Many years ago my wife fell down the stairs and suffered, what turned out to be, a broken fragment of bone that poked into a nerve. It took quite awhile to diagnose it because <medicine is hard>. Along that journey to diagnosis she was almost bedridden, and in excruciating pain, most of the time with with physio, chiropractors, muscle treatments, nerve pain meds, etc, all failing to help her function. The opioids she was prescribed made it so she could function. She was high, "dreamy" (for lack of a better word), reported still feeling the pain, but could function. The day after the neurosurgeon performed her spine surgery she voluntarily stopped the opioids and finished her healing from the procedure with ibuprofen. She never looked back and described never feeling an urge to take the meds again. I wish I could say that this experience gave us some great insight into the complexity of opioids but it didn't. In her case they did their job until she didn't need them anymore and that was that. I don't read anything more into it then that.
From the article: In an argument that appeared to flabbergast a small claims adjudicator in British Columbia, the airline attempted to distance itself from its own chatbot's bad advice by claiming the online tool was "a separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions."
If you don't drink a lot of wine in one sitting and have bottles that have been opened, corks seem to average out to being better for re-sealing the bottle -- specifically if you're placing them horizontally, like in a wine cooler. I've found screw caps frequently tend to leak, even over a single evening. Even with the hole from the corkscrew, the cork tends to reseal better from my experience.
With that said, I am talking about actual cork and not the plastic versions; Those will seep just as bad as screw caps.
If you like wine and don't kill bottles in one sitting, I think the preferred resealing option are those rubber stoppers held in place by vacuum. Probably regardless of original packaging.
I try to avoid having bottles sit around opened, so generally when we open one, the idea is to finish it in a day or two. The vacuum stoppers are good, but honestly, it's so much simpler to just stick the original wooden cork back in, give it a good slap to make sure it's in there, and put the bottle back in the cooler until the next evening.
If I was storing opened bottles for longer than a day or two, I'd probably make heavier use of the vacuum stoppers, but I'm in that midpoint of the spectrum where I neither need the fancy tools, but still need something more than the cheap solution.
Vinophiles are now considered 'hipsters'? Is there any less hipster crowd than uber-wealthy wine collectors, a hobby dating back generations, if not centuries?
Screw caps are superior anyway. A better seal, easier to open, easier to reseal. It's good to see some reasonably good wines adopting screw tops in spite of tradition/inertia.
They are not superior. Convenient in certain circumstances, perhaps.
For example if one cannot be bothered to use, or does not have a corkscrew handy, a screw cap might be preferred for some.
I know it is difficult for most Modern Americans to use a corkscrew. Even more difficult is being able to appreciate the complexities and effort that goes into making good, traditional wine. Best to do away with tradition for the sake of convenience.
Once opened, they do not reseal as well as real cork.
This isn't a huge deal, because a separate tool made specifically for resealing wine bottles is better than either. But if you don't drink a whole bottle of wine at once, and you don't have such a tool, cork reseals better.
PFAS are a specific family of chemicals unsuitable for this application.
No significant amount of microplastics is likely to develop from the mild abrasion of opening and closing a wine bottle a handful of times. And if your risk tolerance is so low that you are worried about that largely theoretical concern, you probably should not be drinking wine at all (because we have quite concrete evidence that alcohol is unhealthy -- unlike microplastics).
I would be (much) more worried about chunks of plastic getting in my wine from those fake cork products than from screw tops.
Interesting prompts! IME the quality of the answers the users give to the ChatGPT questions in these prompts will make or break the experience.
I played around with this use case in the spring when my teenage daughter was looking for extra test prep materials. At first the experience was interesting but there was an "AI uncanny valley" shaped problem: the material just didn't seem to fit. It felt wrong.
This uncanny valley was significantly reduced, even eliminated in some instances, by including the entirety of our school district's online material about the course; information about the core competencies (across communication, thinking, personal & societal), the big ideas, the curricular competency & content about the learning standards. Our district has a pretty good website with all of this information laid out for each course and grade level.
Including all of this information in the prompt context resulted in relevant and harmonious content when asking to generate course outlines, student study-prep handouts, and even sample study session pre-tests (although ChatGPT wasn't strong at reliably creating answer sheets for the pre-tests).
An interesting trick I found here was to ask ChatGPT to produce tables of concept definitions and include a metaphor for each concept to help understanding. It was quite good at coming up with metaphors and that actually felt kind of magical.
I thought so too, and thought that removing the sites from Google Search was a bit bullyish, but it looks like the bill specifically targets links in (2)(b).
"Making available of news content
(2) For the purposes of this Act, news content is made available if
(a) the news content, or any portion of it, is reproduced; or
(b) access to the news content, or any portion of it, is facilitated by any means, including an index, aggregation or ranking of news content."
