arguably the whole scheme should be replaced by finer-grained feature detection.
This seems like a strange thing to say. Fine grained feature detection was around long before "microarchitecture levels" and never went away. The microarchitecture levels were introduced because they were easier to use.
The company has been around since 2002, I'm sure plenty of insiders will cash out in the next calendar year to satisfy the minimum free float rule by the time they're eligible.
That information should still be in the commit messages. "No functional change intended." appears widely in FreeBSD commit logs when code is being refactored (or, rarely, restyled).
And the issue isn't whether you can remember what you changed yesterday; this is largely about making sure other developers can quickly identify relevant commits. If you're a solo non-OSS developer, this is entirely relevant to you.
I've done this with code review. "Another LLM reviewed the attached code and produced the attached report. What do you think?"
Lots of "the other LLM clearly hallucinated this part". To be fair, it has never accused the other, err, itself, of being incompetent; it accepts that hallucinating is just something which happens.
One issue here which is obvious to me is that access to insulin should not be gated on paperwork. I can walk into any pharmacy in Canada and say "I'm diabetic and need insulin" and the pharmacist will sell it to me. They'll ask questions of course since this is not the usual path but my doctor's office being open will have no influence on whether I get it -- just on whether it's a 5 minute process or a 15 minute process, and potentially whether I have to pay myself or have it covered by insurance.
Also, to people in the US worried about having to go to the ER, Urgent Cares are the way to go with the kind of time the author was working with. You’ll be immediately seen, and not break the bank like an ER even if your insurance doesn’t cover it. They also should have all kinds of insulin at hand.
This is good info. I was going to say you can't in Indiana (where I used to live) but it turns out they changed their mind and it went into effect in 2021. Now (at least according to a current search) all states allow for at least a few forms of over the counter insulin (not the modern analogs, but it's better than nothing!)
True but that is the old Human insulin which is in some way not a drug the way the current modified insulins are. Thanks for giving people this heads up.
Is that true for every type and format? You can walk into walmart and get regular and NPH insulin over the counter, no questions asked. Newer ones require a Rx.
I do think that the US is obnoxiously conservative, and far more medications should be OTC.
Instead, you cant even buy kidney friendly cat food without an expensive Rx from a vet and tons of controls. Heaven forbit someone buy it without proper consultation. Think of the Kittens!
Edit: after some reading, it seems that Canada and US are outliers in the west for allowing OTC insulin. UK and Europe requires Rx for all insulin.
Asia is more mixed. Japan, Korea: Rx required. China, Rx on paper, OTC in practice. India OTC
> you cant even buy kidney friendly cat food without an expensive Rx from a vet and tons of controls
There are a few law suits over this. Essentially, the claim is that they call it "prescription," but it has no prescription medications in it and isn't approved by the FDA to treat anything. So if you have an extra bag and sell it, this is OK since it isn't actually a drug, it's allegedly a price fixing scheme between vets and pet food makers.
Yes, OTC for everything. I've heard that some pharmacists ask more questions about types which are commonly abused by body builders but that's about the extent of it.
Funny story since you mention cats: My brother's cat was diabetic and prescribed long acting insulin which cost $250/vial. I looked it up and... apparently it was just relabeled lantus, because of course nobody is going to waste money on a separate manufacturing line. Ended up buying it from my local pharmacy, without a prescription, instead of using the vet prescription.
They don't hand out Nobel prizes for glossed over topics.
Leaving aside the fact that the Economics prize isn't actually a Nobel Prize, topics which historically haven't been given enough attention are exactly where the highest impact research takes place.
If externalities had always received the attention they deserved, Coase would have never received his prize, because his work would not have been so important.
Coase did his most relevant work in the 1950s, and it wasn't as if he invented the idea of externalities. It was first given serious academic weight in the 1890s, and Pigou created the concept of externality correcting taxes in the 1920s. His work was important because it proposed a more market based solution than Pigouvian taxes.
