Maybe I missed it, but assuming GrapheneOS doesn't adhere to this verification, or provides some OS-level way to disable it, what makes Graphene worse after this change?
GrapheneOS is only allowed to live because google lets it. This signals a wider ecosystem change that tells us that GrapheneOS is going to stop being usable when this generation of hardware dies. This generation or maybe the one after it.
What do you mean with "Google lets it"? GrapheneOS is based on AOSP.
GrapheneOS only runs on the Google Pixels, and Google may decide to render future Pixels unusable for GrapheneOS (e.g. by preventing to unlock/relock the bootloader).
But another Android manufacturer could get to the point where GrapheneOS endorses them. It feels like it shouldn't be that hard for an Android manufacturer, and they would immediately get quite some attention. Maybe not mainstream attention, but largely profitable, I think.
GrapheneOS exists only because the Pixel's bootloader can be unlocked. Google could remove that option anytime, making it impossible to install GrapheneOS.
Way off-topic, but I'm curious about how you approach unit testing.
Coming from Java into a C# job, I'm used to mocking downstream dependencies, and even POJOs in some cases, that a class depends on. C# has stuff like Moq, but you _have to_ wrap everything with an interface to mock it since C# seals by default.
Meanwhile, in JVM land, you can use Kotlin, which still seals classes by default, but allows test compiles to open classes by default so you can still mock them.
Every C# thread I read suggests wrapping all concrete implementations with an interface like I'm coding in the 90's for the sake of decent tests, or they talk about how my code must be written poorly for me to be in this situation. Meanwhile, I'm just trying to get _some_ testing into this code I've inherited.
Also, C# doesn't seal anything by default. The methods are non-virtual by default, but that's a very different thing, and there's a good reason for it when it comes to libraries and versioning.
This is only true if your plan supports deferrals, right?
Had after-tax deferrals available through a Fidelity plan at an employer once, it was great being able to roll that over into an IRA. Hopefully I'll have it again soon - it's an underrated perk for sure.
If they have salient points that stand up to rigor, then yeah? This is pretty much an appeal-to-authority argument, isn't it?
FWIW, I have no context on the specific claims made by Peterson, but I've increasingly seen a line of logic that suggests you need to have a PhD in a topic in order to think critically about it.
Not sure what analogy I made, but in this case, you can weigh how much you want to consider either opinion:
Sample Weather Channel Guy:
- No history in psychology
- Citing papers that are not highly respected under peer review
Sample Psychologist:
- Has a long history in the field
- Ideally has references available for their own claim
In this case, you'd probably want to err on the side of trusting the second person in the chart. What didn't happen, though, was a complete dismissal of the first person's claim based on credentials alone. If you have to make a decision on something quickly and authority is the only way for you to judge it, then sure, go for it. But appeal-to-authority doesn't belong in open-ended debates.
This isn't really true, regardless of whether you like masks or not. There have been one or two level changes with respect to how much risk you're introducing to those around you as well as the personal accountability of those you'd affect. It's not surprising that different people have different tolerances for these risks.
Even without the above factored in, this is sort of like saying that not using your turn signals in traffic on the 100th turn nullifies their utility for the previous 99 (not a perfect analogy).
It's not about individual risk, it's about collective risk, and honestly it's quite selfish to consider the COVID risks only with regard to yourself.
And Omicron has made it so the risk profile is effectively the same as when this pandemic started; you will get it, you will be contagious for a time, and you will infect others.
By looking at that risk and accepting it, you're throwing away the work you've previously put in to avoid being a bad person.
> And Omicron has made it so the risk profile is effectively the same as when this pandemic started; you will get it, you will be contagious for a time, and you will infect others.
Total nonsense. Anyone's chance of dying is massively diminished with the vaccine.
Many respiratory viruses have “long” symptoms. Covid is not even close to unique in that regard. Should we shut down everything and force little kids to wear masks for 8 hours a day for the annual flu?
The risk profiles that I refer to are both collective and individual - they're correlated for pretty clear reasons. Nobody is experiencing the spread of the disease in a vacuum.
Omicron's risk profile doesn't seem to be the same, looking at the numbers available on the Google chart I look at. We're seeing a lot fewer deaths per cases. That's not to say everyone should throw caution to the wind and do whatever they want, but it's disingenuous to say the math hasn't changed at all.
COVID cases are acting like a marketplace. People take different actions when the numbers/unknowns change, and that's not surprising. I know I'm doing a lot more outside of the home than I was when COVID first started, and that I'm not unique in that respect _at all_.
Not prescribing any course of action, just tossing out what I've been seeing.
Omicron may only be less deadly because of the precautions we're currently taking. Reducing those precautions could very well slingshot Omicron into being the deadliest variant, if it isn't already by sheer numbers.
> It's not about individual risk, it's about collective risk, and honestly it's quite selfish to consider the COVID risks only with regard to yourself.
Is it wrong to be selfish? That seems be an implicit assumption in your argument.
Yes, it's wrong to be so selfish that you can't experience a minor inconvenience to mitigate the risk of causing another person's death or severe injury.
1. Should people have the expectation that they can inconvenience others, even if only in minor ways? This is taken as given, but it's not always the case. For instance, reducing speed limits everywhere would only slightly inconvenience everyone but save thousands of lives.
2. Is it a minor inconvenience? Certainly not to some people with breathing difficulties.
3. Does it really mitigate the risk to the degree you imply? The case is frankly not as solid as you suggest.
There are even more, but frankly the case is flimsy enough as it is.