> the news content, or any portion of it, is reproduced
Do they define "portion" in more detail anywhere else? Otherwise, it's sounds like it's saying that using a single word that's contained by any news article means that "news content is made available", which is obviously absurd.
No, it only applies to specifically regulated "digital news intermediaries" who are selected for regulation according to the criteria:
Application
6 This Act applies in respect of a digital news intermediary if, having regard to the following factors, there is a significant bargaining power imbalance between its operator and news businesses:
(a) the size of the intermediary or the operator;
(b) whether the market for the intermediary gives the operator a strategic advantage over news businesses; and
(c) whether the intermediary occupies a prominent market position.
So it would be up to the CRTC to decide whether or not to put HN on the list of "digital news intermediaries" by applying the above 3-part test. Given that HN is a (relatively) small forum, compared to Google or Facebook, it's unlikely for that to happen.
The law tries to sort of sidestep this issue by just upfront saying that it only applies if you have a "significant bargaining power imbalance" over the news companies you're displaying.
Basically it only applies against you if you're big/important enough. I assume in practice this means Google, Facebook, Twitter, Bing, Apple, and probably some others. Reddit, I suppose.
Essentially if the news orgs have the ability to cancel you, you don't apply. Considering the amount of funding the news orgs in Canada take from the government, seems like the government just wants a better stick.
Apple and Microsoft generally get their pay from licensing fees rather than advertising fees and are therefore not in competition with news media companies. Reddit has generally been a fairly niche player, although if things change it might get covered. I don't know whether Twitter is as important as people have said it is, or if it is niche: it seems both Canada and a few years ago Australia both decided it was niche. And if anything, I gather than Elon Musk's purchase has made it less dependent on its limited advertising revenue and more dependent on subscriptions etc; if so it is even less in competition with news media organisations today than it was when Australia reviewed it.
Remember that even though people misleadingly call Google and Facebook tech companies, they are in fact advertising companies; and although people speak of news companies, they have generally seen news, opinion and analysis as tools for connecting eyeballs to advertising i.e. they're effectively advertising companies. This bill is about the direct competition between the two kinds of advertising companies - traditional, ~domestic companies with close and personal ties to the people who govern vs new, foreign companies who don't have such essential ties to politicians as journalists do.
If it were literally just about the provision of news, then Canada and Australia fund the CBC/RC and the ABC/SBS so why would they be so fussed? There are people who today make a living from podcasts and substacks who could not make money from traditional advertising/media companies. News would be provided.
(In fact, just to bring the point home, the original version of Australia's equivalent bill didn't allow the ABC and SBS to participate, because as government-funded media organisations they didn't suffer from the transition of advertising from news-sponsoring to tech-sponsoring in the same way as private companies.)
> Rust was used primarily because a couple of the founders of the company were Rust experts
It's remarkable how significantly the first few months of a project impact the first few years of a company. How quickly casual & spontaneous decisions, largely based on convenience and familiarity, ossify into legacy drag.
My wife actually asked this of some professionals working in this space yesterday at a local awareness event (she works in community services, unrelated to drug policy). The answer (paraphrased) was it doesn't directly stop the poisonings. It's in the spirit of harm reduction to open up more support channels. One example given was about going to the hospital and honesty with health professionals. Currently there's disincentives for an addict to disclose their addiction due to legal actions that get triggered upon disclosure. Removing those legal triggers could (would?) allow for more supervision without legal consequence to hopefully reduce the overall harm. It gave us something to chat about.
I don't know if the federal government plays a role here, but the duty to report type laws for professionals are typically at a provincial level. That being said, as far as I know, they are fairly consistent across provinces.
One example provided, which I've not fact-checked and might be limited to BC, was that disclosing addiction during a hospital visit opens up a file with child welfare services.
FWIW since I started referring to this as poisonings (instead of overdoses) I've found folks to be much more amenable to conversation. Nobody likes the idea of the wicked poisoning the vulnerable.
How do folks respond when they find out many addicts clearly choose to take the "poison" for more complex highs? despite knowing the risk, despite cheaper priced "non-poison" offerings.
The dosage makes it poison, so it is an overdose if a properdose was sort and personally misjudged.
With nuance, I guess? Depends on the conversation.
I'd say that there's more agreement than disagreement. Here 70% of the overdoses are related to drugs cut with unpredictable levels of fentanyl. I'd say I've seen consensus on that being a "bad thing(tm)", and consensus that the criminals cutting street drugs with fentanyl are "bad guys(tm)".
I guess to your point about junkies making bad decisions, my peer group skews older, we've already said everything we can say about junkies making bad decisions 30+ years ago. It's true, but it makes for stale conversation and seems kind of orthogonal to, or at least adjacent to, the current fentanyl situation.
It depends! FWIW the spots I've used event patterns most often are high write loads that benefit either from fan-in micro-batching before hitting the data stores or polyglot systems where a client/system event need to fan-out to multiple systems and we want to insulate the producer from downstream latency/outages.
