We did one last semester at my school's cybersecurity club. I don't really know much about cybersecurity, just a hobbyist, but I had a fun time nerding out and giving freshmen a tough time with their drivers licenses.
The mechanism here appears to be the metabolism of compounds in cinnamon into sodium benzoate, which we already knew was helpful with Parkinson's.
The mechanism behind cinnamon's effects on blood glucose, OTOH, seems not to be terribly well-studied, given a few minutes' searching. One paper I found says, "cinnamon enhances glucose uptake by activating the insulin receptor kinase activity, auto-phosphorylation of the insulin receptor, and glycogen synthase activity."  Otherwise, the literature seems all to be, "We observed this effect..."
Self-hosting your e-mail is really not much better, from a security point of view, than letting gmail have your e-mail. Google has some of the best security people in the world, if your mail is safe anywhere, it's safe with Google. The problem, of course, is that Google is definitely going to try to read your mail, use and retain your private data indefinitely.
The problem is that if you host your own e-mail server, you dramatically increase the chances of some unpatched flaw or tiny messed up configuration file causing the Russian mafia to get access to everything on your e-mail server. You probably don't even particularly decrease the risk of the NSA getting your e-mails.
This is a problem that could be fixed by new models for e-mail that utilize encryption so that you inherently don't need to trust third parties in order to make use of their services. Avoiding third parties entirely is very likely impractical and unwise.
I've seen this argument before, and, while it's true to some extent, it seems like FUD to me. The same exact argument could be used for every single server you host yourself. But how many people here have an AWS machine running HTTP and SSH?
How many of them have been compromised by the Russian mafia?
People are so scared of email, and I just don't understand it.
Depends on the threat. If you host your own email, there is a whole class of legal intrusion (persuasive cops, warrants, national security letters) that you get to hear about if they want your archives or stuff that's encrypted on the wire. The same applies to corrupting employees; I'm going to know if somebody bribes my sysadmin for access, because that's me.
There's also some benefit in avoiding being part of a monoculture. Big mail providers are an enormously interesting target for both spies and criminals. Breaking into random quirky personal servers, though, has a very different cost/benefit ratio.
I heartily agree about avoiding being part of a monoculture, there are definite tradeoffs. The weirder your setup, the less likely you are to be swept up in anything bulk, but the more vulnerable you are to anything targeted. Unfortunately, it's pretty common for some quirky little open-source project to start out relying on obscurity, then become widely adopted, putting you in the absolute worst case scenario, since suddenly you're running high profile software that's never been "battle tested".
Correct that Google has no protection against NSLs, but that's like saying that you should always drive your car because planes are common targets for terrorism. I'm deeply troubled by the activities of the NSA et al, but realistically you are far, far more likely to be targeted for actual harm by malicious hackers than by the NSA. Even if you are targeted by the NSA, there's a better than average chance that they'll be able to get the data you care about anyway - consider how often you send an e-mail to something that doesn't end up on a server that's vulnerable to NSLs - they can compromise you on either end of the conversation, and that's not even considering the fact that governments are out there buying zero day exploits on the open market.
My point is that taking an inherently insecure (at least with respect to data privacy) protocol like the ones we use for e-mail now and putting it on your own server (and thus taking responsibility for patching, avoiding zero days, etc) is not an answer to the problem of data privacy. The way forward in my opinion is the development of communication protocols which by their very nature are trustless. If you're just interested in protecting content, then if you're using end-to-end encryption, you could use LegitimateBankSiteNumberOne.ru as your e-mail provider and it wouldn't matter. The protocols for doing this are already well-known, it's just a matter of adopting them.
I believe he was looking from the view point of an end user, not the developer integrating with Inbox. To be honest his reaction was exactly the same as mine - I wouldn't really want to use any service that uses Inbox, because now all my email has been synchronized to some other third-party service.
So your theoretical (straw man) user cares enough to not want their email in the hands of a third party service provider, but is unwilling to run their own service? Maybe this user should deliver their messages by hand directly to the recipient, because their demands are unrealistic.
Self-hosted services are a significant step forward from the corporate trap of the 2000s. Offering paid hosting plans is the most logical, sustainable revenue source for the companies writing this software.
