“ People who experience a single random seizure, for instance, are 50 times more likely to become epileptic than someone who has never had one.1 Like Philip’s raven, the same stimuli that preceded the first fit—such as anxiety or a particular musical passage—more readily trigger future episodes. And the more often seizures occur, the stronger and more pervasive the underlying neural network may become, potentially inducing more widespread or more violent attacks.”
This article is a dumpster fire, and based on fundamentally obsolete and harmful beliefs. Yes people that ever have a seizure are more likely to have epilepsy. This says nothing about why, and what follows is all poorly or non researched editorializing. None of what is said here has even weak evidence. Seizures are an objective physiologic phenomenon we can measure. While there are a wide variety of non-specific predispositions to an episode including stress, no one has the authority to claim the above. Furthermore a large class of epileptic seizures are provoked by imageable, physical brain damage and another large portion have no provocation, this isn’t some middle school angst. It also seems to riff off the obsolete notion that epilepsy was mostly due to mental illness/craziness back when those were equivocated.
The idea that medicine is an objective science that we've fully "solved" is much more harmful.
There are a number of symptoms that we can group into "conditions," yet have a murky etiology.
That's not to say there isn't snake oil out there. There's certainly a ton of that as well. But medical problems aren't always a simple "solve for x" - there is a TON that we still don't know about how the human body works.
I don’t understand what point you are making by saying that seizures are an objectively measurable thing.
Are you suggesting “and therefore it can’t be influenced by the specific thoughts a person has”?
I don’t see a reason that something which we (at least so far) can’t objectively measure, but which the patient can report on, couldn’t have an impact on something which we can objectively measure.
I also don’t understand what you are talking about when you mention middle school angst?
It seems like you have the impression that the article is blaming people for having seizures or something like that? But that isn’t at all the impression I get from it.
His entire point seems very narrow minded. We could fill a dictionary full of all the measurable medical issues that stress can cause. We know that things like a smell can trigger memories in the brain completely involuntarily. So to act as if a memory of something that was happening during a previous seizure couldn't be a catalyst for a future one seems naive to me.
> i mean hidpi displays themselves are very rare - if you check any desktop resolution stats they often barely are a blip
Do you have a link/cite for this? I couldn’t find easily somewhere summarizing pixel density stats.
“Desktop resolution stats” is not the same thing. All the retina displays have at least a 2x pixel ratio so these tables on a cursory Google search are clearly lumping 13 inch MacBook pros into the 1280x800 bucket for instance.
You got a reference to something that clearly is accounting for pixel ratio?
I can tell from a number of reports available that basically have no resolutions higher than 1920x1200, when we know there are enough retina displays out there that they should be listed.
As to the linked report. It’s hard to discount bias with a browser with 3% market share that looking further seems to be overwhelmingly installed on outdated Windows 8 machines
> In early PC's, the way you ran software was to copy code from a magazine and compile and run it on your workstation. Being a PC user at all meant being a tinkerer/hacker a few decades ago.
Bullshit. Except for the brief period of time when the Altair was the only thing going on in the Micro space… the Apple II, Atari 800, IBM PC and TRS-80 amongst others were marketed in the late 70s/early 80s with off the shelf, ready to run software. While copying code out of a magazine was something you could do, it wasn’t even the common case then.
> Every release makes it harder to run arbitrary code.
I have not experienced this. Yes Mac OS makes it harder to run random stuff downloaded from the internet, but Llvm, clang, cmake, python from the command line works the same as they always have (you are fetishizing code that is entered yourself after all).
Upstate native here. Not sure I’d buy the Chicago narrative at all.
Rochester and Syracuse got their economic genesis in large part from the Erie Canal (leading to the NYC RR which terminated in Chicago), Buffalo to a relatively lesser degree but at no point was the economic magnitude of these ever in the same ballpark as Chicago which was an mercantile center long before the Rust Belt population and GDP peaking. There’s a nice recent article in the Atlantic about Kodak. Much like Pittsburgh (which is probably a more apt comparison) with US Steel and Alcoa.. Rochester relied on a oligopoly of Kodak and Xerox (that willingly gave up doing anything notable with all the great things from PARC). When they dwindled so did the city basically. Chicago has already lost even larger employers than Kodak (Sears, Motorola alone), the economy of the greater Chicago area is incomparably larger - I think even Schaumburg or Bolingbrook alone are bigger than the Rochester metro, certainly if you exclude URMC.
For the Rust Belt, Chicago was always literally the second city in terms of the railroads. So I’d argue all those cities listed prevailed in part because of Chicago.
In terms of Erie Canal, didn't Buffalo have a bigger slice of the pie? Rochester isn't even really on the canal. Buffalo still has enormous artifacts of the canal industry, like the grain silos.
What I meant was, since Buffalo already had access to a major waterway it’s rise wasn’t as entirely dependent on it.. ie it had other reasons for being relevant.
And are you kidding?? The Erie Canal ran right through the city (likewise Syracuse, Utica, etc) and crossed the Genesee river on an old aqueduct that is still there today and interestingly carried the short lived Rochester subway.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad_Street_Bridge_(Rochest....
The Canal put those places on the map and the New York Central maintained them there heading into the 20th century.
Ah, sorry, not a native. I know it was rerouted slowly over time but I guess my mental map had the canal much farther to the south than it is (aka, eating ice cream on the tow path in Pittsford).
Yep the waterway through Pittsford was actually also the original canal but it routed north into the city.
The Erie Canal was replaced by the New York Barge canal system which avoided the cities other than NYC and was ironically much larger than the Erie Canal though eclipsed by the railroads in fame by that point. Numerous sections in Western NY such as through Pittsford reused the Erie.
You have it wrong. Rochester certainly was on the canal. The canal was rerouted. There is a bridge in the middle of the city, a block from Main which used to be an aqueduct, running the canal over the river.
Part of one of the expressways, I490, runs through downtown and still has some of the old canal locks next to it as the expressway approaches downtown.
People can do whatever they want with seccomp-bpf obviously, but is it really that uncommon to use it for whitelisting? As for kernel vulnerabilities being a weakness of sandboxing in general, if anyone still doesn’t understand that by now it must be willful and I don’t know if they can be helped.
No matter how you mask off attack surface for the kernel, you're not super likely to want to disable io_uring, is the point I'm making. It's easy to find recent threads here with people sticking up for shared-kernel multitenant isolation.
(Be forewarned that I'm talking my book a bit here, since we have a commercial thingy built on multitenant VMM isolation).
BTW while on the topic, what do you think about having a heavy host kernel with a guest vmm attached to the network with a hardened firecracker and a dedicated network interface. Would you feel it's 'better' than shared kernel/os + namespaces? Or is it 'smallest hardened root hypervisor or no go'. Not sure I'm making sense...
The heavyweight host (which is the normal state of affairs) is problematic attack surface; moving the workload into a hardened VMM on that improves security regardless.
This solves what, exactly? We already know bill sponsors, the provenance of bills is generally not a problem in the US. All the regulatory capture and pork usually happens in the open already.
> For one you need a sophisticated reverse heat engine
This is a very obtuse way of saying “refrigerator”, which is a type of heat pump.. a technology over a hundred years old. The simplest refrigerators/heat pumps are pretty simple —
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_refrigerator
That's a subsystem with three major sections, a working fluid, and its own heat rejection requirements. A resistive heater contains two parts - a properly placed wire and a switch.
Still say “sophisticated reverse heat engine” is a needlessly verbose way of saying refrigerator or heat pump.
Also how sophisticated is something that is mass produced for devices sold under $100 in every big box retailer.
A refrigerator for a kitchen has drastically different constraints. The outside temp will always be something between 15-30 °C, the inside temperature will usually stay relatively constant unless you dump hot stuff in there.
Cooling for active outdoor technology has extremely variable outside temperatures (basically anything from -20 to 60 °C, or more if you take direct sunshine into account) and a constant generation of heat to be taken away.
Still I can't really think about any mass produced consumer item that includes a heat pump and is not either part of building/car cooling/heeting or a refrigerator itself.
Like mobile base stations of course have AC units and some amateur astronomers use peltier cooled sensors, but I would hardly call these mass produced consumer items.
This article is a dumpster fire, and based on fundamentally obsolete and harmful beliefs. Yes people that ever have a seizure are more likely to have epilepsy. This says nothing about why, and what follows is all poorly or non researched editorializing. None of what is said here has even weak evidence. Seizures are an objective physiologic phenomenon we can measure. While there are a wide variety of non-specific predispositions to an episode including stress, no one has the authority to claim the above. Furthermore a large class of epileptic seizures are provoked by imageable, physical brain damage and another large portion have no provocation, this isn’t some middle school angst. It also seems to riff off the obsolete notion that epilepsy was mostly due to mental illness/craziness back when those were equivocated.