Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | rustyhancock's commentslogin

For now all one can say is transmission is assumed to be dramatically reduced.

The bigger risk is likely that in some the suppression is temporary or transient flares of replication under some circumstances.

The other question is, does this avoid all the sequela of HBV. It seems to reduce risk of cirrhosis atleast.

For hiv, it took many decades to be able to make the clam undetectable = untransmittable using serodiscordant couple studies.


Ikeas instructions are such an oddity.

It feels like there is precisely enough information to deduce each step. But only just enough miss one clue and you have something on upside down on step 7 that you won't notice until step 37.

I feel whoever makes them could probably make a wicked NY Times Crossword puzzle.


IKEA instructions are the best in the industry - so imagine what the other companies are giving out.

They’re also actually good if you know to follow them exactly: double check every side, every hole, every screw and you won’t go wrong.


So far I’ve found several mistakes, instructions that relate to no longer available items and a couple of ambiguities.

They may be good for the flat pack industry but they are a long way from perfect.


I agree.

You don't learn or know C++ in the way you learn or know C.

You never have the total language spec in mind. Much of it you will never (and for some of it should never) come across.

The way I think of it

C is an abstraction of the machine, so thin it's nearly transparent.

C++ is an abstraction over programming paradigms, letting you pick how you think.

Everything else abstracts the machine away, replacing it with a VM, runtime, or model of its own.

The same way a good project has a clear model of the problem it should have a clear C++ pattern in use.


> C is an abstraction of the machine, so thin it's nearly transparent.

-Werror might help with that


> C is an abstraction of the machine, so thin it's nearly transparent.

Looks like someone fell for the C abstract machine trap yet again. No, C is isn’t an abstraction of the machine.


C Is Not a Low-level Language: Your computer is not a fast PDP-11.

https://spawn-queue.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3212477.3212479


As a corollary, all processors are C VMs, anyway.

It may not be an abstraction of a real machine. But the C abstract machine is very close to the foundational idea of how a computer work. And it’s quite easy to bootstrap.

Importantly my work involves me often being able to look at C and think about the assembly and back and I regularly work on ESP32, ch42(riscv) and atmega avr8.

I couldn't do that with mciropython on any platform.

C is a thin abstraction, python isn't.


How much of it are C extensions not covered by the language standard?

they're technically not wrong. C is literally an "abstraction" of the machine. As we know, the whole point of an abstraction is to ignore the multitude of details :-)

Does it say what happened?

Died of sadness did make me wonder about something self inflicted.


That's always a possibility but I've seen my Grandpa die of a broken heart after my Grandma died. The night of her funeral he asked his children if they thought someone could die of a broken heart and after that it took him less than a year to go himself. I'd never considered that saying to be true until then but I watched it happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takotsubo_cardiomyopathy

"It usually appears after a significant stressor, either physical or emotional; when caused by the latter, the condition is sometimes called broken heart syndrome"


Probably happens to other social animals too.

Yes, I also took it to be a tactful-as-possible way to say that.

Same here but was curious about stats of broken heart syndrome anyhow.

I'm curious about it too.

Don't know the details, didn't read the comic, and don't really have a personal interest on the history so what follows is just general speculation. She looked depressed enough to commit suicide. Is a fact also that people that orbit around drugs, tend to die younger, by suicide or by the effects of the drugs.

In any case if two relatively young people die in a short interval of time would be wise to look for environmental effects. Oil pigments have chemicals, and some colors were removed for being notoriously unsafe. Going further, slow poisoning to eliminate opponents with the benefits of plausible deniability is trendy among some criminals unfortunately. If somebody "dies of grief", research for discarding a hidden toxic should be started, just to be safe.


That maybe the steroids I'd imagine!

And it seems very few proteins appear to be significant problems.

The most famous is the prion protein which can misfold in ways to cause a variety of contagious diseases. Like mad cow disease, chronic wasting disease, scrapie and in humans CJD and vCJD, fatal familial insomnia, Kuru, GSS.

Perhaps because misfoldings of the prion protein can convert others but why is it all affecting that same protein? Always baffled me why aren't other/many proteins suspitible to becoming a prion?

There are others we call "prionoid" because they can have shades of the catetrosphic misfolding prion can.


I know this is a crazy take. But I go feel so down trodden by many many tech corps these days I find it hard not to have a smidge of satisfaction for this guy pointing out the colossal favour research developers do for them by responsible disclosure.

That said, I feel bad for the inevitable victims of exploitation and also I am certain he will end up criminalized or as per usual the law will enforce a large corps will against him.

Yes. Definitely a Friday night after a hard week take.


