It is funny how they link out to Salesforce's Trailhead site. Personally, I think it's a cute site for learning, but have also recently come to realize how sometimes it used to have a lot of political content too. One example I can think of is they used to have lessons related to the Fourth Industrial Revolution popularized by Klaus Schwab. At some point, they retired those lessons. My guess is they were retired around the same time that Schwab had some controversial allegations surrounding him.
Something similar happened in the 1988 President Election in Mexico which is widely considered to have been stolen. There was a very memeable phrase, “se cayó el sistema” which was used to describe how the computing system to count votes was glitching out or failing.
So censoring falsehoods is good, and censoring truth is bad, and you're the one who decides which is which, and you like such censorship working your way. And when censorship you'd just liked so much starts to be used against you, you start to whine. Millenia old story of a deal with devil.
And by the way the covid "fact checking" wasn't based on "truth", it was at political request of White House as Zuck later said, and he did later called the FB fact checking a censorship when disbanding it.
On all matters reality decides which is which. None of us have a psychic link to God (anyone who thinks he does, does not, and should be institutionalised), but there are many good heuristics for what is true, and we do not have to abandon the concept of truth.
One of many, and one of the best. Unless you performed the scientific method yourself or closely watched someone perform it, it's not available to you and you have to use another. A truthful-seeming report of someone else performing it is pretty far up the ladder, until the enemies learn to write false experiment reports indistinguishable from real ones.
Not all fields of study are amenable to the scientific method, and lesser scientific methods are the best possible. We can't duplicate earth and flood one with CO2. We have to reach farther down the heuristic ladder, like studying two glass bottles, one filled with CO2. This can be extrapolated to calculate what a planet filled with CO2 would do, but the maths required is much less accessible.
That's a bit reductive I think, there's at least deductive reasoning (mathematics, logics, analytics), hermeneutics (understanding meaning in human communication), and phenomenology (understanding human experience through first person accounts). If we want to do a study on the impact of compliments by strangers on self-worth, a combination of all of these techniques of knowledge generation would be needed.
99% of climate scientists: human-triggered climate change is real
1% of climate scientists: climate change is probably just something that happens and we can't do anything about it
Legacy media: it's important that we give equal time to both sides of this argument.
Social media: climate change is a lie and you can tell because 99% of climate scientists all agree that it's real! That's how you know it's a conspiracy! You can't trust the institution! Also buy these supplements, they cure covid and cancer and chemtrails!
if a man's career and income depends on the science coming out a certain way, you can be sure that's how the science will come out. "scientific method" is not a magic shield
Disclaimer: i'm far from an anti-vaxxer and i have a scientific background (though not in biology).
It's often hard to establish scientific consensus. When it's not hard, it can take a long time. Cases such as climate change are as easy as it gets: models are always a flawed approximation for reality, but denying climate change on a scientific basis is almost impossible nowadays because we have too much data and too many converging studies.
About a century ago, the "scientific" consensus in the western world was that there were different human races with very different characteristics, and phrenology was considered a science.
The question of who establishes the ground truth, and who checks the checkers still stands. Science advances by asking sometimes inconvenient, sometimes outright weird questions. And sometimes the answers provided are plain wrong (but not for obvious reasons or malice), which is why reproducibility is so important.
I don't think any entity should have the power to prevent people from questioning the status quo. Especially since censorship feeds into the mindset of the conspiracy theorists and their real truth that "THEY" don't want you to see.
There’s a difference between questioning the status quo and spreading obvious misinformation. Did the vaccine save lives? Yes. Did misinformation about the vaccine cost lives? Yes it did.
For sure, in retrospect. At the time, Pfizer representatives in front of the EU parliament would not testify that their vaccines actually worked. And there are laws to requisition supplies and strip medical patents as public health measures.
The fact that so much money was given to private corporations, in secret deals outside any legal proceedings, on unproven products, all while censoring any critics, really gave the conspiracy theorists water for their mill.
I believe they would have had a much harder time spreading their misinformation, if they couldn't have the street cred of having "the system" against them. That is, if we had the voice of doctors vs random loonies, instead of our respective corrupt governments vs anyone they're trying to censor.
The overwhelming consensus of both the scientific community and the medical community was clear as crystal, and in retrospect, correct. There were plenty of doctors speaking up; there was only one side of this argument that was too busy throwing paint at ER nurses to listen.
