I was enthused when it first got added to KeypassXC but after a few attempts I couldn't get it working and haven't bothered since. Something fundamentally isn't quite working here and I am not a big fan of the workflow for them its entirely out of my hands and I am not a fan of that.
FreshTomato also has a adblock function that can go off the usual web lists. DD-WRT I recall does as well. Just goes to show the open source firmwares in general are superior and it should be a feature people look for when buying routers.
They have been trying to get to IPO for a while. 2 years ago they deleted a huge swathe of accounts to cause those people to create new ones to boost their growth stats and frankly having been caught up in it that was the push I needed to get off Discord. It caused a huge discontentment at the time as it wasn't clear if it was a bug or intentional but Discord didn't fix it.
They will do anything to get to a successful IPO including cooking the stats but they aren't there yet.
It is, neoliberalism has been about taking away all the state owned assets and putting everything the country needs into private hands. This is what has stalled the economy and its what is fuelling enormous inequality. Calling for ever more of it falls really flat now after 40 years of the same strategy making things worse for the average person.
Medicine is now absurdly complex, it's far more than a person can possibly learn especially if trying to be up to date with modern research. The more you can memorise correctly and pattern match the better. Many patients are failed in the current system, most not fatally but their lives are damaged and it's not uncommon for more complex diseases to have 90% of sufferers never getting a diagnosis until they die from the disease.
Something has to change drastically in how medicine is organised because it's not working in its current iteration as the difficulty goes up and up.
Its the environment that compounds the complexity. Go down the list of Largest companies by revenue in the US and 8 in top 20 are related to "health" - are they running hospitals? are they pharma companies? No.
They run pharmacy benefits management, health insurance and drug distribution.
The estimate is 4-5 Trillion flows throw these firms. Which is larger than the GDP of India. So this gigantic structure has emerged that doesn't really make too much profit btw (very similar to Amazon Platform Economics) but is layer upon layer upon layer of cash flow passing through middlemen.
Drastic change requires new ideas about what do we do about all these middlemen who shape the environment on top of which everything exists.
Alas, independent middle layers have long been the US solution to avoiding monopolies. This is the whole reason car manufacturers can't sell directly to consumers, and micro breweries can't sell to consumers except for on-site purchases. Breweries in particular have to sell to distributors, who sell to stores.
Banning the middle layers here (absent other changes) just means that the companies that replace their spots in the top 20 will be vertically integrated conglomerates that manufacturer, distribute, prescribe and provide insurance (i.e. payment plans) for pharmaceutical drugs.
> Banning the middle layers here (absent other changes) just means that the companies that replace their spots in the top 20 will be vertically integrated conglomerates that manufacturer, distribute, prescribe and provide insurance (i.e. payment plans) for pharmaceutical drugs.
Except these companies are already vertically integrated, to a large degree. All the biggest insurers have their own in-house PBMs.
Revenue is an incomplete signal of the complexity and waste. It’s just a signal of the money flowing through. A “single payer” system would probably also show a huge revenue number even if the profit was <=0. There’s just a lot of money and a lot of people who are patients.
I don’t disagree that the system requires change and is extremely complex, however.
The real problem is that it’s nearly impossible to “scale” healthcare and keep it personalized, and people want personalized healthcare - because that’s shown to be more effective healthcare. Doctors can only see a limited number of patients a day, and they need to be paid some compensation commensurate with their skills and efforts. That alone makes it hard for everyone “healthy” to see a doctor often enough and for long enough to get deeply personal care. Most people realistically can pay out of pocket for preventative care. $100-200/yr for an American isn’t crazy. Even most drugs are super affordable out of pocket if the profit margins are kept low (which is started to be available, bits at a time).
The real complexity, of course, is the long-tail where a few people get cancer and car accidents and other serious conditions which swamp the costs of everything else.
I don't think $100-200 per year for preventative care is enough. I reckon $1000-$10,000 per year, depending on age, is more accurate. You should spend at least $500 per year on nutritional supplements like Vitamin D. Switzerland has a better medical system that's cheaper than our system, but it's still expensive.
Indeed, it may be the case that the middlemen aren't individually all that profitable, but if the money passes through several stages and each one skims off a few percent, you end up with the present situation where health care costs twice as much as it does in any civilized country.
Things are changing to accomodate the increasing complexity, same way as ever: specialization. There are now subsubspecialties, and 'cardiologist' or 'nephrologist' have become incomplete qualifiers. It may not look like that from the pov of outsiders, but medicine is becoming more and more secure by the day. Things were much worse before.
But now you have the problem of being too specialized - Ive seen many specialists that think a problem lies within their specialty- when it does not. And how do you deal with problems that are multi-disciplinary (problems that require multiple organ systems) when you have an army of specialists that are each fighting for their own fiefdoms?
When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. Comes to mind.
