scott00

You're right, I was not factoring in the effiency of the generation process. 100 W is definitely moderate or higher for most people.

This was the first time I had seen a cycle desk and I find the idea really interesting.

Having done a little more reading on the subject, my sense is that you may have a better handle on the ergonomics than the existing cycle desks on the market. It seems like most people are using cycle desks to do a pretty limited amount and type of work while doing a short workout, whereas you are using it for a long time each day, which I imagine means you can do most types of work comfortably.

If that's true, and it's true for a sizeable number of people, not just you, I think that's what I would focus on.

Are the other people for whom you've built one able to use it as much as you?

Very cool!

I'm curious about the effect this has had on your fitness. 60 W output on a bike is pretty low intensity exercise for most people, but 15-20 hours a week is a lot of volume.

Did you have to work up to that? Where did you start and what did the journey to where you are now look like?

Do you have a sense of how this has affected your capacity for higher intensity exercise? (If it helps to have a more concrete idea of what I mean by this, were I designing an experiment I would probably track max power output and power output at VT1 and VT2. But any kind of fitness metric would be interesting, as would be what you think the effect has been, even if it's not based on hard data.)

A similar problem exists with that analysis. Tesla ownership is probably correlated to the amount of time/miles spent in driving conditions where Autopilot is effective.

You also add a whole bunch of other confounding factors if you're not comparing same-driver accident rates. Accident rates vary by location, city/highway driving mix, driver attributes (age, gender, credit score, etc), and probably many other things that may be correlated with Tesla ownership.

The data analysis is not straightforward. You would expect a driver's decision to use Autopilot to be correlated with the ability of the Autopilot to handle the conditions. So just comparing Autopilot accidents per mile to human accidents per mile won't cut it.

Passkeys are Webauthn credentials, but Webauthn credentials are not necessarily Passkeys. As best I can tell, Passkeys are _discoverable_ Webauthn credentials.

Most hardware tokens don't support discoverable credentials.

What else is in the backend transaction data?

The comparison makes sense in the context of Sierra Leone, where the study was done. The full article mentions that there are very few surgeons there, and that basic surgeries are usually done by general MDs or ACs, the types of training compared.

Certainly relevant to Sierra Leone and other poor countries, probably not relevant to rich countries that generally have surgeons do this type of surgery.

I think you're right about discoverability being a key property differentiating Passkeys from WebAuthn credentials, I got that one wrong. I think the other ones would be it's likely syncable across devices, and likely requires some type of user verification.

You're probably right that if an authenticator is supporting discoverability it no longer makes sense to store the encrypted private key with the RP. It's still allowable though[0].

[0] https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn/#credential-id

The passkey itself is an encryption key.

When you register a passkey to access a site, the component that holds the passkey generates a site-specific asymmetric encryption keypair. It then gives the site the (unencrypted) public key, and the private key encrypted with the passkey.

To authenticate, the site sends the client the encrypted private key and a challenge. The client uses the passkey to decrypt the private key, which it then uses to sign the challenge, then it sends the signature back to the site. The site verifies that the signature is valid and then lets you in.

A lot of what is interesting about passkeys is the supporting components that are available on popular platforms. Generally speaking, on client devices they store the passkey in special hardware so that the passkey itself is not available to the regular cpu. They also store it in the cloud, probably also in special hardware, and can send it to new client devices.

This all has some nice security properties, namely: * sites don't have any information that would be useful in gaining access to a different site (reduced blast radius when any given site is hacked) * the passkey is not available in the clear to regular programs running on client devices (hard for malware to steal) * The client software ensures that the passkey is very hard to guess. * The client software authenticates the site before signing the challenge. (makes it hard to phish)

There's a much simpler legal rationale for simply ignoring the debt ceiling than the 14th amendment. The constitution allocates both spending and borrowing power to Congress. The executive has some discretion, but largely _has_ to spend the money the budget says should be spent. So once the debt ceiling hits there are two conflicting laws. The executive must violate either the budget or the debt ceiling. There is common law precedent about how conflicting laws should be handled, and the precedent is that the more recent law takes precedence. The budget was passed after the last debt ceiling, so that's what the executive should follow.

Your guess is correct, the expiration is what adds the security.

The main security need this is addressing is terminating access to ex-employees/contractors given a requirement for shared credentials. If the shared credentials are not short term, you have to rotate credentials every time the team changes. If you don't have a system to do it automatically it's pretty easy to forget to do it or do it incompletely. So better just to do it very frequently and automatically so you don't even need to bother with a revocation process.

