Unlurker|Replay|About
Hackers abuse Google Ads, Bing redirects to push Claude ClickFix attacks (bleepingcomputer.com)
•
All 5 daily users of Bing search were immediately notified of the exploit.
•
Google appears to either not screen ads at all or willingly allows misleading and lying ads and scams to reach its users. They profit off fraud by either laziness and ignorance or malice, by letting "ads" like "Your PDF reader needs an update" through. And they don't act on them when they are reported. Every single company putting ads up in public is held to a higher standard.
Is AI Killing the Value of Human Writing? (transitions.substack.com)
•
> Fully AI-generated content will always be ontologically different from human creative outputs. I get the vague sense that the author and a contingent of others see the ontological difference as primarily metaphysical. Specifically I see a version of essentialism of interiority that captures what the reader believes about the author(or lack of) and then projects upon the text. Like all essentialism, it happens usually without the reader knowing that they're doing it - that the observations are mere facts of nature as if the authorship of judgement were erased. We see this both ways, when text is revealed to be AI written folks will revise their initial praise. Likewise, when text is revealed to be written by a human, previous critique is swept under the rug and interiority that wasn't initial found is somehow revealed. All while the text has remained the same. Dear readers, this is not an honest way to read. Text doesn't have metaphysical baggage, it is simply words on the page. Interiority is always an internal sense and an individual deduction. It is no more a property of the text than your favorite color actually possessing the property of being the best color in the world. I'm not saying we have to like AI generated text, but let's leave the metaphysical baggage at home and read things honestly for once. We owe it to ourselves.
You know what's funny is that, in the movie 'Her', Theodore works full time as a personal letter writer (writes letters for other humans). It's funny because, at the time the movie was made the idea of AI had nothing to do with LLMs so humans still had a need to write things themselves despite carrying powerful AI devices in their pockets. Just an interesting idea I had about how things are envisioned and how they ultimately play out in the real world.
•
> the idea of AI had nothing to do with LLMs so humans still had a need to write things themselves Well, not really, they were paying a company to do it. Sometimes throughout their entire relationship. It's possible that for this kind of letters customer valued that a human actually writes this for them. It could have been like paying for a musician rather than listen to the recording of perfect quality. This movie was prescient in many ways.
A few days ago, I asked myself this question: “What happens when AI can say what you want to say better than you?” That question only scratches the surface of the malaise. For more than a year now, I have struggled with what to do, as someone who likes to write, when writing becomes ‘cheap’. Or should I say, to be more precise, that it is actually generating written artifacts that has become easier. There is a feeling that, now that one can write enormous amounts of blogs, essays, and reports, each one becomes less valuable. Text is no longer rare and precious like in ancient times. Just as synthetic diamonds are killing the natural diamond market, there is a sense that the synthetic writings we currently have wide access to are degrading the value of traditional human writing.
•
This is not unique to text. Why develop a game if AI generated games makes them less valuable? Why take a photo or draw something if AI generated imagery makes images less valuable? Ultimately, just do the thing if it pleases you. Don’t worry about the value. Some people will always find value in things anyway if they know they are human created.
•
> Text is no longer rare and precious like in ancient times. Text was never rare. What made it special was the people, their experiences, imperfections and the ways they expressed them. It may be corny to say but words do have power - to light up your imagination, let you visit worlds through the eye of the narrator, and spark that tiny flame which could lead to great discoveries. AI-generated text has none of that effect on me. My brain just shuts down as soon as it detects it. My eyes glaze over and my fickle attention flickers away. So, if anything, AI is making some human writing way more precious than before.
