chevill

There are lots of ways it can help. Finding out you wake up an abnormal amount of times could be a sign of sleep apnea or something else. One could take that information and get a sleep study.

These apps can detect that you are moving around a lot and also detect that you are snoring (another sign of sleep apnea).

Even if you know that you snore without using a sleeping app, that doesn't really give you a picture of how bad it could be. I apparently stop breathing and sometimes start choking in my sleep.

Now that I have a diagnosis of sleep apnea sleep apps are still really helpful. If I'm still snoring, it means I probably need to adjust the pressure on my CPAP machine. If the app for my CPAP machine tells me that I'm having a lot of episodes over the course of the night, I might need to adjust the pressure or the fit of the mask.

sleep apps have probably literally saved lives.

I might not understand your question. I'm not saying the payment processors were wrong to blacklist them. PH was being genuinely scummy.

Its a forced position because PH very much wanted to continue to accept credit cards, which I suspect was where 99% of their income was from. However, the payment processors blacklisted them so they can't.

They stopped being able to process credit cards because Mastercard and VISA cut them off when there was a public outcry about PH doing such a shitty job of moderating illegal content that everyone got the impression they were supporting it.

PH didn't decide "we are only gonna accept crypto so we can circumvent the system" it was a position forced upon them as a punishment for their shitty behavior. Now they are trying very hard to moderate effectively in order to win back the good graces of the payment processors because they are probably going to eventually go bankrupt if they don't.

IIRC development hell. I think they had to scrap basically the whole movie and start over at one point.

In some ways it does but my fellow keyboard hobbyists seem to have an infinite appetite for artificial scarcity. 99% of aluminum keyboard cases are barely distinguishable from one another but some of them cost a few thousand dollars while others cost $80. There are some with a better fit and finish but the higher in price you go the more rapidly the diminishing returns set in.

Occasionally there's some innovation and slowly we're seeing some of these innovations from individual designers get copied by companies more capable (and more importantly, willing) to mass produce things.

Having access to multiple keys per thumb really is a huge improvement over standard keyboards.

They are pretty expensive, but you can get a custom Dactyl Manuform made for about $400-500. I think there are some cheaper ways to get one. I made my own and its the best keyboard I've ever used. Before that I was using a different split keyboard (the ergodox-ex) and it was pretty good but the Dactyl is near perfect. I just wish they were popular enough for a large manufacturer to start making some non-3d printed cases for them.

>That's a frame, that Chomsky knowingly pushes forward, and it sweeps a number of significant issues under the rug (trusting the Russians, freedom, future deportations, threats to other countries, all of which are addressed in the open letter).

This isn't really fair to the context in which he's saying a negotiated settlement is the best option. Its more like he's saying its the least bad option.

Russia has not been doing well, but they are not on the verge of defeat and if they fully committed to it they could probably continue fighting for a year or more. The entire time they would continue their scorched earth policy that has already done so much damage that it will likely take decades to recover from.

Chomsky seems to believe that because Russia was considered a formidable opponent on the world stage before this conflict and many assumed they would win in a few days, that Putin is going to come to the conclusion that his only option for remaining in power is to keep fighting and escalating. Chomsky thinks that this will lead to the destruction of Ukraine without intervention from powerful allies.

He also thinks that the intervention of a nuclear power would significantly increase the chance of a nuclear war. He thinks that if a nuclear war happens that it is very possible for it to spiral out of control into a global nuclear annihilation.

So a more honest assessment of his promotion of a "negotiated settlement" is that he simply thinks that its preferable to the near total destruction of either just Ukraine or the entire world.

Note that I'm not saying his three imagined possibilities are infallible, just pointing out that he isn't ignoring all of the things that make a negotiated settlement a bad option.

Me too, the problem is that for such a thing to exist at scale we have to make the simply awful protoypes that people keep coming up with financially successful. Which means paying as much or more as you would for a cutting edge flagship for a janky mess that uses technology that's several generations behind and hope that it supports our carrier.

If you read this letter I encourage you to read the Chomsky interviews they linked. These interviews were my first experience reading things he wrote or said. After reading those it seems like the authors of this letter didn't really understand his statements.

I don't agree with everything Chomsky said, but he seems to try and understand all of the opposing viewpoints in this conflict as a way to figure out what the possible outcomes are. It didn't come across as blatantly or negligently pro-Russian to me.

For example, I think its pretty reasonable to hold the opinion that Ukraine probably isn't getting Crimea back without forcibly taking it (and I have no idea if they are capable of it). Chomsky and I could be wrong about this but I don't think it makes either of us pro-Russian shills. He's not attempting to predict what ought to happen in the fantasy world that we want to exist, he's trying to predict what may happen in the deeply flawed world that we actually have.