No, I consider anything where step N involves "go to Github..." a non-starter for anyone who's not already a technologist. Self-hosted is great — in the world Snowden has demonstrated we live in, it's probably the best solution — but it needs to be turn-key, "plug it in and enter a username/password and you're done" level of effort, or it will never become widely used.
I imagine statements like yours are why Google has the user base it does.
[Sscene. PM_Tech has phoned his truck driver father]
"*Yes Dad; just build a simple installer to get an email address. An email address...it's like a phone number but letters instead. You know...so the cable company can message you. Well I suppose you could just call them...I don't know, it might take a while to build. You will have to learn programming for a start. I know you are 56. Yes, it will cut into your time for watching sports. I know I am "good" at that "computer stuff" but some guy on HN said this is how you should get an email because he knows how to do it...OK. I will be round for the game. Love to mum."
FYI Any service I have to use that starts with going to GitHUb will be ignored unless
[a] I am trying to learn something from it
[b] It is 2048.
It's bloody-stupid is what it is. If you understood how your own consciousness works on a scientific level, you would know exactly what evidence to check for in other people to know whether they're conscious or not. You could perform a simple medical test to find out if someone's a p-zombie (hint: they definitely aren't).
You clearly aren't very introspective, too bad. That doesn't warrant the idea as bloody stupid. You cannot verify consciousness, only reactiveness. Maybe you are confused by medical consciousness versus consciousness in a real sense. Medical consciousness only means reactiveness, it's a misnomer
'It's only appearances' skepticism always includes "to me". It only works by induction on the skeptic's solipsism. The difficulty of your position is compounded by HN's interface - even the claim "it appears to me that you are made of meat" is implausible.
Even with solipsism you can easily say that I'm made of meat. On the other hand, saying your consciousness is entirely meat-based is hugely addumptive. You will not know until you are dead, if there's something more.
Conscious in a medical sense, where the brain acts as if it has separate consciousness, yes. But that's not what this problem is about.
Rather it is about consciousness in the philosophical sense, that starts with the question of whether or not anything outside of your own consciousness even exists, and if we posit the existence of a real world, whether or not other seemingly thinking, self-aware, conscious entities exists that are able to experience consciousness.
Since we don't know what gives rise to this form of consciousness, it is not evident whether or not there will ever be any evidence to determine whether they are conscious or not in that sense.
I believe Eli is coming from a position of: reality is made up of things that can be studied, and rules that are universal, and those things and rules are what gives rise to consciousness in me. If I understand the process that gives rise to consciousness in me, I can look at other people's brains and see whether the process would apply in them as well.
"Consciousness in the philosophical sense", to the extent that it's a meaningful thing to talk about, is part of reality.
>"Consciousness in the philosophical sense", to the extent that it's a meaningful thing to talk about, is part of reality.
Stronger statement: "consciousness in the philosophical sense" is either part of reality, or a meaningless construct invented by philosophers to justify metaphysical speculations, thus obtaining job security by having a permanent claim that some phenomenon actually exists that can never be reduced to science.
If you understood how your own consciousness works on a scientific level, you would know exactly what evidence to check for in other people
Leaving aside the difficulties in unpacking the idea of scientific introspection under the classical rubric of experiment as observation, once one decomposes consciousness to where a scientific level can be extracted, there's a corpse on the table not a patient. The whole gist of consciousness is that it's unified and once we admit a distinct 'scientific level' we ought to own up to what we have done and say "by consciousness I don't mean what is ordinarily meant, but instead I mean exactly 'x,y,z' and therefore my claims are not about consciousness in general but about this special definition."
And there's nothing wrong with that, and it might be useful.
To continue with the above thread, wouldn't Wittgenstein's response to this be something along the lines of: if scientifically dissecting consciousness results in a corpse, is it correct to say there was a body in the first place? Think of the question, "How does Helios pull the Sun across the sky?" After dissection, we resolve to question the question, not answer it.
See the "Mary's room" thought experiment. Thinking and reasoning about all the measurable properties of a phenomenon is way different than experiencing them. This doesn't necessarily mean that subjective perceptions have an immaterial existence, but it provides an approach to analyzing the mind that can't be achieved by physical measurement alone.
