Can you keep the weight off once you stop using it? I don't particularly want to have my personal health be in the hands of one company especially if the culture stratifies into those who can afford to be the right weight and those that can't. Especially when it enters it's "enshittification" stage.
It's hard to keep weight off once you stop using it, but I've not seen anything to suggest it's harder to keep it off if you lost using GLP-1 than if you lost the weight the normal way. Most fat people I know have lost weight successfully more than once "the hard way" and then regained it.
The conspiracy theorist in me wonders what was accidentally copied into the archive that powerful interests want removed and if this is all smoke and mirrors while they make that happen.
I am a person self-diagnosed with aphantasia. I can for example think of a cube that is placed in front of me. I can spin it on an axis and have a rough idea of where the rotated edges should be. I wouldn't be able to draw it, though, because I would just be guessing about the proportions, or reverting to tricks to draw perspective. Because I don't see the cube in any way. It's completely invisible. It's just an idea of what the cube's position might be in the space directly in front of me.
On the other hand, I can see hypnagogic images directly before falling asleep. These have fidelity, color, detail, look real, and are definitely visual. I also lucid dream occasionally, and the amount of visual detail there is more than I see in real life because of bad eyesight.
The cube I'm "picturing" in front of me, though, has no visual component at all.
I also remember reading about how in some study they watched the brain activity of people with normal visualization capabilities where the visual components of the brain lit up when they were visualizing but did not light up for people with aphantasia when they were visualizing (or trying to).
If people really have no visual component at all when they picture a cube in front of them, then I would agree that aphantasia is not a thing. But people I talk to go on and on about the level of detail they see and what they use visualization for without even consciously thinking about it.
>The cube I'm "picturing" in front of me, though, has no visual component at all.
Quite because that is not how the brain works, when imagining something we merely instantiate a generic of that class, it has no visual component although it has attributes, some of which may convey a visualization - the cube is red, the cube if oriented in the cavalier elevation, you describe it yourself as being "in front of (you)" in what regard could you consider this to be true even if it were inside of your head?
Through language we have been convinced of something that simply is not true, nobody wilfully hallucinates (internally or otherwise), to be aphantasiac is not to be special but to be aware of one's consciousness in a way that most people seemingly are not.
Of course it is self-diagnosed, even a pathological rubber stamp relies entirely on self-reported symptoms.
Interrogate anyone on the subject of their visual imagination long enough and you'll eventually bump up against inconsistencies or otherwise reluctant admission that they don't "see" anything.
What would have been the result of John Postel advocating for conservative inputs, I wonder? I'm wondering if the most common protocols would have been bypassed if they had all done this by other protocols that allowed more liberal inputs.
Probably more convoluted protocols, because there are always things that you do accept and that can be used to negotiate protocol extensions.
Imagine a protocol where both sides have to speak JSON with a rigidly-defined structure, and none of the sides is allowed to ask whether the other supports any extension. Such a protocol looks impossible to extend, but that is not the case, you can indicate that you speak a "relaxed" version of that protocol by e.g. following your first left brace by a predefined, large number of whitespace characters. If you see a client doing this, you know they won't drop the connection if you include a supported_extensions field, and you're still able to speak the rigid version to strict clients.
This made me laugh, because it's even more terrible than the most ridiculous chicanery we had to vomit into HTML and CSS over the years (most of which was the fault of MSIE6).
Yep. Which is why Postel law is, sadly, more like a law of nature (see also "worse is better") than an engineering principle you may or may not follow.
I know it is a single example and we should extrapolate much out of it, but in the case of html those who accepted more liberal input (html4/5) won over over those that were more conservative (xhtml).
HTML is rather different because it's authored by people. It's typically (though not always!) a good idea to not be too pedantic about accepting user input if you can. XHTML (served with the correct Content-Type) will completely error out if you made a typo and didn't test carefully enough. Useful in dev cycle? Sure. In production? Less so. "The entire page goes tits up because you used <br> instead of <br />" is just not helpful (and also: needlessly pedantic).