•
Long-form text had already declined as a medium before ChatGPT was launched in late 2022. Throughout the 2010s, people's default device switched to the smartphone with its small screen and inefficient keyboard, and social media had already first gone to 180 characters and then gradually to video. Quality blogs got hidden from Google search results in the middle of that decade, and many bloggers gave up or died out -- many were middle aged and it has been that long -- without being replaced (Medium or Substack don't count for me, that platform is commercial and full of pathologies). By the 2020s, writing e.g. a Reddit comment of a mere two solid paragraphs could already make you look like a weirdo who couldn't read the room. So human-generated long-form text was increasingly irrelevant to the world we live in already before LLMs. If you are, like me, a person who likes the stuff, one can only recognize that tidal shift in society, mourn it, abd try to console oneself with the literary canon and surviving material from the early internet, while accepting this is a lonely endeavour.
•
There's also the factor of diminishing returns on mass produced text that shares a common voice and idea space.
Takeshi's Castle (en.wikipedia.org)
•
I was involved in pro paintball for several years and at the start of every one of their matches, one of the pro teams would chant: "DON'T. GET. ELIMINATED."
I only know the German version from RTL2 which had funny commentary dubbed over it with made-up names and stuff. Curious, did the dubs in other countries do the same? Were there languages with the original commentary translated?
•
Yes, it was a deliberate strategy to add localized commentary, as the original context would not apply in foreign markets. An example of Transcreation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcreation
In the uk it was Craig Charles of red dwarf fame, renowned funk and soul DJ and robot wars host. It was brilliant.
•
I can hear his laugh just reading this
Nvidia in talks to acquire US 'open' model startup Reflection AI (ft.com)
Didn't they just recently invest in them? Curious about their strategy, considering NVIDIA already does Nemotron and i think diffusion models as well.
•
It's really hard to know what's keeping you ahead in a field that's constantly innovating.
Their strategy is to prevent open models from proliferating, so their massive investments in these AI frauds are not completely unwound. That's my take, at least. Nemotron is TERRIBLE, and purposefully so. It must be. They cannot be THAT BAD at training AI models. I don't believe it.
•
I think this is a classic [Commoditize Your Complement]( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17047348 ) - Nvidia wants open models because their business is hardware and it's complement is AI models, so they want AI models to be commoditized so that hardware is the industry with leverage. OpenAI/Anthropic/etc want closed models so that the AI model development/data has leverage over the hardware providers.
I believe NVIDIA's long term strategy will be to pivot from the data center to the public, and the public will utilize open models on NVIDIA hardware at home. This will come after the RAMpocalypse completes (when the new fabrication plants (China, Tesla/SpaceXAI/Intel) fully ramp up and start selling their RAM for cheap in the next few years). Data centers will be for training mostly.
•
Why do you think the public wants to self host models over using a cheaper solution hosted in the cloud?
boy do I wish US capitalism could chill on the consolidation...
•
Huh? new tech companies have proliferated in the US the last few years. M&A is just one side of the coin. Without an exit path -- IPO, acquisition or private credits -- there is very little appetite for new businesses. Did you know that 151 companies were founded by SpaceX's alumni? Compare to 5 they've acquired (not including XAI) https://www.alumnifounders.com/stats
I've seen people use those three words to make a dig at zuckerberg before, but I never put 2 and 2 together and realized the quote until just now. I think the comma was essential, made my brain automatically read it correctly... Wiseau voice and all, lol. More on-topic: I remain amazed by how the past quarter century of American legislation has included one overwhelming boon for corporations after another. Once corporations could give an infinitly higher amount of political contributions when compared to individual citizens, it became clear that the overall well-being and happiness of corporations was the only real political focus. Anything that doesnt directly or indirectly benefit a group of corporations is almost always designed to manipulate the electorate through invented/perceived/embiggened/non-cromulent "social issues".
•
have you heard of this dude named karl marx?
It should be very clear that Nvidia is not interested in selling you GPUs to run models. But it’s very interested in selling data centers that you can use to run models in a way that everybody on their end “accepts”.
•
DGX Spark, RTX Spark, Pro Blackwells, etc. They are absolutely interested in selling local hardware you own. Just at the similar margins to the rest of their main business now.
They just took the 5090 of the market. Too powerful for ordinary people I guess.