A better question would be "how can you try to understand consciousness without instrospection?" Studying consciousness merely by performing brain scans and electroencephalograms, without asking the subject what she's experiencing, would surely provide a poor and incomplete perspective.
From TFA, emphasis added: "The company purchases the data from brokers who cull public records, store loyalty program transactions, and credit card purchases."
Store loyalty programs do track SKU-level purchases. There was a case years ago where a patron tripped and fell at a store, and filed a personal injury suit. The store pulled up that person's loyalty program records, noted that they'd been purchasing a larger than average amount of alcoholic beverages, and insinuated at trial that the patron might have been drunk.
The next step is "health insurance" (as we call it in the US, though it's in actuality no such thing) carriers mining your credit card and loyalty program data and hiking your rates if their model predicts you're going to need more or more expensive care.
The problem is that unhealthy lifestyles (drinking, smoking, fast food, &c) are disproportionately found among the lower socioeconomic strata, creating yet another penalty for being poor.
The funny thing is that the insurance industry is obsoleting itself.
If they perfectly assess risk, your annual premium will just be your annual cost plus all of the administrative costs of insurance, so just self-insure. We're getting closer and closer to that, further eliminating any value that anyone gets from insurance.
> If insurance works as you describe it it wouldn't make sense at all and everybody would individually be responsible for her entire medical cost. With partially ruinous consequences for the individual.
Actually, mandated insurance is perfectly in-line with what insurance is for. For n people, you now own a 1/n share of n risks that are not perfectly correlated with each other. Since people are assumed to be risk-averse and due to Jensen's inequality, your expected utility from paying your 1/n share is higher than your expected utility from taking a chance and either 1) paying nothing if you don't experience the adverse event, or 2) incurring the full cost of the adverse event.
I think what you're trying to say is that the aggregate risk remains the same under mandatory coverage, put that's going to be true no matter what and the effects of this risk can be optimally spread through insurance.
As an example, say $180 billion dollars worth of damage is done to 1 million homes in the US through natural disasters every year. With 300 million people in the US, mandated insurance would have everyone pay $600 a year to cover these damages. No insurance would mean you paid nothing unless your house was affected, at which point you lost on average $180,000. Insurance exists to pool the risks of these life-destroying events.
Insurance definitely isn't going away, in fact our capability to insure against a wide variety of events is in its infancy. The insurance market will only get more and more sophisticated. Hank Greenberg has some interesting thoughts on the direction of the industry.
Perfectly. Wow. You've confused a single-payer system with mandated-coverage for-profit insurance companies...that will somehow be forced by regulation to "optimize"...cost? Yeah. What's the CEO of UnitedHealthcare's nut, again?
Let's talk outcomes and efficiency, and not pretend charging doctors $39 to file "insurance" paperwork is anywhere close to optimal.
And, yes, aggregate risk for people will not change, as we, unlike our tools (e.g. a house), are only at equilibrium when we are dead.
Insurance companies that can better predict customer risk outcompete those that don't. They can charge less for lower-risk customers and still make a profit, thus drawing them away from their competitors and leaving their competitors with higher risk people who pay too little.
Yet, the end game is that everyone can predict risk so thoroughly that insurance is pointless.
It's ultimately a weird, backwards Tragedy of the Commons, and various non-discrimination laws are sort of the regulatory response to it.
Yet, the end game is that everyone can predict risk so thoroughly that insurance is pointless.
Not true. Suppose you have a 0.01% chance of needing a $10M treatment in your lifetime. First of all you can't say, "Oh I'll just self insure" because few people have $10M. Second, you may decide that paying $10,000 over the course of your lifetime is preferable to risking a payment of $10M.
Removing uncertainty doesn't eliminate the need for insurance, it just reduces the opportunity for risky subscribers to socialize their risk, and for insurance companies to reap gross profit.
Which means that if your current and past health status are poor, you're probably aware of this, and should sign up for the best insurance you can, since you're far more likely to reap the benefits. You should overinsure yourself, and buy some investments in the hospitals that you're going to be visiting.