But that doesn't really apply to protocols like TCP. Postel's "law" is best understood in the context of 1980, when TCP had been around for a while but without a real standard, everyone was kind of experimenting, and there were tons of little incompatibilities. In this context, it was reasonable and practical advice.
For a lot of other things though: not so much. "Fail fast" is typically the better approach, which will benefit everyone, especially the people implementing the protocols.
This is also why Sendmail became the de-facto standard around the same time by the way: it was bug-compatible with everything else. Later this become a liability (sendmail.cf!), but originally it was a great feature.
RFC 9413 referenced in a parent mentions HTML. It points out that formats meant to be human-authored may benefit more from being liberally accepted.
I also read that XHTML made template authoring hard, as the template itself might not be valid XHTML and/or different template inputs might make output invalid. (I sadly can't find the source of this point right now, but I can't claim credit for it).
I don't recall XHTML being harder to generate from PHP and ASP templates. It's largely down to making sure that all tags in the output are always balanced, which isn't difficult at all.
With PHP specifically there was an issue where the use of shorthand <? syntax for code snippets would conflict with <?xml declaration that would normally be placed at the beginning of the XHTML document - it would see the <? and try to interpret the rest of it as PHP code, which obviously didn't work. The workaround was to disable short tags and always use <?php explicitly
I would almost argue a failing of so many standards is the lack of surrounding tooling. Is this implementation correct? Who knows! Try it against this other version and see if they kind of agree. More specifications need to require test suites.
Yes, but only if you served the XHTML with the proper MIME type of application/xhtml+xml. Nearly everyone served it as text/html, which would lead to the document being intepreted as this weird pseudo XHTML/HTML4 hybrid dialect with all sorts of brower idiosyncrasies [1].
HTML5 was born in an era of decent HTML authoring tooling. Very few people write HTML by hand nowadays. This was not true of earlier versions.
Also note that HTML5 codified into liberal acceptance some of the "lazy" manual errors that people made in the early days (many of which were strictly and noisily rejected in XHTML, for example).
As a developer who has aphantasia (can't visualize at all), I'm curious how much visualization is used by others when "holding a program in your head". I can hold a program in my head just fine without visualizing anything, I'm just curious how much of it involves visualization for others.
It's probably just me, but as soon as I started learning dvorak I was wrecked on both dvorak and qwerty. Kept trying to type qwerty on dvorak and when switching back dvorak in qwerty. Really confused my brain/muscle interface, I guess. It was a few weeks until I could type in both in a reasonable manner. Now, 20+ years later, they are both completely ingrained in my muscle memory and I could probably switch every other word if I had to.
I don't know how it works, but when I switched over (20+ years ago) I was dysfunctional in both qwerty and dvorak for a good couple of weeks if not a month, then slowly got the hang of it. I use qwerty now at work and dvorak at home, except that I've switched the main keyboard layout at home to qwerty and just use dvorak for programming and anything in a terminal (on linux), which is where I spend a lot of my time.
I can mentally switch over to dvorak and program for a while, mentally swap back, and type normally for other things. I mainly switched the default layout back to qwerty because I was tired of remapping all the keys in every game I play. Sometimes when I come into work on a Monday morning I'll type gibberish for a couple of sentences then mentally flip back to qwerty and be fine.
Not the person you are replying to, but it's not up to me to determine what the best business model is for a company. My "job" with respect to info providers here is to consume what I like on an open protocol. If I find a website that interests me enough, by itself, to subscribe to it then maybe I would. But none of them have, not even any of the big ones. If someone provided a system where I could tip a website for an article or other piece of media I like, I'd do that. But nobody seems to know how to make micro-transactions work that I can see.
So if advertising is unwanted, and subscriptions to individual websites on the internet isn't working either, then maybe they should get more creative.
I had a lot of fun on old forums before this mess started, so if we revert to that so be it.
reply