You might be thinking that you don't have any shared credentials, but effectively any credential that a server has access to is shared, because there's almost certainly at least two people with access to any given server.

99% of kids can sit without support at 9.2 months.[0] 97% can crawl by 12 months.[0]

Kids in the 12-18 month range don't stay in the crib or a lap all day.

[0] https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/child-growth/c...

There was certainly worry about this earlier, though I don't know if there was any research done. My parents limited screen time when I was growing up (born 1985).

I do think there's been a substantial change in child-targeted media over the years. In the days of broadcast only tv, you couldn't turn the tv on at any time of day and expect to find children's programming. The advent of cable and home video players changed that, but not everybody had cable and not everybody chose to buy kids show recordings. Parents could make those decisions occaisionally and then be stuck with them, rather than having to fight a continuous battle of self-control.

Other big changes occurred with the rise of children's programming on youtube and the invention of smartphones. Basically in less than 100 years we've gone from no childrens screen media exising at all to an unlimited quantity available for free in every adult's pocket 24 hours a day.

It seems like they collected 5 screen time data points[0] but only present analysis of the first, collected at 12 months of age.

Did I just miss the other analyses?

Assuming I didn't, is it too cynical of me to infer that they ran the numbers for the other data points but found no relationship? Suggesting that screen use after age 20 months or so is substanitially less harmful?

[0] Quoting from the paper: "When their child was aged 12 months, parents were asked to report the amount of time on average that the child spent on screens ... . Parents were asked the same question on their child’s screen time at 5 time points between ages 12 months and 54 months."

There is exactly one investment strategy that presents no risk of ruin for a bank: depositing all customer deposits in the bank's account at the fed. That investment strategy is so discouraged by regulators that they literally denied the application for a charter from an organization whose stated investment strategy was exactly that. (google the narrow bank if this is unfamiliar to you).

For any other investment of any amount of your deposits, a run of sufficient size combined with an investment loss of sufficient size will ruin a bank.

That being said, SVB had by a wide margin the flightiest deposits and the most IR risk. But it was an error of magnitude, not category. There is no run-proof fractional reserve bank.

Increased housing prices definitely and directly cause inflation. Housing is in the neigborhood of 40% of the CPI basket, and even more of core CPI.

I think that people have been using the book value as of 31 Dec 2022. Probably lower now. The equity was trading around 9 billion on Friday, but traders could have been pricing in the assumption that the AT1s were getting written down even if it hadn't been officially decided.

This diagram within your source 2 seems to directly contradict what you're saying: https://d2908q01vomqb2.cloudfront.net/fc074d501302eb2b93e255...

Not who you're responding to, but I actually don't think getting rid of fractional reserve banking is as crazy as it may sound at first. Maybe people who need to borrow money for 10 years shouldn't be borrowing it from people who will freak out if the loan isn't paid back in a week.

On the investor side you'd put cash you really need in a non-interest bearing account, and the rest invested at a duration and risk level appropriate for your situation. For most people/organizations the details would be outsourced to a fund manager. On the borrower side, small stuff would get bundled and securitized, big stuff could trade on its own. The industry's already moving in that direction. Modern communication technology has so drastically changed the physical scale over which a marketplace can function I think it's reasonable to ask if we still need the banking smoke and mirrors sitting between borrowers and lenders.

Lack of redeemability, lack of transparency, and a history of fraud.

Banks contractually guarantee the right to redeem deposits for cash. Redemption of tether for USD seems to be subject to the discretion of its operators.

Banks are fairly transparent about their assets to the public, and completely trasparent to their auditors and regulators. Tether is an unaudited, unregulated black box.

IMO, tether is no longer a fraud, but it definitely was for a while when they were claiming 100% cash reserves but actually running with fractional reserves. Banks don't lie about their reserves.

Can you give more details on the "1 TB per user pool for shared office resources"? I always thought there was a user-level limit of 1 TB for OneDrive, and a organization-level limit of 1 TB + (10 GB)*(number of users) for Sharepoint.[0]

And I've never found any documentation as to whether shared OneDrive folders count against the owner's quota, all of the users with permissions quota, or the sharepoint quota.

[0] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/office365/servicedescripti...

The pilots have the necessary information and know how to do the calculation with pencil and paper if necessary. But computers can do the calculation faster and with less chance of error. And a computer in a vendor's data center is easier to maintain than a computer in every plane.

Often they are highly leveraged and funded with no recourse debt. If they can't pay the mortgage without low vacancy at high rents, there's no point to lowering rents. Low vacancy and low rents still ends up with the landlord losing their entire investment and the bank owning the building.