How complete is this? I loved Caesar II. Didn't have a chance to play the third.

I'm not sure why its confusing. Conservatives have historically proclaimed themselves to be (in their words even if the actions don't always match) in favor of small government, reduced government spending, and the minimal taxation required to keep a small government functioning.

FDR implemented a bunch of large social programs which naturally grow the government, spend more money, and therefore require more tax dollars to fund.

Social programs that redistribute money have long been considered a form of forced charity which many conservatives think is immoral.

Disclaimer: Not taking a side here. In 2022 I don't think we have a "good" political party in the US let alone a perfect one.

> I don't know how much more explicit I can be with a phrase like "regulate into the dirt."

"regulate it into the dirt" is commonly understood to mean the very real practice of placing so many restrictions/conditions on something that it becomes impractical to operate within the industry of whatever "it" is while explicitly not actually banning it outright.

I tend to agree that there's no reason it should exist, but I'm open to the idea that maybe there's a worthy purpose out there that I'm missing.

DCS has some very advanced sims but some of the cheaper modules (planes) are intentionally less realistic/labor intensive.

If you download DCS World directly from the site instead of getting it through steam, you can get a 2 week trial of each module every 6 months.

Flaming Cliffs 3 is the name of the less realistic module. It comes with several planes or you can buy them individually. As I said before, you can try them all for free for 2 weeks each and it resets every 6 months.

>In this scenario it really isn't Microsoft who are demonstrating a bleeding ego.

My bad that part of the comment wasn't directed at Microsoft, its just something that everyone in general has to face when apologizing.

I do agree that Casey should have linked the apology blog regardless of whether he felt it was sufficient.

>Suggest something better for your definition of "good"

I already mentioned two things that would make it a "good" apology:

- Directly mentioning whom you are apologizing too. In some cases addressing a group might be appropriate but in this case it seems like he should have mentioned Casey.

- Directly mentioning what you did wrong instead of phrasing it in an intentionally vague way like "we turned inwards".

Apologies are simple in composition. The hard part is getting over our egos.

>This is a good exhibit of an almost perfect apology. If you've been okay hearing "sorry" your entire life then I am afraid you've been lied to more often than not.

If you specifically focus insults on an individual and call into question their competence and then make a vague statement that avoids actually saying you did something wrong ("We turned inwards), you have failed to do #1, which is arguably the most important step.

It was an awful attempt at an apology that could easily pass for something written by a politician. Directness is a virtue when it comes to apologies.

Counting check marked boxes on a wikihow list isn't a good way to measure the quality of an apology.

I was in the top 2.1% and I used all non-technical words. The most obscure words I used were trimmed off (it only uses 7) and the ones it counted seemed to be words I expect all people of average intelligence to know.

It honestly seems like a rather poorly executed test. Valid nouns that are too obscure or "technical" to be in the word list get dropped but the person I know that got the highest score (95.07 raw score, 99.4 percentile) used "titties" (not even a real word) and at least two of the other words he used weren't even nouns (nouns are stated as a requirement).

>And only a very small percentage of those are gold diggers or mail order brides. The vast majority are just normal people with normal dreams of having a modest family.

I wasn't saying that all women are gold diggers or mail order brides. I was responding to a person saying that a short man struggling to find a long term relationship should look into those two options.

>It’s not beating the odds though.

I was mostly joking by this, although I have beaten the odds in other ways by being married to the same person for almost 20 years (at least by US standards).

>If someone is 5’6 and having trouble meeting someone, they should consider if their own criteria are irrational.

I agree.

>The article doesn't mention Moleskine once, yet it seems several comments are about that brand. What's going on there?

The reason the comments mention Moleskine is that its the first "fancy" brand of paper that the majority of people have heard of. Its also actually quite terrible in terms of quality to the point of being almost unusable with fountain pens and also with a lot of standard pens you might find in an office supply section of a department store.

There are pens that write well on Moleskine but with good paper you can write with nearly any pen and it won't bleed/feather. Moleskine notebooks look and feel like they are high quality but the paper itself is very poor in quality.

That being said, If the pens one likes to use work well on Moleskine, there's no reason why a person shouldn't use it.

Leuchtterm, Clairefontaine, Rhodia, and Tomoe River are some examples of high quality paper. If you want something that's close but quite a bit cheaper Black and Red has some options that work well even with a flexible fountain pen.