•
More the opposite, too many companies buying 5090s by the pallet instead of their Pro or DC lineup. Just from basic maths, the GeForce line (except 5090) has and continues to be extremely ‘subsidised’ at street prices compared to their DC lineup; in terms of margins, and $ they’d make instead of using the same fab or memory allocation for e.g. a RTX Pro or higher; which still have massive demand. If you want 32GB and CUDA, 2x 5060ti 16gb and tensor parallelism 2 is pretty easy to set up in any ATX PC case. They are a greedy mega cap business like everyone else. But if you rationalise it a bit, if they make geforces too compelling for scalers and neoclouds with more VRAM, the margin shortfall would be in the hundreds of billions. At least they’re not exiting the consumer market altogether like other players, and at least they continue to deliver on software.
Apple may have an iPhone 18 Pro demand problem (androidauthority.com)
•
I upgraded to an 18 pro from the 15 pro, partially on a whim since there were good trade in deals and partly because of the battery life promises. The battery is better, but I probably would have been fine just getting my old battery replaced. Other than that, I don't see really any other benefit. I preferred the smaller and lighter 15 pro model and it kind of pisses me off that they keep sneaking in an extra 0.1" and 10 grams every other year.
•
Yes, weight and size have been a major detracting factor for me as well. I’d also like some innovation on the basics: improving the keyboard which has been really bad since forever, enabling people to use any search engine in Safari, larger battery, interoperable USB-C connection without requiring specialized software, support for high-res audio codecs, in-place translation (like Firefox or mastodon client Phanpy). Give me a reason to upgrade. With past few generations and current one, there’s been none.
•
> enabling people to use any search engine in Safari You can forget about that for as long as Google pays over $20 _billion_ per year to stay the default.
I’d love if my blouses were on their twentieth iteration without decaying quality every year for two decades like the clothes market has done recently; so, yes, we absolutely can benefit from such investment. Uniqlo is the only instance I know of a new clothes retailer publishing release notes for their iterations, so I know it’s possible and profitable, but it’s just extraordinarily rare in any segment — whether the emperor’s phone, or the emperor’s clothes.
•
Oh I hate this so much. Spend months trying to find a good, well made tshirt that’s out of a good quality fabric. Find one and a month or two later (after you’re sure of the quality) order a few more. Nope! Pattern is different, fabric is worse quality. Start the cycle again.
Vibe coded browser ports of Halo, The Simpsons: Hit And Run, GTA work well (kotaku.com)
•
And here I am playing checkers on flij https://flij.com/star/checkers The whole world is about to get wild.
Honest question: Anybody has more details how to do this? I.e. I have my favorite game from the DOS/Win95 era I want to port plus a dev background - how to get started with AI reverse engineering?
•
I had Claude reverse engineer 3D Space Cadet from WinXP just by letting it know it has access to ghidra and radare2 and asked it to faithfully port it over to Rust+Bevy. 2 hours of it working later and the game was playable. It did take an extra prompt to get the music since Bevy doesn't have a MIDI player, so it added a MIDI crate for it and I gave it a soundfont off my system.
I was so depressed when they checked the refrigerator in GTA VI in the gameplay video on YouTube[0]. I know there was a glitch, but that's not why I got depressed. It was just too much for me. I don't know why, but it was soul-crushingly depressing. It made me feel so empty at such an existential level. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJbzMqJGH4k&t=438s
•
Meh, that does nothing for me. Yes, the game seems quite detailed but that's neither especially impressive from a technical standpoint nor interesting from a gameplay perspective.
Games aren't like old movies getting remastered that can be done in a rented-out storage container for a weekend. Video game ports are generally a skillset that takes time to master. Plus, getting a 20-year-old game running well on a new system isn't free. I'm on board with copyright protection incentivizing all that initial hard work, the years of blood sweat and tears will get to live on as long as possible. Looks like software is having its Napster moment now. Except, instead of one entity dictating the rules of engagement and deciding to sue Napster and its clones out of existence, we have 100s of entities with competing interests. IP has been a good source of revenue generation, that social contract is now broken. I've got my popcorn bowl ready though, the industry that just fought Google and Apple for better revenue sharing is about to take all that legal infrastructure they acquired and make a big mess of everything. Here's to the next decade hah.