>Pfizer representatives in front of the EU parliament would not testify that their vaccines actually worked.
It's typical for people in science and related fields to use carefully chosen wording, to hedge, and to speak in terms of probabilities instead of certainties.
For a general public who is used to the unashamed and unearned confidence of the usual people who get in front of a camera (politicians, celebrities, pundits) this can make it appear as though the scientific position is one with a less solid foundation, when it's usually the opposite case.
Scientific communication has been focused on insiders for so long that many communicators don't realise how it sounds to the outside world. Even the fundamental terminology is affected - a scientific theory is an overarching explanation that combines multiple pieces of evidence and creates the best synthesis we can on a topic, but to a layperson the word theory means "vague idea".
and you are the one to decide that this science we should ignore, and instead we declare as the truth the lies that these lying through their teeth bastards are telling. You do like the "gold standard of science", RFK Junior and Trump edition, don't you? The same censorship as you like.
Btw, how many top world infectious diseases scientists were among FB “fact checkers”?
Zuck is opposed to any sort of regulation of misinformation and lies because that sort of content drives engagement and that's what makes him money. If people on social media weren't allowed to post outright falsehoods then the entire right-wing rage machine would collapse in on itself and social media companies' KPIs would tank.
Not sure why this is getting down voted.
I remember how masks were proclaimed to be ineffective. I remember how masks were suddenly effective, but only available for medical personnel. Then when masks were available for everyone, they became mandated.
This is what I was thinking about too. I thought that "Active" sitting was going to be something about making sure you're not slouching, but rather adjusting yourself every so often to make sure you're sitting up straight instead of slouching off the chair.
That's a great tip, but I know some people hate that because there is some cognitive load if they rely more on visuals and have to think more about which way to turn or face when they first start the route, or have to make turns on unfamiliar routes.
I also wanted to mention that just spending some time looking at the maps and comparing differences in each services' suggested routes can be helpful for developing direction awareness of a place. I think this is analogous to not locking yourself into a particular LLM.
Lastly, I know that some apps might have an option to give you only alerts (traffic, weather, hazards) during your usual commute so that you're not relying on turn-by-turn instructions. I think this is interesting because I had heard that many years ago, Microsoft was making something called "Microsoft Soundscape" to help visually impaired users develop directional awareness.
It is hard to gain some location awareness and get better at navigating without extra cognitive load. You have to actively train your brain to get better, there is no easy way that I know of.
Maybe it’s because I don’t consider myself a super technical person, but I find it so hard to parse the title of this blog post. When I first read it, I thought it was saying something like, “The protocol is not insecure, and the reason is that it lacks a NAT”. However, after reading the blog post, it seems like it is intending a different meaning. The meaning I think is, “the protocol is not insecure just because it lacks NAT”.
Defence in depth is a valid security approach, and NAT provides another defence in depth
If you have a vulnerable ipv4 machine on 192.168.0.24 port 2345 which is hidden behind a public IP of 1.2.3.4, and you set your firewall rule to allow any inbound traffic, with no nat rules then it will be exceedingly difficult for a remote attacker to reach that vulnerable port (they have to trick your router's connection table into routing it)
If the same machine is on 2100:1234:5678:a::24 then that port is exposed.
Now sure your firewall could block the traffic, and that's great. But having multiple layers of active configuration to allow the traffic through is more secure than having a single layer as it means you need to screw up twice.
Worse than that with dual stack you may think you have set your firewall to block non-established connections at the ipv4 stage, but your device is sat there on an open ipv6 address you didn't even consider. Dual stack is certainly less secure than single stack as there are two opportunities to screw up.
It’s the same layer. On router admin panels it’s literally the same UI for firewall rules and nat port forwarding. If you went in to your router admin and allowed all ports on v4 it would be exactly the same as allowing all on v6. The router will happily forward all connections to v4 devices the same.
> If you went in to your router admin and allowed all ports on v4 it would be exactly the same as allowing all on v6. The router will happily forward all connections to v4 devices the same.
Forward to where?
You have to actively say "forward port 80 to 192.168.0.2". Port 80 can't be forwarded to 192.168.0.2 and 192.168.0.3.
Where allowing all traffic means you can talk to 2100:xxx::192.168.0.2 and 2100:xxx::192.168.0.3
Yes, you can't expose multiple computers at the same time on v4, but you certainly can expose one, in exactly the same UI you exposed v6. And then that one you exposed has full access to the local network beyond the firewall to expose the rest.
