If you can bypass it in the middle it is by definition not end to end encryption. The entire point of end to end encryption is that only the endpoints are able to decrypt the messages and everyone in between only has access to the encrypted messages. If that’s not the case that’s just normal encryption not end to end.

Translation: please keep pouring money into the bubble

Sure it’s a useful skill but not one in significant demand. We have an absolute glut of MBAs and a desperate need for anything but an MBA so why are we paying people to get more MBAs?

The point is we don’t need more MBAs, we need people educated in useful skills. Should every MBA program be closed? No probably not, but we definitely have way more than we need. Cutting funding for things like MBA scholarships and closing down the majority of those programs will go a long way towards moving the majority of potential future MBA students into useful programs. We need less managers and more engineers, fewer CEOs and more chemists, hell fewer analysts and more plumbers.

There are many problems with modern capitalism and even if we never handed out another MBA degree again that would not even remotely solve everything, but the MBAs are making the problem worse. It’s a minor thing but it’s an easy thing to do and it would make a difference small as it is.

I doubt it will take a couple years. They’re burning through so much cash right now that they’ll be bankrupt in a couple years and despite sunk cost fallacy they won’t let it get that bad. At some point they’ll cut their losses and pivot to some other new fad. The small handful of uses that make sense will stick around and a few companies will be in just the right place to make it turn a profit but the vast majority won’t. Some will go bankrupt (if we’re lucky Meta and/or X will be one of them) and some will just write it off as a failed experiment. Either way just as hard as prices spiked we’ll see them cratering before they rebound back to normal. Six months would be highly optimistic, but a year probably isn’t out of the question.

Of course all of this might be moot if Shitler manages to start WW3 by attacking Greenland. If that happens RAM prices will be the least of everyone’s worries.

The Nvidia PR team. They keep trying to spin more data centers and even more of the US GDP being gobbled up by slop generation as some kind of consumer win but nobody is buying it and their whining is starting to annoy Jensen.

In the late 90s I saw a piece demonstrating an optical 3d storage system that had a capacity about an order of magnitude greater than the at the time brand new HD DVD and Bluray discs. I assumed this clearly superior format that already had a working demo would obviously kill other optical media. Turns out nobody could figure out how to manufacture one at a price anybody was willing to spend.

Maybe you should stop assuming things before commenting. And in general. You might also want to reread the article you seem to have skipped some important details.

Eh, maybe. The actual performance seems to be unknown. They’re assuming the geekbench score is legitimate, but there’s no way to really know exactly how well it will do when it actually ships. It’s probably safe to assume somewhere between the two, but either way it’s not competing with current gen AMD or Nvidia cards, and might not even be competing with current Intel GPUs.

I was basing that on the quote saying it rivals a 4060.

Sounds like it’s about equivalent to Intel’s latest GPU. Both are running about a little over a generation behind AMD and Nvidia. Meanwhile Nvidia is busy trying to kill their consumer GPU division to free up more fab space for data center GPUs chasing that AI bubble. AMD meanwhile has indicated they’re not bothering to even try to compete with Nvidia on the high end but rather are trying to land solidly in the middle of Nvidia’s lineup. More competition is good but it seems like the two big players currently are busy trying to not compete as best they can, with everyone else fighting for their scraps. The next year or two in the PC market are shaping up to be a real shit show.

Browsers already have the do not track header, it should just honor that. If you have that set it should be an automatic opt out no banner necessary.

Ah yes the classic “You’re making me hit you, I don’t want to, but you’re making me do this”. Maybe instead of blaming the flawed attempt at protecting you from abuse you instead blame the ones doing the abusing.

Website operators don’t want to have to display cookie banners

This is false. If they didn’t want to display the banners they could literally remove them, there’s absolutely nothing requiring them as long as they don’t track your behavior. They refuse to give up tracking so they add the banners to annoy visitors and hopefully trick some of them into accidentally opting into tracking. It’s an abusive manipulation of a loophole in the GDPR. If they really hated the banners they could just not track you but they rather make it your problem.

Gum disease could lead to tooth loss but the primary way people lose them is through infections due to cavities. The infection weakens the tooth and the jawbone it’s rooted in as well as can lead to loss of the root nerve. At a certain point the tooth is too loose or weak and has to be removed to prevent further infection and/or to treat the existing infection.

Nah, the pharmaceutical companies have covered themselves via reams of fine print. Using any of the GCMs (or pumps for that matter) means signing away all your legal protections and even if it didn’t the companies have billion dollar lawyers that can easily crush any case brought against them. Unless you’re a multimillionaire you literally can’t afford to sue any of them.

That’s the real flaw with the current US legal system (the civil one at least), individuals can’t afford to bring cases against large corporations. Class action cases can make it possible, but even then the odds are in the favor of the corporations and even if you win nobody actually makes anything off of those besides the lawyers. Typically the lawyers take 50% of the judgement off the top and by the time you divvy up the remaining 50% among all the participants it’s at most a few hundred bucks each if even that.

I’m allergic to many of the barriers as well. There is one I found that I’m not allergic to and it does help a lot but it’s not perfect. Near the end of the 14 day period the area the unit was inserted would often start itching and when removed would show signs of irritation.

More importantly though I found the Dexcom units to be worse than the Abbott ones in some ways. The Libre 3 has a fall off where it starts reading fairly accurately and then progressively reads lower and lower over time in a linear fashion. The Dexcom G2 on the other hand would start off somewhat inaccurate which could be corrected using a couple of manual glucose readings, but then as time went by it would get progressively more inaccurate in a random direction and no amount of recalibration using manual glucose readings would fix that.

Dexcom claims the margin of error is 20% and will replace any unit that starts reading outside that range, but at least for me that was literally every unit at some point. Some of them that was right out of the box, some of them that was after 5 days, but it always happened and it was unpredictable. I find the predictable decline of the Abbott units preferable to the random inaccuracy of the Dexcom units. At least with the Libre 3 I can estimate how far off the reading is based on how long I’ve been using it, with the G2 it was a complete crap shoot on whether the reading was accurate or not at any given time.

It was my experience with the libre 2+ and the libre 3. I’ve never used the libre 1 so I couldn’t say if it applies to that one. That said the 2 and the 1 don’t really qualify as CGMs as you need to poll them for glucose readings and I believe they’re limited on polling frequency (something like once every 5 min) so they’re much closer to a traditional glucose monitor than they are a true CGM.

Abbott claims they’re good for 14 days of use but my experience is that they’re worthless after 5 to 10 days. The first 5 days of use they’re about as accurate as the Dexcom units (typically +/- 10%). Beyond that they start to read increasingly low (-50% to -80%) with readings often failing entirely by day 10 or 11. It wouldn’t be a problem if you could replace them after 5 days, but if you do that insurance pitches a fit and refuses to cover more of them because “they’re good for 14 days”.

Unfortunately I am severely allergic to the adhesive Dexcom uses that they claim is hypoallergenic.