Well, the model is migrating to one of hyperspecialists collaborating together. Problem is, this isn't compatible with private practice where you're operating mostly alone, and this results in what you describe. The model has to evolve, yes. Good news is, it is in fact evolving (slowly). We can't evolve faster than science anyway, and while medical science is evolving much faster than it used to, we're far from the exponential acceleration we've seen in other domains, e.g. computers.
Its consistent on windows across shells but its also a hard to find feature if you haven't been using Windows for decades and its not easily scripted. Its still kind of hard, could be a lot easier than it is.
It's in the registry, iirc. All Linux needs is a standard persistent key/value store(*) that by convention shells check for environment variables before running their rc scripts.
Just write over the top of the file with 0s. There have been a number of challenges people have set with standard hard drives and SSDs for an commercial company to restore a file after it has been written over with 0s and not a single company will take that, its unrecoverable. I can understand why we might think some nation states might be able to do something theoretically better but its unlikely in practice with the pace of the technology and how immensely hard it actually is.
You don't need to destroy the devices you just need to zero them once.
I have just one of the early SSDs still functional, the original Intel 80GB SSD, its too small for anything now so its retired with about 60% of its life remaining. Everything else of that era of early SSDs died.
The oldest SSD I have still in use is an Crucial M4-CT512 (https://www.crucial.com/support/ssd-support/m4-25-inch-suppo...) and that was likely bought in 2013. It still works OK but its always had an issue with some writes taking a very long time. The younger ones like the Samsung 970 Pros still work as new as do the cheap chinese PCI-E 4.0 drives.
I think the early SSDs weren't reliable at all but most of the recent stuff seems to be a lot better than the HDDs in the NAS which have a failure or so every 3 years.
Anecdotally, I have a similar experience in my NAS/Server.
Unlikely Backblaze, I don't write much to my drives, they mostly get some writes of relatively small backups once or twice a day and that's it. I keep all of my VM boot drives on NVMe SSDs.
I've only had one, very early SSD (SATA, OCZ branded) fail on me since the beginning, and I run significantly more SSDs than I do HDDs, in my desktop, laptops, servers etc.
In the NAS/Server (It's a high-spec Proxmox server doubling as a NAS) I have had a bunch of HDD failures, WDReds (CMR) and Seagate IronWolf drives, typically around 4-5 year mark.
For use cases like mine, where they spend most of their time idling, I think SSDs are a clear winner, HDDs are wearing out just by idling.
My next failure I'll be replacing the mirror that fails with SSDs.
An intel 12900k (Gen 12) compared to a 2600k (Gen 2, launched 2011) is about 120% faster or a bit over 2 times in single threaded applications, those +5-15% uplifts every generation add up over time but its nothing like the earlier years when they might double in performance in a single generation.
It really depends if that application uses AES 256 bit and other modern instructions. The 12900k has 16 cores vs 4 of the 2600k, although 8 of those extra cores are E-cores. This performance increase doesn't necessarily come from free given the application may need to be adjusted to utilise those extra cores especially when half of them are slower to ensure the workload is distributed properly.
Even within a vertical scaling by getting a new processor for just single threaded applications its interesting that much of the big benefits come from targeting the new instructions and then the new cores. Both of which may require source updates to get significant performance uplift from.
> This performance increase doesn't necessarily come from free given the application may need to be adjusted to utilise those extra cores especially when half of them are slower to ensure the workload is distributed properly.
It especially doesn't come for free when you consider that 12900k uses nearly 2.5x the power of a 2600k at peak.
I'm not even sure 12900k can operate at full load under air cooling for longer than a few minutes.
> is about 120% faster or a bit over 2 times in single threaded applications
1. Doesn't that also account for speedups in memory and I/O?
2. Even if the app is single-threaded, the OS isn't, so unless it's very very inactive other than the foreground application (which is possible), there might still be an effect of the higher core count.
Funnily enough, most apps aren't taking enough advantage of multi-core multi-threading environments that are common across all major platforms.
The single biggest bottleneck to improvement is the general lack of developers using the APIs to the fullest extent when designing applications. Its not really hardware anymore.
Though, to the points being made, we aren't seeing the 18 month doubling like we did in the earlier decades of computing.
Unless you're multitasking, the OS on a separate thread gets you about 5-10% speedup. It's not really noteworthy.
Unless you lived through the 1990s I don't think you understand how fast things were improving. Routine doubling of scores every 18 months is an insane thing. In 1990 the state of the art was 8mhz chips. By 2002, the state of the art was a 5ghz chip. So almost a thousand times faster in a decade.
Are chips now a thousand times faster than they were in 2015? No they are not.
When the parent comment says “OS on a separate thread”, they’re talking about the fact that even if your user-space workload is single-threaded, the OS has a separate set of threads, which can run on separate cores from the user thread.
We need a significant rethink in how new materials are released into the world. The current process where a business can just release something new and it goes through little in the way of real safety testing can't continue. As we build ever more exotic materials the potential for catastrophic and rapid danger is high. We have destroyed and disrupted our habitat too much already we need to stop doing this. We seriously need to stop producing microplastic and clean up what we have unleashed on the world quickly.
reply