My guess is that when you measure, an arena is not worth the trouble when you run a generational GC, which essentially uses an arena for the eden space already. And if you have an arena, it's probably very short lived and would otherwise live entirely in eden.
Personally, I don’t like non-standard plurals and take the opportunity of a new word not to carry the mistake through. I prefer “mouses” as well, for the plural of a computer mouse.
I don't take any antipyretics, nor have I given to my kids, unless the fever is 39-39.5°C and climbing. Otherwise, you're sabotaging your own innate immune system!
I do the same. Fever is a feature, unless the infection is so pervasive the fever itself becomes a health hazard (at which point you need to see a doctor ASAP, not lower your fever)
Taking an antipyretic for a regular flu completely defeats the purpose. Let your immune system do its thing, it is pretty good at it.
Sabotaging is much too strong a word. The fever is not essential to the immune system. If taking down the fever makes it easier to cook food or do something else that is important to you, go ahead.
We have had fever suppressors for so long now that we know they are not harmful to the immune system in any meaningful way.
A fever should be temporary. If you go several days with 39 C then something is wrong and you should absolutely seek medical help. People used to die from simple bacterial infections before we had antibiotics.
And be mindful of the children! Small children are wired somewhat differently and you should be much more careful with them. 39 C in a newborn can be life threatening.
Fever is thought to contribute to host defense, as the reproduction of pathogens with strict temperature requirements can be hindered, and the rates of some important immunological reactions are increased by temperature. Fever has been described in teaching texts as assisting the healing process in various ways, including:
- increased mobility of leukocytes
- enhanced leukocyte phagocytosis
- decreased endotoxin effects
- increased proliferation of T cells
[...]
Studies using warm-blooded vertebrates suggest that they recover more rapidly from infections or critical illness due to fever.
---
Fever makes your immune system work better, and many pathogens don't like the higher temps.
Right. But it's not essential to the immune system. The immune system doesn't shut down completely just because you temporarily bring the fever down.
It's one thing to avoid overusing painkillers, and while I personally can appreciate that sentiment, over the counter painkillers are pretty well tested and you should not be afraid to use them, without reasonable limits. Denying children painkillers when they ask for them sounds dangerously close to going a step too far!
There are no studies that indicate you can "harden" your immune system by denying pain killers in the long run. You shouldn't be afraid of painkillers, just as you shouldn't be afraid of having fever.
It's a numbers game - even if you kill only a part of the pathogen with fever, it actually makes a big difference in the end, since in the initial phase it grows exponentially. Also, another indirect benefit is that when you have a fever, you tend to rest more rather than pretending everything is rosy, and when your immune system works best, it is when you sleep. In the States, I've seen many irresponsible sick people who go to work and take Tylenol so that they can cope better at work, essentially spreading the disease.
In many cultures, instead of giving you Paracetamol/Acetaminophen at the onset of fever, they would actually warm you up to give it a boost.
I know, stoicism is gone - people can't tolerate any pain, any discomfort, any trouble nowadays.
Not being such a car-dependent society that every single person is forced into a dangerous, personal machine that requires licensing and tracking, to do absolutely any activity outside the house.
Facial recognition is a LOT harder. And there aren't laws saying you're not allowed to do anything that would disrupt it. AND the laws regarding taking photos of people are a lot different than the laws around taking photos of cars.
I'd love to see a world were game devs program to a subset of Win32 that's known to run great on Linux and Windows. Then MSFT can be as hostile as they like, but no one will use it if it means abandoning the (in my fantasy) 10% of Linux gamers.
That's basically already happening with Unity and Unreal's domination of the game engines. They seem dominate 80% of new titles and 60% of sales on Steam [1], so WINE/Valve can just focus on them. Most incompatible titles I come across are rolling their own engine.
Same with Godot. I'm writing a desktop app, and I get cross-platform support out-of-the-box. I don't even have to recompile or write platform-specific code, and doesn't even need Win32 APIs.