•
Good thing now people can do this "expensive skillset" porting themselves. Game companies don't need to bother with such hard work :)
Someone just needs to pay the AI companies once and then copy at will to the Internet... But without ads, micro transactions and anti-cheat.
•
Ya, its the ads bullshit and exploitive microtransactions that really killed a lot of gaming for me. This said there are so many options without that, so that's what I stick to. I'd love to make a soccer game with all the famous players in it with AI and dump it on the internet for free out of pure spite because of companies like EA. I don't even like sports games.
I did something similar. I now have Geiss as a Music Assistant / Sendspin target. It's mind blowing how easy it was.
•
and AI-doomers still post in this site saying AI has no benefit, where is a productivity boost, and where are all these new software AI is supposedly making... I have a few of my own stuff and it has been amazing.
Why DuckDB 2.0 is faster (motherduck.com)
•
I wish more database engines used a Task-based design like Umbra / CedarDB. Most of the DB engines out there still seem to use a "n-threads" style parallelism with exchange operations and poor async I/O management. DuckDB is improving on this front, but in some sense is catching up to R&D (and implementation!) that is now decades old. A "rhetorical challenge" I like to give software developers working on systems like this is the following: If I gave you a computer with 1,024 cores and matching network and storage bandwidth -- but with significant latency -- could you keep a system like this 100% utilised with one query? The answer for almost all software is "no". For example, SQL Server tops out at 64 hardware threads for any one query: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/database-engine/configure-windows/configure-the-max-degree-of-parallelism-server-configuration-option?view=sql-server-ver17#considerations GPU codes are starting to get there, but CPU codes are way behind here. It's not just databases! Can you (de)compress a file in parallel? Verify its hash in parallel? Upload/download from storage with CPU and I/O task parallelism? Can you overlap all of these operation so nothing is ever waiting on anything else it doesn't have to? This matters! I ran some tests with bioinformatics codes and found that they all got stuck in tar pits. None could scale to modern SSDs with millions of IOPS or modern networking with hundreds of gigabits of throughput, no matter how many CPU cores were thrown at them. PS: AMD's Zen 6 era EPYC 9006 processors will have 512 cores and 1,024 threads per two-socket system, so this is not hypothetical: https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/server/epyc/9006-series/amd-epyc-9996.html
I also love the visualizations but I'm getting heavy LLM vibes from the prose: > One setting drives this,... > The cost is now about the rows you actually touch, not rounds times table size. Etc. I get the brain scramblies [1] from trying to parse this writing style at work so I hate to see it elsewhere. Apologies if I'm wrong. But if I'm not then OP don't use an LLM to write for you. It's hazardous to your reader's health [2]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipUJq-odt5Q [2]: https://discourse.haskell.org/t/how-to-keep-enjoying-programming-in-a-world-of-llms/14705#p-58631-llm-gibberish-10
•
I've lost count recently of how many times Claude has given me something in this style that I can't understand, and then I ask it to rework parts of it, and then it tells me that the original things it claimed weren't actually quite right anyway. I'm starting to read it as a sign of low LLM effort not just low human effort. It seems most common when one few-sentence prompt leads it to generate 4+ paragraphs (and the longer the output, the worse the odds). Prompting to dig into each resulting paragraph one by one, to make them readable, makes it do higher-effort deep dives.
•
> It's hazardous to your reader's health [2]. Just because some guy on some forum said that doesn't make it true. That's not how you establish facts regarding health claims.
