)

Similar situation here.

My take on it is that frequent users perceive apps as desktop launchers/shortcuts.

They don't care about the difference between app and web, per se, but the bookmarking situation in mobile browsers is awful (desktop too, honestly), and an app presents a convenient launcher for the service/site/data they want.

Adding a springboard launcher for a PWA is easy but still apparently more frictional than installing an app.

Android and iOS both require user permission for apps to access contacts or location.

Are there other platforms that can't even manage this basic level of user protection?

In the time it took you to write this comment, you've thought more about the abstraction than most of the people who are confused by it -- and it will never succeed to coax them out of their confusion with such logic. :)

Credit agencies do not report income to the IRS, so there's no tax relevance. Credit agencies are not party to your obligations to the IRS at all. You can lie to credit agencies all day long if you like.

However, if you do so for the purpose of some kind of benefit, financial or otherwise, it's clearly fraud.

It's hard to remember that that's still illegal these days -- but it is, for you and for me, at least.

In the US, I regularly see bathrooms and kitchens without GFCI.

I looked up the history:

  1961 GFCI invented by a professor at UC Berkeley
  1971 Added to NEC code for outdoor outlets
  1981 … bathrooms
  1987 … kitchens
  2005 … laundry rooms and unfinished basements
  2014 … crawlspaces, around pools and hot tubs

Lots of bathrooms haven't been renovated (or at least not with permits) in the last 45 years, apparently!