One aspect I wonder about is the move of graphics API from DX11 (or OpenGL) to DX12/Vulkan, while there have been benefits and it's where the majority of effort is from vendors they are (were?) notoriously harder to use. What strikes me about gaming is how broad it is, and how many could make a competent engine at a lower tech level, but fits their needs well because their requirements are more modest.
I also wonder about the developer availability. If you're capable of handling the more advanced APIs and probably modern hardware and their features, it seems likely you're going to aim at a big studio producing something that big experience, or even an engineer at the big engine makers themselves. If you're using the less demanding tech it will be more approachable for a wider range of developers and manageable in-house.
I believe it's already happening to a minor degree. There is value in getting that "steam deck certified" badge on your store, so devs will tweak their game to get it, if it isn't a big lift.
There are strong indications that Half Life 3 (or at least a Half Life game) is coming soon. Of course, Valve might decide to pan the project, but I wouldn't be surprised seeing an announcement for 2026.
I trust my life to the server I host in my own closet. People can lecture me all day long about the superiority of Signal's encryption, and I'll just slowly rotate my chair to point my index finger at the Dell OptiPlex behind me.
That's fine. You'll pardon me if I'm unwilling to trust my own safety to your Dell OptiPlex. Whatever you think about Signal, the fact is that Matrix --- which is what the thread is about --- makes decisions that serve the IRC/Slack use case at the expense of the "absolute most possible safety" use case. That makes sense: some of larger-scale group chat's goals are in tension with "absolute most possible safety".
I wouldn't characterize Signal as "absolute most possible safety" as you are implicitly doing here.
I would probably characterize Signal as "most possible safety for the average nontechnical user" which entails trade-offs against absolute safety for certain UX affordances (and project governance structures that allow for these decisions to be made), because if said affordances are not given, the average nontechnical user either simply won't use Signal or will accidentally end up making themselves even less secure.
I couldn't be less interested in arguing with you about Signal. My point is that it doesn't make as much sense to compare Signal and Matrix as people think it does. Large-scale group chat is intrinsically less safe than the kind of chats most people use Signal for. You can substitute whichever other secure messenger you prefer.
This "average nontechnical user" stuff, though, miss me with. For 2 decades people have been encouraging the "average nontechnical user" to do incredibly unsafe things on the premise that any kind of message encryption is the best alternative to sending plaintext messages. No: telling people not to send those kinds of messages at all, unless you're dead certain the channel they're using is safe, is the only responsible recommendation.
I have started using Signal for large group chats in the past year or so, after spending many years using it as an encrypted replacement for SMS texting. Signal has gotten noticeably better at the UX of group chats during that time, although I am still annoyed that they basically require you to use their client to access the network in the name of security. I can't easily run a legitimate 3rd party Signal client on my server, and when I've tried I've accidentally broken my access to my account on my phone, which is quite annoying since I use Signal pretty frequently.
I want there to be something like Matrix that is designed first and foremost as a large-group realtime chat program (really, as a meaningful FOSS alternative to Discord), and it should make different tradeoffs than Signal. I'm actually willing to entirely forego encryption, at least at first, to make this happen - IRC wasn't encrypted and Discord isn't either, and these are things I want to replace with something better. Matrix's UX is still noticeably worse than Discord's, and I'm skeptical that the ostensible security gains from the encryption are worth it, especially given the problems with device verification UX, metadata leakage, and the fact that as the number of people in a group chat grows the possibility that they will take a screenshot of the encrypted message sent to them and leak it to the press grows higher and higher.
> This "average nontechnical user" stuff, though, miss me with. For 2 decades people have been encouraging the "average nontechnical user" to do incredibly unsafe things on the premise that any kind of message encryption is the best alternative to sending plaintext messages. No: telling people not to send those kinds of messages at all, unless you're dead certain the channel they're using is safe, is the only responsible recommendation.
Eh. You misunderstand me. I don't really have too much of a view on this personally. Unless you specifically think that the term "average nontechnical user" is a bad term.