Those with above average current and past health status should enrol into the very least amount of insurance they can get away with.
This is, of course, why the law against changing premiums based on a person's health status was combined with a law requiring everybody to buy fairly comprehensive insurance whether or not they want it.
Ok, I guess what I mean is eliminating uncertainty in risk profiles. IMO we are headed towards a world with good risk profiling- but I doubt we are anywhere close to predicting the future with certainty.
Insurance companies are identifying things like "Driving at night increases risk of accident". They are nowhere close to, "A blue corvette driven by a 43 year old male will rear-end a ford pinto today"
there should be no limits on smokers. There is no possible health benefit with smoking and as such penalizing them might get them quit. Many self insured companies already charge extra, 600 a year where I am. However for the money most make that isn't diddly, at least they don't think so
Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi claims a net cost savings of 32 cents per pack sold . It seems we're all going to die, and Alzheimer's isn't part of the quick and easy way out of healthcare cost. And at the ripe age of 125 or so, 100% suffer cancer.
Smoking could save money for society but it probably doesn't save money for individual insurers, who are much more worried about the shorter term. The private insurance you have when you're 30 isn't going to be paying for your nursing-home care when you're 90, but they are likely to end up paying for various smoking-related illnesses that kill you sooner.
We don't really have Health Insurance companies. Insurance is about risk management, and we have mandated health coverage. But, to your point, this is why real insurance companies manage their portfolios, aggregate. If they're losing money, it's not the responsibility of society to save them.
You're not wrong that there's a negative correlation between smoking and obesity or Parkinson's, but that is not a reason to take up smoking. You're far more likely to die of cancer or heart disease as a smoker than you are not to die from Parkinson's because you smoked.
In the case of poor diets, it's often enough a matter of what they can afford. So, yes. Let's impose a financial penalty on people who are eating poorly because they can't afford to eat well. That makes perfect sense.
That said, I'm not opposed to smokers paying higher premiums — but that practice already exists, based on policyholder disclosure, or rescission in the event of fraud. (I say that as a former smoker, who did disclose my habit, and paid a substantially higher premium because of it.) We don't need carriers trolling through peoples' transaction history to dredge up every possible excuse for hiking premiums, because that's exactly what they'll do.
Yes, it's true that sometimes you can find healthy stuff for relatively cheap. It's also true that you cannot do it consistently, in order to "eat cheap" in a consistent manner, it means constantly hunting for those deals, which implies trading your time for money. This is something the poor do a lot of, sitting at a laundromat instead of just throwing clothes in a washer, for example.
And I don't want to hear about eating some form of beans 5 days/week, eating healthy implies variety.
It can occassionally be done as cheaply as eating unhealthily, but not consistently over time. Your food bill will go up.
Again, we don't have health "insurance". Actual insurance, as the term is used everywhere but in the American health care system wouldn't cover routine care like visits to your kid's pediatrician, but would cover major care such as surgeries — just like your car insurance doesn't cover oil changes, but does cover fender benders.
Huh? My (mandatory and public) health insurance in Germany does pay for that. For some short time there was a €10 co-pay for routine checks (obviously not covering the actual cost of the visit) but even that was abolished some time ago.
I mean, insurance doesn’t cover everything, obviously, but that mostly applies to nice to have things or aesthetic things that aren’t really necessary (e.g. root canal treatment for wisdom teeth is not covered – pulling wisdom teeth if the caries is causing problems that can’t be solved with fillings anymore is, glasses are not covered, etc.).
They don't pay you for those things, and nor do they pay for them. They reduce your premiums if you have them. That's perhaps a subtle distinction, but it's a critical one.
If you're suggesting that an annual physical exam is the risk mitigation equivalent of a car alarm, then GEICO should have eaten the extra cost for purchasing a car with one installed instead of charging a lower premium because you have one.
So? Should we give criminals an easier time because the majority are from poor backgrounds? There will always be poor people and there are always things you can do to make their lives better, complaining about insurance companies isn't one of them.
This is coming from somebody who was raised in a very poor family so it's got nothing to do with not caring about poverty. It's just these sort of liberal ideas you could hear at an occupy protest show zero understanding of economics and are basically just bitching about companies.