If your worried about acrylamides then you should not be browning any starchy foods. A lot cooking intentionally wants the Maillard reaction for flavor and texture reasons.
When it comes to seasoning carbon steel you should not be letting carbon build up. It's a bad habit. If your getting carbon build up clean it off with something coarse like salt or a metal scrubber. After that if you need to it's not hard to give a pan a quick touch up seasoning with oil. Carbon steel is much quick to touch up season than something like cast iron. Cast irons rough sand cast surface means you generally need a much much thicker seasoning layer.
You also should still clean the pan too! Modern dish washing detergents are generally not made from lye so won't strip your seasoning.
Wish I'd thought of that; I spent a couple hours at it using an orbital sander, up to 320 grit. No regrets though, that pan is easily my favorite piece of cook ware.
Acrylimides do not apear to be likely to acumulate on iron cookware, and types that may be formed in food, are not concidered probimatic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamides
Even with that link I have trouble believing it myself.
Like how was this data/survey gathered/administrated? Sample size ect...
Also I don't understand how sports seem to get so much attention. Like they are just games why?
Another post I was reading a bit ago was how Spain what basically suffering internet outages to stop pirate streams of games on the weekend: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45323856
Like why is a game considered so important that even internet traffic has to suffer. It boggles my mind.
> Like why is a game considered so important that even internet traffic has to suffer. It boggles my mind.
Because that game makes 1.8 billion dollars a year in TV licensing rights [1], and pirates undercut the pay-TV stations' ability to recoup these expenses.
Add in a ... questionable legal system, club and league presidents with friends with very very deep pockets, cloud providers that don't care what they host as long as the legal system of their host country absolves them of liabilities and that's how you get inane rulings like this.
I would say part of it is that ARM never really had wide spread socketed chips. It's pretty much just always a soldered highly integrated unit.
Go go back far enough you had a point in time for example you could swap an Intel or AMD cpu onto the same motherboard. Also using expansion cards for additional hardware capability was the norm. So software kinda evolved to handle disparate configurations of hardware.
ARM evolved differently. It end up being to be used more in embeded and then SoC systems. Hardware around the CPU and later on Die ended up with often a unique configure for the system/device. So the need to handle disparate hardware configurations was less important. Also the way ARM licenses their IP definitely pushed things to be more like this.
RISC-V atm is often being used in place of ARM so a lot entities are kinda are treating similar to ARM when developing a system/device. However, RISC-V since it's an open license on the ISA does not have to be used in similar way. Like imagine if there was some standardized socket for RISC-V chips and that took off, we would probably see things like UEFI and drivers/kernel drivers meant to work with more than just one single configuration of hardware ect...
Okay, but as the owner then I should at the very least be allowed to load my own signing keys for the boot-rom to load other software. Like what if I want to run/port linux to the device. A locked down boot-loader deprives me of full enjoyment of the use of my tangible property.
...but we're conspicuously not implementing that feature. So take it, leave it, or build your own phone.
By the way, if you do go down the route of building your own phone, pedophiles, drug dealers, and terrorists will use it, and you're now on the hook to do something about it.
That silly pedophile point is getting old. Most victims of pedophiles are part of their own family or social circles. In a majority of cases no phone or even the internet is involved to commit the crime.
We could ban the internet completely and minors wouldn't be any safer.
No they're not. Please cite a single source of this happening.
There were unofficial statements made by third party android news sites that Catalan police claimed that "Every time we see a Google Pixel, we think it could be a drug dealer"... which, while obviously wrong on its own, is completely different than claiming they are actually arresting people on suspicion of drug dealing merely by using GrapheneOS.
The owner of a device should have the final say. The way a lot of this is set up basically deprives the owner of one of their core property rights, in particular the right of exclusion. Instead, in many systems the decision about what software to include or exclude is made cryptographically by a third party rather than by the device’s owner. I don’t think we should support limiting people’s property rights for “safety” or other reasons. iOS is probably one the worst in this regard and it sad to see android moving more and more towards this direction.
I have posted multiple times before that this effectively limits people’s property rights. Here are some other posts I have made on the subject:
There are two reasons to install an app: I personally want to install it or a powerful third party will bring down a wildly disproportionate punishment if I don’t. Nowadays the vast majority of app installs are in the second category, and in this category, being able to make it common knowledge that I physically can’t install your (parking app / apartment app / course selection app /banking app) as root with unlimited privileges even if you (tow my car / evict me / expell me / close my bank account) is super valuable. This value skyrockets further if a large section of the population has this same inability to root themselves, which apple coordinates. This is why people buy apple! ask anyone who buys an iphone for grandma. I would be quite pissed off if the government steps in and takes away this coordination mechanism.
Your coordination mechanism is to just to rely on the good will of a single company. How long do you expect it to last before apple starts cooperating with invasive parking apps, banking apps, etc?
It is a little rough. On reflection, the scenario when apple would sell you a locked down phone and google would sell you a side-loadable phone was ideal- the locked down phone was in my opinion better for phone tasks, but apple couldn’t abuse that too much or I’d just switch to android. A scenario where everyone is selling locked phones could remove that necessary check.
What I am saying is the way the cryptography is implemented on locked devices such as iPhone your property rights are being trampled upon via cryptography. By using cryptography, the manufacturer reserves for itself; rather than the owner; the fundamental right to exclude or include what software can run on the CPU, even after the hardware is sold. The cryptography is not a legal agreement either like a lease/loan ect... So this being done via extra-legal means.
For example, let’s say you buy an iDevice and do not even intend to run iOS, but instead want to install/port Linux, or run some bare-metal code. You would have to ask apple to sign that code with their private key, which they won't do. The problem is a sale should have transferred all rights of property rights to you as part of the sale. The clue is you have to ask a third party to even hope to do this points to the fact your being limited on the full enjoyment of your property rights. This cryptography is not a contract or legal instrument either and you don't even have to agree to anything for it to be in effect. You could buy the device and have no intention to use the preinstalled software, and it's in effect before you even open the box.
The problem is the right of exclusion is very important, and can even derive most other property rights for example this paper "Property and the Right to Exclude" [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33139498.pdf]. The fact such an important property right is being blatantly impeded is the problem.
> I have posted multiple times before that this effectively limits people’s property rights. Here are some other posts I have made on the subject:
This is crazy long and not directly about the iPhone, but this is the most comprehensive explaination I've heard of why your plea will probably never be heard:
Graph like coding environments like this are a form of code though, so I can definitely see the argument that they just are hosting the users bot for them.