The argument seems silly almost like "I deliberately shot myself in the foot, but with v4 I could only shoot one foot at a time while v6 lets me shoot both". The answer is to just not shoot yourself in the foot, since you have to make a deliberate effort to do this in the first place, just not doing that is the answer.
Most of the island is off-limits to tourists. It's administered by the National Park Service.
Coyotes are territorial and usually have fairly large ranges. Alcatraz is small, but probably big enough to keep a breeding coyote pair well-fed and mostly out of the way of humans.
But the younguns will need their own territory after a year or so, and needing to cross the Bay to Marin or SF City would be have very low rates of success!
This is really cool! The clock on your page reminded me too of some sites that show a "real solar" time based on your location where solar noon corresponds to 12:00 PM.
Right. My theories and hunches to support this that got jumbled up due to AI slop, were that syncing to the sun over a “9-5” or “8 hours of sleep” would improve and align our health better than any scientific system would. The sun is the enabler of science in a weird way.
Like there’s culture that have a siesta at solar noon and it’s a time to rest: that means the sun’s noon time not our arbitrary time or 12pm every single day. Lunch annd exercise could also follow for productivity gains to happen at particular times of day.
You reminded me of some riddle I had once read that was about trying to figure out how someone could be born one year later but still be older than someone born in previous year. The answer to the riddle also relies on timezones. For sure, birthdates involve time zones.
The riddle explanation was something like: A baby is born in New York City at 12:15 AM on January 1. Thirty minutes later, another baby is born in Los Angeles, where the local time is 9:45 PM on December 31. Although the New York baby is actually older by 30 minutes, the calendar dates make it appear as though the Los Angeles baby was born first.
The other biggest fun trick of timezone math to a riddle like that would be the International Date line where a baby born on one side of it can be born on the "day before" by calendar reckoning despite being born 30 minutes after the other side of the line.
Fraternal (not identical) twins, born aboard a ship traveling west to east across the Pacific. One of them officially born January 1st, 2016. The younger-by-30-minutes twin officially born December 31st, 2015. They'll have the hardest time persuading people that they're really twins once they're grown up.
Yes, and if you ask any midwife, OB/GYN, or other person who routinely delivers babies, I'm sure you'll hear about plenty of born-on-different-days twins. One of my in-laws is a doctor who delivers babies; she has lots of stories, some of which she's restricted by HIPAA from sharing. But once a baby is born, the baby's birth date is public knowledge so she can share that info. So she often will tell her husband, "My patient is going into labor, I have to go to the hospital" without naming the patient. Then after the baby is born she'll say "Mrs. Smith's baby was born at 11 PM last night" because now it's a matter of public record who the mother was, whereas before it was protected by HIPAA. Next time I talk to her, I'll ask her if she's ever personally delivered any twins with different birthdays.
The timezones thing, of course, is just a way to have the younger twin be born "a year ahead" of the older twin by having their births be in two different timezones. Only practical way that would happen would be aboard a ship, because 1) babies born aboard an airplane would probably end up using the time zone of departure or of destination for their birth, and so twins would not be counted as being born in different time zones. And 2) any land-based transportation such as a car or a train would likely pull over (or in the case of a train, let the pregnant woman off at the nearest station) so that the woman giving birth doesn't have to do so in a moving vehicle. So a ship is the only moving vehicle where this kind of thing could likely happen, as there's no option of getting off in the middle of the ocean. It could happen while crossing time zones east-to-west, but crossing the International Date Line west-to-east makes more of an interesting thought experiment.
Yes, I've given this silly joke scenario way more thought than it really deserves. :-)
Yes, it's the same, the IDL just makes it easier for it to work, as otherwise the babies have to be born on either side of midnight while crossing the time zone line. With the IDL the birth time could be almost any time of day except for crossing over midnight and the joke would work.
Well in the U.S., a majority of households are invested in the stock market via 401(k)’s. When their investments do well, the average Joe will give the incumbent president the credit.
Some people prefer to believe the media they consume over their lived reality.
My parents fall into this trap, they keep telling me things have never been so bad yet they live materially better lives than their own parents and their children.
I think that largely didn’t happen with Biden. But if it’s true then it makes divesting from US stocks a priority for countries targeted by the US administration.
reply