•
I noticed some AI tells, but found overall the article not too bad. It did seem to waffle at times though. > Storing a lake as thousands of 1 MB Parquet files is a bad practice anyway, and 2.0 does not rescue it. The "does not rescue it". No human would write like that. > I'll explain what that means on a table you already know. No I don't already know that table. Also > and claims 40x on graph reachability Is really hard to parse. The section on recursive CTEs wasn't well written and didn't explain how the optimisation was done. This article explains how the recursive CTEs were improved https://duckdb.org/2026/08/25/how-duckdb-runs-recursive-ctes-faster
I get the brain scramblies [1] from trying to parse this writing style at work so I hate to see it elsewhere This sounds to me a lot like mass hysteria, people reading other people's behaviour online and reproducing it unconsciously. More and more really important and useful information will arrive like this for us to consume. There's no way around. So this is a disservice for newcomers that could come and go unscathed but instead is crippled by these kinds of comments that brings nothing of substance to the table and has the potential to make them hate something they otherwise wouldn't even notice. Also, from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html : Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
•
Look at the specific AI habits called out in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50037220 This sort of writing decreases readability. People say "just have your own LLM rewrite it" like you don't lose value when you go from prompt -> slop you didn't review enough to clean this crap up in -> someone else's prompt to change the style -> finally someone reads it. Do you know what happens a double-digit percentage of the time when I ask Claude to rewrite some shit that it gives me like this? It says things like: "I overstated this, I rechecked and actually..." or "this claim doesn't hold up, actually [this other thing is true]..." So it's a sign that the claims in the post likely weren't vetted very hard. So if you aren't proofreading I'm gonna be skeptical. And saying "deal with it" doesn't rescue it. Does it? And then there's the reflexive "you must just be an ideological hater." No. I'm someone who uses the tools in a domain where quality matters enough that I have to dig into the quality of the tool output and spot the tells for when it's low output, so that I can deliver shit that works reliably and consistently.
•
This is all absurd discussion. If you disagree with the article style, there is a flag button there. So it's a sign that the claims in the post likely weren't vetted very hard. Our time is better used submitting something useful instead of debating meaningless guesswork in the comments.
Curious how you see low-effort writing as a "shallow dismissal" or "tangential"
•
Everything is low-effort writing if your judgement is ideologically charged. Just read the damn post, it's very good, there's nothing low effort, but you need to read it as one single piece, not dissect it looking for hints of LLMisms, killing the article in the process. Also if you think LLMisms so bad it's spam, you also don't get a free pass. From the guidelines: If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
•
Who said I was "ideologically charged"? I like AI and I use it every day. I simultaneously hate AI writing. It is impossible to parse. If you can read it fine, good on you, but you seem to fundamentally misunderstand that other people perceive the world differently than you do. No one is "dissecting" this article under a microscope, it's obvious.
MrBeast 'Spends Millions Reverse Engineering the Algorithms on Each Platform' (barchart.com)
It’s weird - I use YouTube a lot and I’ve never ever been recommended one of his videos.
•
I'd say the same, except when I land there not logged in. Then it's a shit show.
What I actually find interesting about him and Cocomelon is that they actually follow stats and metrics to generate content that garners most clicks or keeps most engagement... Somehow it almost feels like lot of other more traditional media doesn't even attempt that. Like they pay lip service to it by committees. But they don't actually make content like that.
•
It's exactly the same sort of SEO slop you see trying to game Google algorithms.
Who watches the 10,000th iteration of "locking up 100 people in $place and who stays the longest gets $100,000", badly filmed and badly presented? The pioneers of this genre were Big Brother by RTL in the 1990s. It was at least professionally produced. It is hard not to think of viewbotting.
•
> It is hard not to think of viewbotting. I'm sure there are a lot of people (mostly kids) who legitimately watch MrBeast's content, but I'm also convinced that viewbotting is much more widespread than is generally acknowledged across YouTube, Twitch, etc, and the platforms don't really care so long as the advertisers don't make a stink about it. It seems like every couple of years they'll do some bare minimum pruning of the most egregious outliers to make a show to the advertisers that something is being done and then things slide back to normal within weeks to months.
Alternatively, you could consider that maybe he just wants to be the best. In that viewpoint it would be like telling Usain Bolt to stop sprinting, because he already has money. Why go for a world record? Just stop bro.