How long will you wear a mask for? Will you wear one in 2028 when Covid is still a circulating illness? Will you wear one in 2046? Are you in favor of mask-wearing in the permanent absence of covid to protect others from the flu, just in case you have it but haven't realized yet?
I'm an Ohio native that's recently moved back to the Columbus area myself. I know the area pretty intimately. Happy to respond to any questions about the area, as I'd love for there to be a larger tech scene around here.
A few things, some that are pretty general, and some that are pretty specific to my situation.
1. Family in general plays a large role.
2. I'm able to make stronger financial moves. Property is appreciating relatively quickly in the Columbus area, and purchase-cost-to-rent ratios are better here, from the investor PoV.
3. Full remote means that I'm still able to visit Seattle for the larger mountaineering trips, etc. that I like to take part in while being based out of a lower-CoL area. After several years, I was going to have to start taking flights to new destinations, anyway.
4. Opportunity to give back to the communities that gave me my start.
And some other factors come in, too. Covid definitely reduced my perceived benefit of living in Seattle. Nothing's forever though. It's a two-way door.
Two questions, does the area have symmetric gigabit fiber? If so, how reliable is it in your opinion? If not, what is the best option for multiple family members working from home?
How are water, electricity, sewage, road condition, utilities situation? Any reasons why a work from home worker might not want to live there?
I pay $70/mo for full duplex gig FTTH thru AT&T in Columbus. Super reliable but not available everywhere. You can get 1gb down/100mb up cable for similar price city wide.
No issues with utilities. Suburbs are better at handling snow removal/road maintenance than Columbus proper.
The internet infrastructure in Columbus isn't on par with a lot of the larger cities, and I think you'd have a hard time finding the speeds you're looking for, judging by what I've found - seems like there's some limited AT&T fiber, but it's not widespread. My service is reliable, though, and I haven't found bandwidth to be a problem as a full-remote employee.
Utilities are solid and seem much less suspect to outages compared to Seattle, a city I have a lot of experience living in. It's as though having more extreme weather more often ensures that the infrastructure is up to a certain rigor.
Roads are important here, and are well-maintained and addressed (e.g. expect trucks to be salting roads in anticipation for snow storms). Roads are also incredibly well-laid out in an inner/outer belt system that I miss when driving in other cities.
I was raised in the Catholic church, and I don't think your take on confession is quite right. The process of confession isn't "sit in this booth and walk out scot-free on all of your wrongdoings". It's meant to be an assisted meditation on what you can do better in your life, and how to do so. The act of confession doesn't help you if it's not done in good faith, and a penance for murder might be a confession to the community.
Think of it as a precursor to modern-day psychotherapy, if that helps. Admittedly, some modern day implementations of confession feel a bit like the spiritual equivalent of a drive through, nor are all priests equally capable of helping.
I'm a practicing Roman Catholic and the process is very nearly "sit in this booth and walk out scot-free on all of your wrongdoings," with a few caveats:
1. You actually have to confess your sins; intentional omission of a mortal sin invalidates the absolution.
2. You must express repentance for your sins (that is a firm intention to not continue sinning); confessing a sin that you fully intend to go out and continue doing invalidates the absolution.
3. You must perform penance for the sins; in modern day penance is usually private, I don't think this is a strict requirement. Note that a public penance does not reveal the specific sin; something like "walk back and forth down Main Street 10 times while carrying a cross" would be a public penance. It may include restitution towards those harmed as well (most commonly returning stolen items) but said restitution may always be anonymous as a priest may not require divulging of the sin outside the confessional as a condition of absolution (though they may suggest it; e.g. they will almost always suggest that addicts seek treatment).
> I was raised in the Catholic church, and I don’t think your take on confession is quite right.
The Protestant churches (the upthread poster said he was raised in some unspecified branch of protestantism) that hold out a role for confession tend to treat it rather differently than Catholics do the Sacrament of Reconciliation. (And, even within the Catholic Church, what reconciliation feels like can vary a lot between different priests administering the sacrament, irrespective of the [at least theoretical] theological consistency within the Catholic Church.)
As far as I know, confession is a route for absolution of “sins”. And for some reason this is a power Christian churches give themselves. If it doesn’t result in a form of leverage (moral or otherwise) over it’s practitioners, I’d be surprised. Even more so for children who have yet to establish their own view of the world.
Forgiveness is from God, but can be through a priest, as long as you are contrite. The Church as a body of Christians obviously benefits from contrite brothers and sisters attempting (and yes often failing miserably, but at least attempting) to live in peaceful communion.
Can confirm that this is how it worked out for me just a few weeks ago. Interviewed for SWE II for a day, was told that feedback was trending positive, and spent ~4 hours of personal time prepping for and participating in fit calls.
Then got and excited call from my recruiter and was told I'd get an offer and that there was a match for one of the teams I interviewed for. The catch? Downleveled to SWE I, despite saying earlier in the process that I would not take it for career development and salary range reasons.
They were willing to set up another round of interviews to get more data, but at some point you just have to call it. End-to-end, this took around a month and a half. This was with my positive references allowing me to skip the phone screen.
I've had positive experiences interviewing with Microsoft and Amazon, no experience with other big tech.
The Framework Laptop does not support S3 suspend. I have it running with S2deep in Linux, which works okay, but it isn’t a fantastic scenario. Hibernation is the way when the processor doesn’t support S3, unfortunately. Even Windows would fall back to it after a short duration.