I'm a short guy (5'6") married for nearly 2 decades to an even shorter woman (4'11"). Perhaps its easy for me to say it because I've beaten the odds, but it seems to me it would be better to die alone than to be in a shitty relationship or to be in a relationship with someone that thinks they are making a concession by dating a shorter person. People cannot help what they are/are not attracted to so I have no animosity towards women that like tall guys, but even if that shrinks the dating pool 200x that's a better situation than wasting time with a person that isn't really into you.

Also, gold diggers are shitty people. You can't have a real relationship with one.

I can't blame the desperate people that volunteer to become mail order brides for thinking that screwing over some poor sap from a 1st world country is a lesser evil than them having to remain in poverty, but you'd have to be insane to marry one.

There's no way to cheat the system, if a person isn't genuinely attracted to you, whether its physically or otherwise, you have no chance of building a life with them that's going to make the two of you happy.

>anyone who has used a modern forum with all the trimmings would do the "yes, Grandpa, everything was better in the old days" polite smiling and nodding.

HN could have indeed been written in many languages, but IMO the simplicity is a strength. I'd rather be here than twitter, reddit, or any other forum. There's no dark patterns, no recommendation engines or other annoying nonsense trying to game "engagement", no ads, basically none of the things that make the modern Internet an awful user experience.

>They are starting to solve unique problems that couldn't be addressed on currently prevalent platforms.

Got any examples?

It makes Carmack out to have some sociopathic characteristics and it makes Romero seem like he became lazy due to being famous (A lesson from which he has learned some hard lessons), but why the intense dislike of American McGee, Tom Hall, Adrian Carmack, Michael Abrash, Sandy Peterson, or any of the others?

Does this mean you don’t want to buy a foam trapezoid with a strap for nearly $200?

Do you use a CPAP machine? It’s a simple device that blows air through your nose hard enough to keep the airway open. It doesn’t take an intelligent person to operate or adjust one. One would have to be one of them dumbest people in human history to cause injury with one, let alone kill yourself.

>I suppose for those who consciously or subconsciously know they're guilty of sin, the idea of annihilation is far preferable to facing judgment for their sins in the past, so I can see how atheism would be an attractive option, ultimate meaninglessness notwithstanding. But Christianity is primarily about what to do with that guilt -- that God's son Jesus paid the price for your sin and mine, and he offers forgiveness to those who will trust him and call on his name. (And I'm sure you've heard that before.)

  Your comment and a lot of others seem to presuppose that atheists don't genuinely not believe in God, there must be some sort of rejection of a God that exists or some conscious/unconscious attempt to avoid taking responsibility for something.

  My not being a Christian is really simple. It has nothing to do with my ideas on the bible or morality in general. nothing to do with whether or not I'm a sinner (I agree with you and Christianity that everyone falls very short of moral perfection), it has nothing to do with my personal happiness or making it easier for me to sleep at night.

  I simply don't believe that supernatural events exist. Nothing I have heard, discussed, read, watched or experienced in my life has convinced me that supernatural things happen in a general sense or that the specific supernatural things that are essential to believing in Christianity have happened.

>but rather an evidence based approach that uses the Bible to interpret itself as it was designed to do.

Can you elaborate on this? I'd be interested to hear more about your approach.

>it's not that much sillier than stuff like "Owning a pet lobster in Maine is illegal when that lobster is pregnant" kind of laws. (true law btw)

I agree about the old testament, but this is only silly when taken out of context. Long before I got into network security I worked in the Maine Lobster industry shoveling bait (which is half-rotten fish mixed with salt, lobsters love it!) into buckets and weighing/storing lobsters at a fisherman's co-op.

An important part of conservation revolves around people putting fertile female lobsters back in the ocean when they are inadvertently caught. Maine puts a lot more effort into conserving them than the surrounding states/countries do (who frequently get caught poaching in Maine waters and keeping lobsters that would be illegal to keep even if they were allowed to fish in Maine.

Its a fairly accurate clone of the Model F77. I think the smaller one's a clone of an F62. There were at least 6 different versions of the Model F of different sizes, including a standalone numpad/macro pad. Its admittedly confusing that its called "model F" when there's more than one model. I think the F77 is believed to be exceedingly rare. Same goes for Model M, there were lots of variations made by IBM.

Here's an article that shows an original F77 that someone was working on restoring. If you're ever looking for information on obscure vintage keyboards and all of their variants, the deskthority wiki and forum is probably the best place to start.

https://deskthority.net/viewtopic.php?t=22176

According to Chyrosan (probably the most well known vintage keyboard collector/reviewer) the new ones are one of the only times he's seen a clone have better build quality than the original. The keys do feel very slightly differently but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Some prefer them to the old and vice versa.