•
The best at what? Making money on YouTube? View count?
Knuth reward check (thomas-huehn.com)
•
Just FYI for HN - if there is anyone looking to make big money in the coming years there are no fully signed TAOCP first editions anywhere. You would honestly print so much money if you could get all the first edition volumes signed.
•
True AGI will arrive when an LLM will be able to provide ALL remaining mistakes in Donald Knuth's books. And kill one more amazing thing in the process.
I received two checks in the very early 2000s and my name isn’t on this list. For the record I cashed both and have zero regrets. At the time it definitely felt like the right thing to do as I am not into collecting tokens.
•
Most rock and roll thing I heard today :)
This comment may trigger life changing reflection in hundreds or thousands of souls...
•
I guess only if you value shame? Which is not a given. HN has so many “shameless plug” comments - HN readers for sure qualify as shameless.
How Protein Took over the World (ft.com)
•
Why they all using whey when you got soy, pea and other much cheaper protein ? Whey got to be the most expensive, especially isolate.
•
I'm OK with this. There have been a lot dumber "health" fads (low fat, low sodium, etc.) than focusing on more protein. Protein is also more satiating than carbohydrates so it can reduce calorie intake overall.
•
Hope you like cricket flour!
•
Actually, I believe bugs have been tried and turn out less efficient than whatever we have now. I believe soy is cheapest.
It's funny that protein everything is taking off just as more data seems to come out that you really don't need as much protein as previously thought, even for vigorous weightlifting (~0.82g/lb of lean body mass seems to be a sufficient number), which isn't really all that hard to get from regular old high protein food. There's no good reason to infuse it in everything. I've been lifting for many years now, and have not noticed a difference from when I used to follow the old 1g/lb of body weight rule. source: https://mennohenselmans.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/
•
Wasn't that always bro science ? From what I remember when I looked into it most people couldn't digest more than approximately 1.7g of protein for every kg of body weight. At the very upper end. And that's just digestion - not even actual use - and it had to be spread out across the day.
•
0.82g/lb is a lot of protein. That's basically what what bro science was saying for years (2g per kg) and it's not easy to hit if you count quality protein that's bioavailable so I don't know what the point is here. For averge Joe to hit 0.82g/lb he would need to eat 600g of lean beef every day. Or 33 eggs. ... also Menno Henselmans while he does a lot of great work that outweights everything he posts tons pseudo-scientific where's often clear he just did a basic Google Scholar search. Plus he seems too eaeger to "debunk" but often barely even understands deficiencies of many of the studies he references. A lot of people take his website for some holy grail of "scientific bodybuilding" because he's trying too hard to market it that way and he's been wrong many times and built arguments on foundations he barely understands. Examine.com for example has different figures and it's a website where studies are reviewed by actual PHDs and graded by their strength not just simple Google Scholar search. https://examine.com/guides/protein-intake/
•
600g of lean beef is how much protein ?
•
about 150g
•
At 0.82g/lb and assuming 20% body-fat doesn’t that mean average joe is weighing almost 230lbs? That seems high
In the imperial vs metric conversation, the protein debate has my favorite use of units: 1 gram per pound.
•
It's very mnemonic though and typical of the units for the respective components in the US.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but 1kg of whey protein on Amazon seems to cost around £20, which is roughly what I remember it costing back when I used to use it 7 or 8 years ago.
•
That's because the raw material is only ~10% of the retail price. According to EU data, commodity prices for sweet whey powder in the EU are about 1.6 € per kg. https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/413a6600-3082-4a9a-82a0-b9f6048b5449_en?filename=eu-dairy-commodity-prices_en.pdf
The next wave will be "fiber-maxxing", with the increased rate of colon cancer in millenials and gen z. Seriously guys, get your fiber intake.
•
Not the worst trend, but especially comical since so much of food processing is about removing fiber to make foods faster to eat and less satiating.
•
That was last wave. Personally, I’m wary of products with added fiber, but always choose whole wheat or whole grain. If needed, you can supplement with psyllium.