Nothing crazy about it. Crazy is feeling sorry for the trillion dollar corporation. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

The right thing is immediate publication of all exploits, zero liability for the researcher who's just doing a public service and maximum liability for the corporation whose criminal negligence enabled the exploits to begin with.


Microsoft chose to run a shoddy bounty program. The researcher tried to do the right thing.

Microsoft could have prevented this. They were warned. It's their own fault.

The exploit exists whether or not the researcher reports it. They didn't make the exploit.


> They didn't make the exploit

This is important to remember, in this situation and all other 0-day disclosures. There's also no guarantee that the uses of said 0 day after disclosure are the only time its been actively exploited. The exploit was already existing, and there are plenty of three letter agencies and Israeli companies that could very well have already been aware of them.

The only place blame belongs here is on Microsoft, no where else.


> I am certain he will end up criminalized

DMCA has exemptions for "good faith" security research, whatever that means when interpreted by a judge. Outside of copyright law, not sure what Microsoft could pursue legally. The researcher is just disclosing information. CFAA doesn't apply because it's an operating system, running on their own machine there's no unauthorized access there.

They could drag Eclipse through civil lawsuits though.

But yeah, zero sympathy for Microsoft here from me. They deserve it and what's coming for them, whatever that may be. Consider it karma for their past abuses.


Unfortunately I think “good faith” goes away quick in the face of “bone shattering”


Sadly CFAA always applies, just read the letter if the law and multiply by the wide net cast by the microsoft TOS.


Naw totally agree, we need way more robust protections for security researchers and way harsher penalties for corpos doing bullshit, it should be a percentage of revenue.

We have way too much fuck around these days and not nearly enough find out.


Yes I'd happily buy one if it's quality matched the price and I'm sure in Japan it often does.

I have done some simple leather crafts, and I think the design clearly is suitable for building with rivets and full grain leather, if they do use that today then it'll be a spectacular product.


Texas Chainsaw Massacre was a flash in the pan (although the asymmetric horror genre continues basically dominated by dead by daylight).

Yet, the sheer exhilaration I felt the first time one of the "killers" walked past me as I kneeled in a bush was quite spectacular.

It's not the same as splinter cell (it's much more chaotic, you don't get to totally dominate the enemies, it definitely doesn't have that mindful quite as you systematically work your way through a level you know we' ll).

But the key, I can stand in the right spot and human can't see me really is its own kind of feeling.


I'm similar, I think perhaps it's a generational thing which slightly modified the title in a pedantic way.

The people who "grew up" with text books still crack new ones and old ones.

The current generation turning 18-21 don't.

It surprises me because I'm often asked why I knew X or Y odd perhaps esoteric fact or design pattern. Usually it's because I came across it in a book interested in something else.

It's that peripheral knowledge that is being lost when people use LLMs, and quick start guides.

Historically you'd have a team where skill, knowledge and experience was very variable but each person often brought another piece of the puzzle to a team.

Increasingly people have narrow knowledge "bases".

Does it matter? Perhaps not but it definitely has taken some of the joy of discussing problems and solutions out of my working life.


> It surprises me because I'm often asked why I knew X or Y odd perhaps esoteric fact or design pattern. Usually it's because I came across it in a book interested in something else.

It was like this in the days when the primary shortcut was StackOverflow as well. People who are allergic to RTFM treat things that are covered in the docs as "esoteric" knowledge because they never read anything except as a shortcut to solving their immediate problem.

I think the stats are clear that reading is in decline in general, though. I'm sure LLMs will add to this much like YouTube has.


Surely people still use textbooks for formal education? This has to be something that happens later.


I actually require the book the Jon Bodner was talking about in a class I teach every couple of years. The students who do well (the ones you would want to hire) will read it, the others will skim or try to summarize it


Professors putting textbooks in the syllabus and students reading those texts aren't necessarily the same.


This study tracked study resource usage in 2021 and mentions a study in 2006.

In 2006 medical students spent 10.8hours per week studying with textbooks, on 2021 4.2hours.

So under 40% the textbook usage as 2006. That's a fairly precipitous decline and it's pre-LLMs being mainstream. I down chatgpt 4/5 have sent the students back to the library!

It mentions question banks have expanded as have online resources. Also learning style has changed from lecture based to problem based learning.

I can't say this is objectively bad. But that I'm sure it contributes to narrowed knowledge bases.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8651945/


The last three years more or less none of my students have bought the textbook for the subject. That is pretty mind blowing. In turn they expect a complete textbook from my lecture notes, which isn't possible.

I get that textbooks are getting more expensive though.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: