It's simmilar to physical vulnerability but with emotions. Displaying emotions in such a way that someone could - if they were so inclined - emotionally exploit and attack you. For example, opening up about your greatest fears can open you up to ridicule or someone pranking you.
> Europe, in between the time when births moved to hospitals and before women became doctors
Don't know about the rest of Europe, but in the UK midwives became an official profession in 1902 and have consistently almost all been women, whilst most births would have been at home until the introduction of the NHS in 1948.
My Mom was a midwife in London in the mid-20th century. She used to joke that she was a black belt...in midwifery. Apparently the belt colors had meaning then and still do other places (after a quick search it looks like Ghana still uses a black belt for midwives).
Otzi was carrying birch polypore, which is used in traditional medicine. The surface "skin" can be used as a basic sticking plaster and it is chemically poisonous to whipworm. Based on this article though I wonder if it was being used for antibacterial properties.
This article is about funding freeze for the NIH (National Institutes of Health), not the NSF (National Science Foundation) but I suppose the situation is very similar.
> why then do people flock to WhatsApp, Slack, and other non-email products?
One reason is that corporations are extremely good at hijacking attention and stimulating addictive areas of the brain. There are various definitions of "best" here, ranging from "efficient" to "what people will flock to".
Yeah. I gave Claude a spin today; it helped me to make a tech spec I'd written a little more concise and professional. But doing so required carefully reading and tweaking the output to maintain accuracy. I don't know if it sped anything up, but it reduced the cognitive effort a bit.
> In my general experience that doesn't happen very often.
Pumping up prices is exactly what large corporations seek to do once they have a large market share. If possible, lowering costs at the same time. Matt Stoller has an article explaining how Walmart did this from the 70s through to this century: https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/walmart-americas-food-gov...
The irony is that this was already changing: anti-trust has been massively empowered under Biden and Lina Khan. Trump is certainly attempting to bandwagon this tide, but the appearance of so many Big Tech leaders in VIP seats at his inauguration does not lend a favourable hindsight view to Andy Yen's statement.
Is that really true? What did Lina Khan do to thwart big tech and enforce antitrust laws to a greater extent? I feel like there was mostly blockers for M&A that allowed startups to exit, but little real impact on big tech.
She led the FTC to bring lawsuits against Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft. Although two of the cases have been blocked in the courts, this alone was unthinkable in previous administrations. She's also helped enforce policies like right-to-repair and click-to-cancel which threaten big tech's market share. Like it or not she's played a massive part in shifting the narrative on antitrust. Trump's dismissal of her along with Big Tech's front-row seats at his inauguration and general sycophantism are not good signs for antitrust.
The most vocal supporter of Lina Khan's work over the last few years has been JD Vance... while I can't remember a single democrat voicing even close to the same support.
JD Vance vocally supported her, then the administration he is part of fired her as soon as it was able.
By contrast, Democrats nominated her to be commissioner, officially it was Biden who did so but Elizabeth Warren, another Democrat, is the one who really pushed for it.
Words don't mean shit compared to action.
With your kind of reasoning its pretty obvious why America is currently driving itself off a cliff.
I felt the same. The proposal wasn't rejected! Also, performance gains go beyond user stories - e.g. they reduce infra costs and environmental impact - so I think the main concerns of the maintainers could have been addressed.
They soft-rejected by requiring more validation than was reasonable. I see this all the time. "But did you consider <extremely unlikely issue>? Please go and run more tests."
It's pretty clear that the people making the decision didn't actually care about the bandwidth savings, otherwise they would have put the work in themselves to do this, e.g. by requiring Zopfli for popular packages. I doubt Microsoft cares if it takes an extra 2 minutes to publish Typescript.
Kind of a wild decision considering NPM uses 4.5 PB of traffic per week. 5% of that is 225 TB/week, which according to my brief checks costs around $10k/week!
I guess this is a "not my money" problem fundamentally.
This doesn't seem quite correct to me. They weren't asking for "more validation than was reasonable". They were asking for literally any proof that users would benefit from the proposal. That seems like an entirely reasonable thing to ask before changing the way every single NPM package gets published, ever.
I do agree that 10k/week is non-negligible. Perhaps that means the people responsible for the 10k weren't in the room?
massively increase the open source github actions bill for runners running longer (compute is generally more expensive) to publish for a small decrease in network traffic (bandwidth is cheap at scale)?
reply