N.B. for other readers of this thread to flesh out my initial point:
Signal specifically didn't do that recommendation until they got sufficient critical mass of users in 2022. In particular Signal gracefully degraded to unencrypted SMS if the other side didn't have Signal.
Likewise Signal required phone numbers until 2024 when it shifted over to usernames, with all the security vulnerabilities that entails.
Signal has repeatedly made trade-offs that prioritize UX over absolute security even in 1-1 chat settings. That's not to criticize those trade-offs, there's a variety of reasons why they make sense or don't. But Signal has consistently demonstrated that it is not willing to make severe compromises to the UX and understandability in the name of absolute security and that it will balance the two.
This is basically the same logic for why I often recommend Plex over jellyfin to people. Yes Plex is not proper self hosting. Yes Plex the org is making increasingly questionable decisions. But for people who want to get away from the major streaming services and maybe even want to dip their toes into something that resembles self hosting, there really is no other option like Plex. It’s so insanely turnkey and easy to install on every device. You also don’t have to worry about exposing your network if you don’t know what you’re doing.
If nothing else it’s an incredible foot in the door for a lot of people to make the leap to something like jellyfin later.
I obviously can't speak for you, but there's not a freaking chance I'd trust my life to the servers I run.
To go maybe too literal: when I'm working on machines that could physically eat me, I don't trust myself with just one off switch -- I want redundancy. And since computers are horrible piles of ridiculous complexity, the closest I can get (and not really get close) is trusting some of the top minds to overthink the crap out of it in a way that I can't do with the systems I manage.
Well, when US-EAST-1 went down, my family was still chatting. Same with Cloudflare. Even if I lose internet, we can all chat so long as we’re on the network.
That said, the uptime is still probably worse than Signal. I didn’t mean trust the reliability. I meant the security.
Despite all the gnashing of teeth in this thread, this seems reasonable. This seems to only prevent you from logging into your account, with only a password, NOT verifying it (by dismissing all the prompts asking you to do so), and then sending (and receiving new!) encrypted messages anyway. I've never used an unverified Matrix account in the 6 years that I've been an active user. Verification used to be a bit finicky, but it's pretty seamless now. And once the QR code login stuff is better supported, it will be dead easy.
> Despite all the gnashing of teeth in this thread, this seems reasonable
I empathize a lot with the negative experiences shared in this thread.
I think the problem is that every little decision in Matrix might be reasonable to the people who have complete context about the decision, but all of the churn and rough edges have added up to a very bumpy ride. Not only that, but it has been a poorly communicated and documented ride as many in this comment section can attest.
I suspect all of these issues and changes feel like no problem to people who are active in Matrix every day and have a support network to chat with where they all get through the issues by sharing tips and info. For the rest of us who are casual users who only occasionally log in it feels like I’m rolling the dice every time I have to use it. Some times it works like it did last time, some times I have to go on a 30 minute adventure with Google and play games across devices to get it back into a working state again.
> Not only that, but it has been a poorly communicated and documented ride as many in this comment section can attest.
The guides are written for cryptographic infrastructure nerds and not regular normal users that have a habit of forgetting their own passwords after six months. Not to mention the fact that the Element UI tends to churn a lot.
I didn't even know that they deprecated creating new passphrases, and that's what I was telling my users to do!
Doesn’t verification also exchange encryption keys, letting you decrypt messages from before you logged in? I remember that being a huge issue where you would see unable to decrypt messages.
Probably just bad UX to let people skip the verification step.
But it also asks for recovery key and complains about it being out of sync until entered even if you do the verification step! Entirely possible to only get a partial recovery of messages until this is entered.
That's not normal. It doesn't happen on any of my accounts or clients. Verification takes a moment if you're in a lot of rooms, but it exchanges all keys.
been a pretty reliable issue when I've set up a new device. Whatever keys the client is getting, they're apparently not useful.