There's also been a steady increase in the difficulty of obtaining a license over the years. My grandfather started driving at 14; at the time you didn't even need a license to drive. My parents were required to pass a written test, wait two weeks, and then pass a road test. I had to pass a written test, wait 6 months, and then pass a road test. Minors in my state now have to pass a written test, wait 6 months, then pass a road test to get a time-of-day- and passenger-restricted license, and then wait another 6 months for an unrestricted license.

This case has literally nothing to do with common carrier status. Neither side is claiming that Google or Twitter are common carriers.

To have a debate about this we really need to add some precision to some of your terms. When you talk about "complete liquidation of assets" there's sort of two things that come to mind, and I'm not 100% sure what you mean.

Option one is what I would call a reorganization: the rights of equity holders are terminated, and creditors (which would include beneficiaries of civil judgements) get some fraction of what they are owed, through a combination of keeping some portion of their existing claims, receiving cash received from selling new stock, and receiving some amount of new stock. Crucially, the business keeps operating when this happens, it's really just reorganizing the capital structure, not doing much to actual business operations.

Option two is a true liquidation: the business stops operating, all of its assets are sold, and the proceeds distributed to creditors and then the corporate entity simply ceases to exist.

The original debate about the "corporate death penalty" arose from how Arthur Anderson was treated in the wake of the Enron scandal. In that case, AA was criminally indicted. A criminal conviction is a huge problem for a public accounting firm, because convicted felons can't be CPAs or audit public companies. Indeed, it was ultimately convicted and barred by the SEC from auditing public companies. But it actually collapsed far before that, basically immediately after the indictment, as all of its clients saw the writing on the wall and dropped them. This was an option 2 liquidation.

Personally, I would only consider an option 2 liquidation the "corporate death penalty". In the case of your friend in the railroad business, it's probably not the socially optimal outcome because you would actually get more money for the victims through an option 1 reorganization than option 2 liquidation. In general that's why option 2 should be sparingly applied: it reduces the resources available to compensate victims, and inflicts collateral damage on employees, vendors, and customers who mostly didn't do anything wrong.

In addition to option 1 and option 2, some people also consider simply indicting a corporation as the "corporate death penalty" because of how in the case of Arthur Anderson, the criminal indictment did pretty much immediately cause option 2. I think that that position is not really consistent with the facts, however. There are at least 54 publicly traded companies that received criminal convictions between 2001 and 2010; 37 of them were still around in 2013, only 5 failed, and of the 5 it doesn't really seem like the conviction had much to do with their demise[0].

[0] https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...

You are correct that if Badco completes the bankruptcy process the payments will come from a trust fund. But J&J doesn't control how much money goes into that trust fund. The 2.5B is their opening bid but it will ultimately be determined by a judge or jury.

The most important thing is to have enough RAM that you don't have substantial swapping. For me that's at least 32 GB currently, running a heavy IDE (Visual Studio) and a hefty helping of Electron apps. Adjust down if you use vi and console only. Adjust up if you're going to be running VMs or container.

In the middle ground it's mostly about CPU and disk, but exactly what cpu specs are use case specific. Depending on what software you're building I could easily see the bottle neck in either single core performance, core count, or file io.

At the high end, if you're bottlenecked on IO even with nvme disks you could consider getting enough RAM to develop on a ramdisk.

The great thing though is you don't have to guess. AWS and friends will give you short term rentals on a wide variety of hardware. Try them out on a representative workload and see what the difference is.

Yep, that's how I figured out what the heck was actually going on. I agree it's readable and clear, but it is not concise: 58 pages.

The article does a bad job explaining what exactly J&J is trying to do here and what exactly the appeals court won't let them do.

J&J's plan was to split into two pieces, which I'll call Goodco and Badco. Goodco got the operating assets, Badco got the talc liabilities and more or less immediately filed for bankruptcy. That's a maneuver that has come to be called the Texas Two-Step. However there's a very important missing piece that seems not to be covered by the article: in addition to the talc liabilities, Badco also got a funding agreement with Goodco, which gives Badco the right to be reimbursed by Goodco for any expenses incurred as a result of the talc liabilities, up to ~60 billion USD, or the value of Goodco, whichever is higher.

So J&J's play here was not to outright shield their assets from being used to pay talc liabilities, but rather to force the liabilities to be determined by a single bankruptcy process in the near future, rather than tens of thousands of individual lawsuits that would trickle in over the next 100 years or so.

The appeals court ruled that because of the funding agreement Badco is not in financial distress, and is therefore ineligible to file for bankruptcy. They did not rule either way as to whether the Texas Two-Step is legal.