> When you gain weight, you also increase the muscles needed to carry that weight around.
I can't figure out how relevant that is. From what I've seen of obese people they always struggle with limited mobility, which often only improves with physiotherapy (or other forms of exercises). Sumo wrestlers are huge but can move faster than an equivalent obese person because (I assume) they have stronger muscles due to their regular regimented training and diet. Does this mean they have more muscle mass than fat compared to an equivalent obese person? Does more muscle mass indicate stronger muscles?
Well, based on my DEXA scan from before I started on tirzepatide, if I had dropped to 20% BF with my starting LBM, I would have been in close to the best shape of my life. I certainly have a lot of extra muscle in my legs from carrying my fat ass around.
> Does more muscle mass indicate stronger muscles?
Yes. Strength for specific movements involves CNS adaptation, but if you look at the top tier of powerlifters, ranking them within a weight category by MRI muscle mass would produce basically identical results to their actual rankings.
I think this article is jumping the gun ... Give it time ... I hadn't even heard of this show, and so obviously wasn't even looking for it ... And if it is in Swedish, I'll also have to wait for the complete English subtitles before I can watch it. (And personally, I've found that pirated TV shows / movies that are not English are, in general, difficult to find online).
They are technically different. I also found The Pirate Bay on a torrent site straight away (1337x).
Streaming plays straight away like youtube. Torrents you generally have to download first using bittorrent like software. Though it blurs a bit with software like Popcorn Time.
The Pirate Bay is known for its championing piracy, in general. Those streaming sites are piracy. They also usually use the same source videos as those found on torrent sites; if not outright acting as a thin media player on top of torrents, in some cases.
I live in sweden. I can download it with subtitles and just google translate it to english. I have done it on the first episode. Link: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x98u9ie
Side question: there is an undocumented and free Google Translate API. Is there a similar one for transcription?
I have one I made which you feed a video file and uses a paid transcribe/Translate service to spit out subtitles, but I would love a free one, even if crappier...
Some aspects I found surprising: India tops the chart at banning books, even ahead of China, and the US bans more books than the UK (is that a more recent thing?)!
> The amount of web traffic that SQLite can handle depends on how heavily the website uses its database. Generally speaking, any site that gets fewer than 100K hits/day should work fine with SQLite. The 100K hits/day figure is a conservative estimate, not a hard upper bound. SQLite has been demonstrated to work with 10 times that amount of traffic ... The SQLite website (https://www.sqlite.org/) uses SQLite itself, of course, and as of this writing (2015) it handles about 400K to 500K HTTP requests per day, about 15-20% of which are dynamic pages touching the database. Dynamic content uses about 200 SQL statements per webpage. This setup runs on a single VM that shares a physical server with 23 others and yet still keeps the load average below 0.1 most of the time. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33975635
100K/day is less than 2/second. I think those numbers need to be updated on the SQLite page. For a read heavy workload, like serving static files, SQLite can do much more. Since the content caching headers are set, the browser will cache content, causing request to the server to be required for new clients only. I do not expect SQLite to be the bottleneck for most use cases.
Drives me nuts when people use rates of any unit besides sec or min. Anything longer is not useful information, since traffic varies over time and what you care about is peak rates.
> Nasr said his firing was disclosed on social media by the watchdog group Stop Antisemitism more than an hour before he received the call from Microsoft. The group didn’t immediately respond Friday to a request for comment on how it learned about the firing ... The same group had months earlier called on Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella to take action against Nasr for his public stances on Israel. ( https://apnews.com/article/microsoft-fired-workers-israel-pa... )
Ah, just another example of "cancel culture" in the US getting rid of the "politically undesirable". (It's news to me that speaking for human rights and freedom of Palestinians colonised by Israel, is now "antisemitism"). I hope Americans recognize that to an outsider like me, the slogan of "land of the free and the home of the brave" is increasingly sounding so hollow. This sad current political trajectory of "you better not have any political beliefs that offend those in power" is certain to lead the US to its downfall.
There is nothing new about this. Do you think you could call your boss an active participant in genocide and keep working 20 years ago? You would be shown the do them too.
PaleMoon browser has a canvas.poisondata config setting (also available in the Preferences GUI) which prevents such fingerprinting. However, note that these things are not used in isolation - browser fingerprinting is done by collecting various other data too, and when collated together, these can provide enough uniqueness to identify (or categorise) your browser into some specific group. We are fighting a losing battle for privacy.
Hot take: instead of making fingerprints more unique, we should be striving to make fingerprints as identical as possible, so they stop being useful as fingerprints. In the case of Canvas 2D, that would mean standardized bit-level definitions of what all the canvas operations do, so all the browsers do the same thing.
Unfortunately this could only be done by forbidding web content from using GPUs at all. GPUs are extremely diverse compared to CPUs. It is not feasible to standardize bit-exact operations on diverse GPU hardware while maintaining reasonable performance.
Some will say that we should forbid web content from using GPUs. But that would push apps and their users to native platforms that don't even try to minimize fingerprinting at a technical level, instead either relying on legal enforcement by monopoly gatekeepers (with all the problems that implies), or providing no protection against fingerprinting at all.
> Some will say that we should forbid web content from using GPUs. But that would push apps and their users to native platforms that don't even try to minimize fingerprinting at a technical level
Conflating "websites" with "apps" is what lead to this mess in the first place. You can't just "try to minimize fingerprinting", you either prevent it or don't. And by the time you expose a GPU to the web, you're well inside the latter category.
IMO the only solution to the tracking epidemic is making boundaries between the two clear. Just like some random blog can't read my GPS location without asking first, it shouldn't be given access to other tracking vectors without user consent either.