Are there studies showing the increased cancer rate is caused (or at least correlated with) reduced fiber intake? Or is this just a guess of yours?
•
I can't find it specifically, but I do remember studies of the Hadza tribe and their lower incidents of cancer. Just something I randomly found in a search. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4654
> There’s an enormous amount of data on this topic. FWIW, the evidence demonstrating that fibre is protective against colon cancer is limited, and when studies try to adjust for behavioural differences, the colon cancer reduction disappears. Actual RCTs that randomly assigned subjects found no difference in polyp rates between high and low fibre diets. For decades it was indeed widely observed that the people who ate a lot of fibre tended to have a lower incident rate. But the sort of person who has a high fibre diet almost always has a lot of other protective habits and norms: They're less likely to smoke, less likely to drink to excess, they tend to eat less red meat, they eat less sugar and UPFs, and so on. As is often the case, these habits don't tend to happen in isolation, and this is where observational studies fail. So if you take someone with a lot of bad habits and supplement fibre, they'll have better cholesterol control, glycemic benefits, and of course regularity benefits, but it won't measurably move the needle on colon cancer rates. This is all just conversational, but the current consensus is that fibre, or lack thereof, is not a contributor behind the rise in colon cancer among younger subjects. There are many suspected causes, all moving the needle enough that incidence rates jump.
•
Thanks!
Let me know how it goes, I have a home sensor I'm married to for that (and she is very loud with alerts)
•
The sensor she likely uses is only good in the hundreds of ppm. Fortunately the LFL for methane is roughly 50,000 ppm so there’s no need to give up smoking when a bout of methane-heavy flatulence occurs.
My LDL numbers beg to differ.
•
Please expand on this. Cholesterol is a useful biomarker, but lower cholesterol could be worse. Cholesterol is used to repair the body. If your cholesterol is lower because you've inhibited your ability to produce it (malnutrition or by taking statins), that's bad. If your cholesterol is lower because your inflammation is lower and fewer repairs are needed, that's good. There are also two forms of LDL, one is harmless and the other is oxidized. If you're feeling good, looking healthy and your body does what you need it to then I'd have to agree that whatever you're doing is working for you, numbers or theory be damned. I know people are big on the whole fiber fad, but the bulk of benefits which come from eating more fiber are from eating fewer calories. If you're eating high fiber you physically cannot shovel as many calories into your belly. It is a viable strategy since most americans eat way too much every day, but fiber simply isn't essential to health or weight loss. If you like, explain to me a theory on why fiber is somehow essential.
that "fiber" is chemically modified resistant starch the FDA allows it to be called fiber, but it acts differently in the body to the soluble and insoluble fiber that most people are familiar with IMO, it's a mistake to treat fiber as a single, fungible food component, rather than as a family of different substances with different health effects if you're looking for "easy fiber intake", there is much more and stronger evidence for psyllium-based soluble fiber, widely available in cheap and convenient drinks like metamucil (I prefer formulations without the dye and maltodextrin, but that's getting into the weeds)
•
Metamucil (and it's unbranded brethren) are decidely un-cheap
Men around 40g per day, it's like 2 pounds of a balanced mix of legumes, beans, vegetables, whole grains and fruits.
•
I’ve mostly seen the 14g of fiber per 1000 calories recommendation. It is a lot compared to what most people take, but it’s not hard. Banana, orange, some broccoli, and you are close. Lentils, beans (lupini is great because it also has protein) here and there, oats, an extra fruit (pear is nice), berries, avocado, so many options. But you need to be conscious. Most people need less starch and sugar and fat. I poop 2-4 times a day. I know some people have a real problem going to the bathroom once a day… just eat more fiber folks.