(This general flakiness of features just sometimes not working as they should is probably the main reason I haven't tried to recommend friends to switch to element)
> Despite all the gnashing of teeth in this thread, this seems reasonable
I think it's not the requirement itself that's the crucible of discussion but the issues are rather that the blog post should have explicitly defined what verification is in it's second sentence and that matrix/element still is barely useable even for reasonably technical users.
Scale matters. Once you achieve over a hundred of users, you got all the random bugs, and glitches appearing, and you can't guide everyone personally across UX issues. This is when lack of decent documentation, unpolished UI, and even the fact that it uses its own terminology (like "spaces") starts to hurt. I don't mean Synapse/Element combination is bad, but so far it's not great either.
geo.provider.use_corelocation: true/false # presumably for tracking on MacOS
geo.provider.use_geoclue: true/false # presumably for tracking Linux users with Geoclue2 provider [1]
geo.enabled: true/false # presumably, turns the whole thing off
Some say[2][3], use_ options take precedence over network.url, so you need to set those to false.
It also appears[3][4], that setting geo.provider.testing to true might be required.
Didn’t they illegally take funds from the CIA to pay the military and ICE?
It seems to me like this is ideal for them. They break the law to pay for the stuff they want, let everything else rot. Why the Democrats have allowed this is beyond me.
Democrats should be counter-messaging every hours of every day, on all media, to create actual dissent within the electorate. They're acting like they can't do anything but watch idly. It's insane that with all that happened, Trump still sits at ~40% popularity. Americans won't realize how shitty the situation is until you tell them, and make sure to blame Trump and the GOP every step of the process.
Insurance premiums on the rise? Thank Trump for that. No planes for Thanksgiving? Blame Vance. Etc.
Democratic representatives are speaking out almost daily. Voters are protesting in force at least monthly.
Yet too many live in filter bubbles and take the talking points they're given. My conservative parents sound very reasonable when they react to unfiltered news, at least in the moment. But then the talking points arrive and they down play or change their outlook completely. It's like a Borg mind which sometimes has high latency.
And I can relate. I lived with that mindset. Teaching myself to twist information to fit the worldview and compartmentalize to dodge the dissonance. Visiting only the safe outlets who would reinforce the comfortable and familiar perspective. Thankfully public schools, the Internet, patient coworkers, and curiosity popped my bubble.
So because the democrats have no power except to make things worse, that’s what they should do?
They have publicly said that the only thing they are negotiating for is one more year of health care subsidies. That’s a noble goal, but the country voted, and they don’t want affordable healthcare. If the Democrats ever have power again, then they can make policy again as well.
> ...the country voted, and they don’t want affordable healthcare.
Can we say those voting for Trump in 2024 were saying they don't want affordable healthcare? There were many issues on the table and it wasn't a landslide.
Repealing Obamacare has been a _very explicit_ policy position of the Republican party for over a decade. They spent the entire last election telling anyone who would listen exactly what they would do, and now they are doing it. Yes, elections matter, and they have consequences. The midterm elections are in one year. That's the next chance the electorate has to change their mind.
The thing is, the last time the Republicans shut down the government for whatever pet project it was they wanted, I was furious. They lost the last election, yet they were trying to jam their agenda into law anyway through, essentially, blackmail. I'm not so hypocritical that I would be okay with it now because it's "my side". My side is functioning democracy at this point, and that's what the Democrats are risking with this shutdown.
> My side is functioning democracy at this point, and that's what the Democrats are risking with this shutdown.
Which side is yours? Hopefully not the side fighting in n court to take back SNAP benefits already distributed to needy families.
How are the Democrats putting democracy at risk when they cannot control any branch of government? And all their attempts to appease Republicans end up with Republicans pushing further anyway?
Turn on the news. The party agrees with me. I’ve been saying it since this folly was started, but they finally realized that you can’t negotiate with someone when your threat is their ideal outcome.
They want flights cancelled. They want people to starve. They want the FDA and the CDC shut down. They want chaos. More chaos is more excuse to take more control. It’s the classic fascist playbook. See : Reichstag fire.
reply