I think its safe to say that externalities are not, and were not, an ignored sector given more than a century of serious work, and the fact that it is covered in any intro level Econ course.
Externalities arguably haven’t received the attention they deserve outside of economics, but I would disagree; what are climate change discussions, if not a discussion about externalities? Hell, just about any global issue is, in part, about externalities.
Inside of economics, they have more than 130 years of work, and are taught in any intro class.
If your argument is that we are bad at correcting for them, then yes. But that is different than not considering them.
> what are climate change discussions, if not a discussion about externalities?
Climate change has been discussed for well over a half century, yet one of the main priorities of the current administration has been to hamstring renewable energy and promote coal and oil. I think it's pretty fair to say the issue is being ignored.
Ignored by the administration, not by economists. The administration is a political body and proved over and over they don’t care at all about economists opinion (see everything from this admin about tariffs and trade policy)
Carbon tax, plastic bag tax, etc. are from the learnings from economic externalities that is applied to climate policy. Other non climate externalities based policies are sugar tax, alcohol/cigarette/drug tax, education, healthcare, etc.
"Cameraless eye tracking" is understating the key insight here. They don't even need to track which direction you're looking! The only thing they need to measure is the difference between the two directions, and parallax tells them how to focus.
Important to note, of course, that this only works for people with normal binocular vision -- but that's the majority of customers.
Plenty of us are simultaneously far and near sighted. I can't drive without glasses, but until I got progressive lenses I couldn't use my phone with my glasses on.
If you cannot drive without glasses, the sensible thing is to keep a backup pair in the car. After all, glasses can fall off and get lost under the seat, get stepped on, etc.
Similarly, if a FAA-licensed pilot requires glasses to fly, it becomes a legal requirement that they carry a readily-accessible second pair while exercising the privileges of their license. This even applies if they use contacts (and, no, extra contacts don’t count :).
It is also a requirement for international flight operations under ICAO regulations. I’m pretty sure this regulation (or something close to it) is enforced by just about every flight-licensing authority worldwide.
It’s plain good sense and I’m glad it’s in there. A plane cannot pull over to the side of the highway while the pilot fumbles around trying to dig his glasses out from under the seat :)
(As a side note, this rule isn’t just for dropped spectacles: there have been cases where they literally get sucked out of the airplane if a cockpit window fails or where a bird strike causing facial injuries also damages the pilots glasses).
Still doesn't address the fact that if the glasses fail mid drive it poses a serious security risk if you can't pull over to switch glasses. Doing so in a highway in a moving car is inadvisable regardless of the technology behind the glasses.
On the contrary, if you are a perfect driver and only reach for you glasses, that adds a small risk. But this is a complex system, driving and multitasking, so added complexity surely compounds, maybe even exponentially. If you are texting, then talking to your kids, then your brother next to you starts blasting loud music on the radio, adding another task like changing glasses increases the risk of an accident a lot, because less and less you are concentrated on the traffict.
That's a smart idea, similar to how I keep a little cash in the car just in case. For example, I could get something in my eyes and have to remove my contacts, and an old pair of glasses would let me get home.
According to the article the technology can be incorporated into normal prescription lenses, and when the battery is empty, it would behave as that lens without any adaption for when focusing near stuff.
No, but that's why almost nobody runs it outside of strict trust boundaries. This security section would make more sense if rsync was like curl, which routinely deals with hostile counterparties. If the other side of your rsync is hostile, you probably have bigger problems!
I disagree. While rsync is most often used to transfer data between "friendly" systems, it's inherently crossing a security boundary. It's important to make sure that an attacker can't leverage it to transform the breach of one system into the breach of multiple systems.
That solves the traffic tampering problem, but not the "malicious peer" problem. You want to be able to sync files without accidentally sharing root privileges.
This seems like a strange thing to say. Fine grained feature detection was around long before "microarchitecture levels" and never went away. The microarchitecture levels were introduced because they were easier to use.
reply