So, one of the things I have personally seen is where these companies have in-house counsel and then CC that person on emails that could be problematic if they were ever required to be produced in discovery. Then if something does happen, it is easy to claim privilege on these emails and hide what are essentially non-legal related emails from lawsuits. There is flimsy cover of keeping counsel informed so they can provide legal guidance if needed, but that essentially undermines the legal process during a lawsuit as the very emails verifying a plaintiff's claim may be in these privileged emails, or maybe not, but without seeing them only the company and their legal teams knows.
Yes, this is unethical and also can lead to things like we see in this case where the judge will pierce privilege because it was being abused. But......unless you can prove that is what is going on in the emails, judges are very reticent to pierce privilege.
What if some people's hunger is louder than others? What if your expended willpower to not overeat is a lot less than what is required by others?
I ask these as that is what the GLP-1's are showing. They change the hunger feeling and it might just be that you and others got lucky with a lower hunger feeling than others. There is no objective measure of food noise, but I think we all need to be open to the possibility that the food noise is different for different people and its not all willpower or laziness.
They still have a brain capable of complex thoughts and should be able to prioritise long term health over short term pleasures.
Again I don't really care, I managed to help people around me following this dead simple recipe, if you want to make excuses for yourself or others go ahead and suffer. Suffering from obesity is much harder on the body and soul than "suffering" from skipping a snack or counting calories
I'm convinced it is but you can't help people who don't want to be helped. People who want to be helped get out of the problem in a matter of months.
Fix your shit, it's much better than taking pills for life to fix your obesity, which is arguably the very last link of a long chain of problems. Eat clean, exercise, understand that food is fuel, understand how the fuel is used, learn discipline, learn timing, learn to recognise good and bad fuels... pills won't do any of this, and being skinny won't bring health if you don't do/learn the things I just enumerated. Obese people need a complete lifestyle overall, not pills. No amount of pills will help if they keep everything else the same, and if they implement the changes they don't need the pills to begin with
I have done that multiple times in the past but there came a point where I couldn't "white knuckle" my diet any more. GLP-1 has really helped a much better quality of life - lower cravings for food and alcohol, meaning that I am losing weight and feeling cheerful instead of gritting my teeth.
We have decades of experience telling people to exercise more and eat better. If telling people those things worked, we would know by now. It doesn't. This is not in any way new.
Ah yes, the ever popular "they are just lazy or weak willed" rhetoric. Obesity is a disease just like addictions are. But I'm sure another round of "just try harder" pep talks and motivation posters will solve everything. Maybe stop for a moment and realize your perspective is narrow.
The thing that he doesn't mention is that as soon as they do something legislatively and announce routes there, etc.....well Google just won't crawl those sites. It turns into a game of whether you would like 0 traffic from Google, or allow them to use your content both for search results and AI summaries.
Google is the bringer of traffic and if you want it, then you play by their rules. I don't like that the web is in that position, but here we are.
I think it gets tricky with AI overviews. Some sites are saying they have lost the majority of their traffic (some losing more than 90%). Many of those make money from ads (often by google).
Some sites don't get enough traffic from google to sustain their business where they previously did. Wholesale blocking google crawlers doesn't seem like a risky move for them.
It makes me wonder if that is a trend? Will more sites go to 'google zero'?
To some extent, yes. I speculate that is why they are sometimes not putting the AI overview first.
They do have ads in search though. I guess it depends on how much more money they make from people spending more time not leaving google vs showing you display ads on other sites.
Not really because most of the links in current AI overviews for many queries keep you in the Google ecosystem, such as links to Google Business profiles on Google Maps. And Google has recently changed Google Business profiles to make outbound website links less prominent compared to the paid features on that platform.
Lots of good things to investigate already in the thread. I would throw in the potential for an anycast routing issue. TCP is stateful and if there is asymmetric routing, maybe the packets are coming from one anycast device, but the returning packets are routing to a different one.
Would suspect some of the other responses first though, but if they don't help this could be a possibility if they are using anycast.
I don't think the IP shared is anycast. All of my personal test nodes are Seattle based, and they all see the same basic path to the IP that was shared; transit to San Jose, then two hops in BunnyCDN's network. Additionally, I get a different IP when I lookup the test hostname, that traces to Seattle.
It does feel like maybe a different server/network path getting the SYN+ACK vs the ACK, but probably in BunnyCDN's equipment --- but maybe something weird in Berkeley's (wired) network causes weird behavior for BunnyCDN? Hard to really know without pcaps from both ends, which are hard to get. Something funky in the load balancer seems like a good guess to me.
Latest AT&T Statement: “Our network teams took immediate action and so far three-quarters of our network has been restored,” the company said. “We are working as quickly as possible to restore service to remaining customers.”
Anecdotally, I woke up to no signal / “SOS” mode on my iPhone this morning at around 0600 and had service restored around 0830 in South Carolina. However, a coworker in Memphis confirmed he was still out of service at 1000 so it’s regional restoration.
I always wonder instead of a regional restoration, if they would “disable” segments of SIMs/accounts randomly to avoid lightning strike (it’s not a DDoS…) their network as they turn things back on. Depends on what the recovery method is, but could be problematic to turn everything back on at once.
Back up in Cartersville, north of ATL @ 13:12. Oddly enough my text messages say they went through at 12:43 but my response to someone's message when once my phone had everything roll in at once is timestamped 13:12
Good thought, but switching to LTE only didn't work. Same result of ending up in SOS only. Cellular over wifi works perfectly fine though. Wish we could count on better post mortems from the phone companies, but I'm not holding my breath for it.
I'm wondering if it could be some kind of auth timeout. I've heard from a few people of one person's phone going out, then a bit later the other person's phone finally failing too.
It helps you eat at a caloric deficit. I wouldn't say that is starving yourself. It is basically the same mechanism for how any weight loss would work. Less calories consumed versus burned on a daily basis.
There are additional mechanisms that are still being studied, but at minimum it is helping people to eat at a level that supports weight loss.
How do you keep user flags from being used as a way to squash articles on a particular topic before they have had the chance to be exposed to the wider HN community?
Meaning if someone were to theoretically get a real time feed of HN submissions, and flagged articles that they didn't want seen as well as messaging a group of friends to do the same thing. Do you have protections for this type of behavior that would prevent this person from having undue influence on what can and cannot have a chance at being seen by others?
I don't have any proprietary knowledge of how HN does voting ring detection, but to offer an intuition about how it might work in the scenario proposed by GP, this voting ring would be detectable because their flags are highly correlated and clustered together in time. The more stories they attempt to flag down (successfully or otherwise), the more obvious the pattern will be.
I'm sure you're already thinking of ways to bypass that, and yes what you're thinking will probably work, it's a game of cat and mouse and no one technique will be sufficient or work forever. (See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_in_depth_(computing) )
Yes, I know they do some form of detection on this for up/down votes, but flagging is supposed to be for content that violates rules, so I am curious if they handle it similarly. It doesn't really help you boost content, but can sure be used to suppress content if not tracked as flagging seems to significantly reduce visibility of a post.
I just posted about that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39235382. The relevant part is in the middle of that rather, er, wallish text, but if you read it (assuming you find it!) and have a question I didn't answer, I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
Yes, this is unethical and also can lead to things like we see in this case where the judge will pierce privilege because it was being abused. But......unless you can prove that is what is going on in the emails, judges are very reticent to pierce privilege.