Bitwarden Dual License Model (community.bitwarden.com)
•
As a loyal Bitwarden user, I think this is great news. I love that Bitwarden exists, but as an "open source" project, it's always been a trad-corporate type code maintenance, rather than community-driven source contributions (exactly why we've seen things like Vaultwarden pop up) & that has generally just left all of their clients in that really awkward space where they're just good enough to be able to imagine their potential, but their maintenance is stagnant enough to ensure they'll never reach it. Imo the community needs this kick to motivate the development of alt vaultwarden clients. Bitwarden gives us a great starting point but we need to break away.
What we really need is an alternative to capitalism
•
There are many alternatives.
Writing password down on paper and keeping them in your wallet. Seriously. About as secure, if you're honest about the actual threat model (vs one security aficionados would like you to assume), and paper can't be enshittified.
•
Bruce Schneier [1] thinks it’s a good idea [2] too. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Schneier [2]: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/06/write_down_your.html
That's funny, Bitwarden and Namecheap are the two things I've migrated away from as well. The switch to Vaultwarden was insanely easy.
•
And gandi.net.
•
Just curious, why Namecheap?
Proton Pass cannot be self-hosted.
•
But passwordstore.org can. No reason to use anything more complicated.
Unikernels were hard. key word: were (ghuntley.com)
•
I was thinking that we don't need programs to share CPUs anymore now that each machine has so many of them. We could have an OS which binds each program to one CPU. When it runs out of CPUs, it suggests to close an existing program. Then programs don't need to pay context-switching cost.
•
I've had limited adventures in embedded software and as part of that became a fan of Zephyr ( http://www.zephyrproject.org ) and wonder about its potential application as a unikernel. On the plus side: it's a unikernel. You compile it and your application together and get a binary. It has support for running on virtual hardware ( https://docs.zephyrproject.org/latest/hardware/virtualization/virtio.html ) and virtio is the new bios, right? On the minus side: I think porting "traditional" software - say Nginx - to it will be agonising. And I can't make any guarantees about its performance in the same way that Alpine Linux container images are not necessarily fast. But there's an entire toolchain, debugging story, drivers etc. for something that compiles to tiny and starts up basically instantaneously. Surely that's got to be useful for something?
As mentioned before on this topic. What about debug ability? An application overflow now corrupts part of the network stack. In an oxide episode there were some mentions of reading off data lines but I just don’t think that’s practical. The reduced attack service is cool but not at the expense of my visibility and liveness of the system
•
this question always comes up. I personally think the status quo is pretty weak here. I have certainly added a gdb stub to a unikernel before, but that apparently given that it was never used it wasn't the right answer. people always talk about losing the excellent debugging facilities that linux gives you. if a service crashes in a big cloud environment what is that you do now that works so well. do you think its intractable to implement that in a single-process kernel?
I’m completely ignorant about this and likely just missing the point but: isn’t the point of an OS to not have to (vibe)code filesystems and networking by hand every time you need them? Also, how does a unikernel cooperate with other applications? Would they all live in separate networked unikernels managed by a hypervisor? And, if they all (vibe)coded their own fs and network wouldn’t that introduce subtle bugs and inconsistencies that would eventually bring the whole thing down and lead you back to the need for shared primitives in the first place? Maybe a good halfway point is to still have a unikernel but the libraries for common stuff like networking or fs are already written according to a standard and plug and play and reusable across applications?
•
I guess the others have made these points, but since unikernels run in VMs with virtual hardware, I guess a virtual ethernet card can have an interface that's easy to program for, making the driver trivial. You're not talking to real hardware in any case. Similarly, a filesystem's just a data structure that happens to be on disc. You can mmap your harddrive and let the host hypervisor handle swap, preemption etc. It's similar to a process contract, but with slightly different boundaries
> running on hypervisor direct against the virtualized hardware. Well, here is your actual OS then. You named it "hypervisor", and changed the system interface, but it's still there, revirtualizing the access to hardware and ensuring separation of different users/applications/unikernels.
•
This isn't too dissimilar to DOS programs. DOS also gave you a filesystem, memory management, a shell a process loder, driver interface, but it was all in real mode, and you were free to replace these components with your own as you pleased. Or if you're more familiar with embedded, like a BSP or RTOS
 Top