Despite the no added sugar, I always found it pretty sweet despite no added sugar. So I just looked it up and they use Valencia peanuts which apparently can taste sweeter.
That’s the back door for an organic products. Source varieties that are naturally sweeter, then you don’t have to list the sugar as a separate ingredient.
Saturated fat is very good at making you feel full. I view peanutS/PB as a snack-displacement food: if I'm roaming around for nibbles, some sat fat will kill my cravings and reduce the likelihood of eating sugar. But ymmv
This is one reason working in an office can be a disaster if you're someone who would "roam around for nibbles". In every place I've worked there has been a vending machine or otherwise easily accessible junk/sugar dispenser. In my eyes these are no different from having a cigarette machine or a gambling machine or something, but not everyone sees it that way.
In my house there is no ready-to-eat food at all. I'm not just going to go to the kitchen and cook a potato when I feel a bit peckish.
But this seems difficult for many people. Personally I find hunger to be a normal part of every single day. I don't fear it or feel the need to squash it the moment it arises. I also don't feel any discomfort when I'm not surrounded by ready-to-eat food at all times. But many people do seem to feel a constant need to have food available and find it deeply uncomfortable if the next meal doesn't seem readily available.
If you're good with handling hunger - that's great!
A lot of people get hypoglycemic (ie, irritable) when low on blood sugar, so for them, snacking is an acceptable evil (esp. if only healthier snacks are stocked).
For me, I find whipping up some dill/garlic/mayo dip + cut carrots, or celery + good PB a meaningful snack.
My guideline is to try to find a good carb/fiber ratio (pref: 5:1), and avoid added sugars.
People without diabetes don't get hypoglycaemia. I believe you can train yourself to expect food at certain times. I eat two meals a day and only get irritable (hangry) around those times.
But anyway, what you've written is basically my point. If you want/need to snack then unless you think ahead and make healthy snacks available then it's going to sugar/junk that you find in the socially acceptable junk machine.
I have a BMI of 20 so I'm not trying to avoid calories. However I do try to avoid sugar, UPFs, and so on, because what benefit would there be in putting that crap in your body.
Man, the evil that was done to diets by the sugar industry in the 80s is still paying dividends.
Saturated fats, like anything, are bad in excess. However, avoiding them completely is bonkers - and leads to people replacing (ok) fats with additional eating - mostly with sugary snacks.
Is it? The point is that the availability depends on the retailer, not just that they “can” be found. In some places there’s one brand and others there are many.
Any "shelf-stable" or "no-stir" peanut butter (aka Jif brand) will likely contain sweetener and also palm oil.
You don't have to make your own peanut butter but it tastes even better than a good peanut butter like Kirkland/Adams/etc. Some stores allow you to grind nuts on-site (almond/peanut) and charge you for the output.
And it's all upside (your body feels better afterward) no downside. (Ok, it's more expensive.) Especially when combined with other sweet ingredients, e.g. a banana – equally if not more delicious.
For people's image being used without their permission: strengthen U.S. right of publicity laws with private right of action, enabling people to sue for unauthorized use of their voice or likeness.
Digital signatures as part of audio/video that can't be easily modified or faked which can trace the origin of a piece of media. Some camera manufacturers are already working on it.
How do you propose to keep watermark-free models out of the hands of evildoers? I can't build my own digital camera or laser printer, but I can certainly write software.
I don't have a good solution, but maybe legislation helps. There may not be a foolproof solution but I think the more that such devices are widely used, the less likelihood there may be of e.g. a court case hinged on bad evidence.
ConductorOne | Software Engineer | Hybrid (Portland, San Francisco), Remote(US) | Full Time
ConductorOne (https://conductorone.com) is a modern identity governance platform built to secure and simplify access management for today’s fast-changing, cloud-based environments. We unify access and permissions data from across all your cloud, infrastructure, and on-prem tools, giving real-time visibility and control, and help our customers reduce identity risks, automate access reviews, and streamline access requests, with powerful automation and user-friendly experiences. Trusted by teams at DigitalOcean, Instacart, Ramp, and more.
We use lots of Go, React, Temporal, gRPC, DynamoDB, Postgres and AWS. We’re looking for product-minded engineers, who love taking ownership of the product and shipping every day.
In security contexts the term “enumeration” is understood to mean “brute force”. You can Google “enumeration attack” to see a bunch of examples where this is explicitly defined.
While a lot of security people misuse "enumeration" in this way, it's not accurate. They should use the term "oracle", eapecially since it's from the same field.
More concrete example: Account enumeration because the "forgot password" page tells the user "Unable to find account xyz@example.com" instead of "If your account xyz@example.com exists, then we have now send you an e-mail to recover your account".
If your forgot password page takes longer to respond when an account exists when it does not, it is also a side-channel attack.
They’re only partially correct no matter what. The timestamp in a ULID has only has millisecond resolution, so two IDs generated in the same millisecond, even within the same process, will be randomly ordered.
In practice though there are a lot of advantages to having approximately-time-ordered IDs, and I’ve found the pitfalls easy enough to avoid.
The ULID spec has the weird "first generate a random number and all successive calls within the same millisecond just increment the previous number by 1", which tries to solve this somewhat at the expense of now needing to lock, making ULID generation sequential within the same process.
That probably isn't something good for everyone, it makes trying to guess ids on a busy system so much easier than 60ish bits of random data (just get an id, try to add or remove 1, and if someone else happened to generate another id the same millisecond you've just found it?)
Whether the id is secret or not is a debatable choice, but there's no reason to make it easily guessable; at least that increment should be random with a somewhat large stride...
But in general anyway in a distributed system network latency etc will mean things are just "mostly sorted" which is good enough, keeping the last few inserts in order is much easier than reshuffling the whole db/index all the time
It basically found that you can get close to 100% relatively easily with minimal storage (5 hours average demand).
The issue with getting over the mid-90s and to handle 100% is that you need to cater for the edge-cases (conditions that may occur 1-2 times per year max).
Either way from memory, LCOE (in $/MWH) for grid-scale solar is around 50-60, adding storage brings costs up to 80-120. Nuclear is in the range of 200-300+, so even with storage the economics of renewables are better with costs trending downward. Especially when you can build them and scale them up quickly (compared to 10-15 years of nuclear builds).
> so even with storage the economics of renewables are better with costs trending downward
Possibly, but nuclear TCO is also extremely well understood, and it's possible that the TCO for these new systems is not. I'd say the error bars are likely to be much longer on the renewables for the next 20 years or so, as we flush out the details.
> It doesn’t make much sense to compare the average outputs of wind vs nuclear unless you budget for a bunch of storage too.
It depends. If you're adding wind or nuclear to an already existing grid (which is usually the case), the already existing power plants can usually take over whenever the new power plants are offline or generating less power, and you don't need to budget for any extra storage. In these cases, the average output is the most relevant metric; it shows how much fuel (for a mostly fossil fuel grid) or water (for a mostly hydroelectric grid) it will save.
Possibly, but the discussion is about price per MW of nuclear vs wind, and I'm saying that's not a great comparison between generation types if you want power delivered all the time. 50% capacity is worth much less than 50% of the cost of 100% capacity.
In this context WASM is more like a slower container than an application runtime. The potential advantages being:
* Far better isolation than a normal Linux container
* If WASM takes off, maybe architecture-independent artifact distribution
* If WASM takes off, maybe improved ability to call from one language into another
As a Kubernetes container runtime WASM today is probably most comparable to gVisor, with the somewhat huge caveat that it prevents you from just running normal Linux software.
reply