Plainly false. You can minimize the number of bits of entropy in the fingerprint even in situations where a couple of bits are unavoidable, and you can mitigate fingerprinting methods by detection and/or blocking. Browsers do this today.
The web is crucial as the only free platform for distributing software to a huge chunk of consumer devices. Apple would love to strengthen their iOS app distribution monopoly by forbidding sophisticated web apps. That's why they have dragged their feet implementing more advanced web standards and limited their capabilities when they do implement them (for example making fullscreen mode unusable for games).
> Plainly false. You can minimize the number of bits of entropy in the
fingerprint even in situations where a couple of bits are unavoidable,
A single API may just yield a couple of bits, but it adds up when there
are hundreds of APIs, with new ones introduced every week. And you don't
need that many bits to uniquely identify someone.
But sure, leaking a few bits here and there might as well be unavoidable
when two of the three major browser vendors are ad companies and
preventing it isn't a priority. (See the saga about Google and 3rd-party
cookies.)
> and you can mitigate fingerprinting methods by detection and/or
blocking. Browsers do this today.
You can mitigate a finite set of fingerprinting methods that you know
of. It becomes exponentially harder with every new tracking vector that
is enabled by default, especially when the expectation is that things
Just Work.
(For example, blocking canvas readout breaks canvas-based image resizing
on lots of websites that use the first result from stackoverflow.)
> The web is crucial as the only free platform for distributing software
to a huge chunk of consumer devices. Apple would love to strengthen
their iOS app distribution monopoly by forbidding sophisticated web
apps. That's why they have dragged their feet implementing more advanced
web standards and limited their capabilities when they do implement them
(for example making fullscreen mode unusable for games).
Respectfully, I don't see a pressing need to solve the issue of "you
don't own Apple devices you pay for" by stuffing every possible API
under the sun into the browser.
Besides, I'm not advocating against sophisticated web apps; I just wish
browsers applied the principle of least privilege when adding features
ripe for abuse. e.g. maybe I would allow GPU access for a web-based 3D
game whose developer I trust, but not some random blog that will use it
to either fingerprint me or run a cryptominer.
This is a pet peeve of mine. I haven't seen a sane take on this anywhere. Getting rid of 3rd party cookies to prevent tracking has been a priority for Google for many years. Everyone thinks they haven't done it because they hate privacy or something; nothing could be further from the truth. They have been blocked on disabling 3rd party cookies because of antitrust concerns coming from other ad companies who object to being blocked from tracking users.
Antitrust concerns which wouldn't have had any weight if not for yet
another tracking mechanism that Google had intended to add in place of
third party cookies.[0]
It's not because Google "hates privacy", it's because Google operates
to generate profit, and it does so from targeted advertising.
See, you have it backwards. It's exactly the opposite. FLoC etc were designed to mitigate the antitrust concerns by replacing 3rd party cookie tracking for the other ad companies, allowing 3rd party cookie deprecation to proceed. By blocking FLoC, activists made it impossible for Google to deprecate 3rd party cookies in Chrome, as that would guarantee a loss in antitrust court.
Google themselves never needed FLoC for their own ads business. Their search and video ad businesses don't need 3rd party tracking to be successful. Google has the most first party data; users literally tell Google their intent directly by typing it into the search box. Advertising on 3rd party sites is a small minority of Google's revenue, and the part of that attributable to cross site tracking is even smaller.
But Google had to provide something to replace cookie tracking for the other ad companies that don't have the first party data Google has. Those ad companies rely on 3rd party cookies to compete with Google. If Google blocked 3rd party cookies in Chrome with no replacement they would instantly be sued for leveraging their browser market share to kill their competition in the ads market, and they would lose big.
As COVID has taught us "if only we had all obeyed the stay at home order" (which would have eliminated COVID and a chunk of dozens or hundreds of infectious diseases), relying on the bulk of man to "get with the plan" is a fool's errand, ipso facto the proposition of such is and was foolish for reason of blindness to this fact.
That is to say, if we all have a "same browser" then there will be people with "not same", there will be divergences, it will be a mess.
A very simple solution of polymorphic fingerprinting - the fingerprinters will get a fingerprint, a good looking one, just that it will be different each time. Even better to think of when the russians poisoned the ammunition in vietnams with bad bullets. Can't make them all bed or they'll toss the whole batch. I think they arrived at 1:10. The idea is to make fingerprinting as ugly as possible - up to and no further than the point that they are forced to cook up something even more evil.
> Nasr said his firing was disclosed on social media by the watchdog group Stop Antisemitism more than an hour before he received the call from Microsoft. The group didn’t immediately respond Friday to a request for comment on how it learned about the firing ... The same group had months earlier called on Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella to take action against Nasr for his public stances on Israel. ( https://apnews.com/article/microsoft-fired-workers-israel-pa... )
Ah, just another example of "cancel culture" in the US getting rid of the "politically undesirable". (It's news to me that speaking for human rights and freedom of Palestinians colonised by Israel, is now "antisemitism"). I hope Americans recognize that to an outsider like me, the slogan of "land of the free and the home of the brave" is increasingly sounding so hollow. This sad current political trajectory of "you better not have any political beliefs that offend those in power" is certain to lead the US to its downfall.
I can't figure out how relevant that is. From what I've seen of obese people they always struggle with limited mobility, which often only improves with physiotherapy (or other forms of exercises). Sumo wrestlers are huge but can move faster than an equivalent obese person because (I assume) they have stronger muscles due to their regular regimented training and diet. Does this mean they have more muscle mass than fat compared to an equivalent obese person? Does more muscle mass indicate stronger muscles?
reply