podiki

I thought the same. The "scheduled" part of the message is gone now, at least on the instance I use.

Ongoing. It is not "down" but purposefully offline for "maintenance." Main status does show the LMS (all the course stuff) down, and my instance shows "up" but that's because (I assume) you can reach it and the maintenance page. But that's not useful, if technically not "down."

And grades are due in the next week or so for many of these (usually a quick deadline at the end of the semester due to graduation happening)...

I didn't have issues with sleep/wake until somewhat recently (not sure when) and found this post. Grabbing the patch from the commit referenced and using it on top of 6.12 and 6.13 kernels seems to have fixed it for me too (for the past couple of weeks and counting).

Great work!

Current incident status/updates: https://status.proton.me/incidents/wt2fwstm0rcg

My first HN post, in 2017 :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14145252

What settings and why? Did they break some sites? Been meaning to try LibreWolf too.

Wow, that is a lot of tabs. I always thought it was funny when people would say they have "a lot" and it was dozens or hundreds at most, while I was in the 1500 range.

I did close them all: https://www.vice.com/en/article/88adya/death-by-1000-tabs-co... (but alas, the number creeps up again)

Thanks for mentioning this, hadn't heard of it and looking forward to watching!

But isn't that exactly it, that these (and healthcare) are very much part of the "market?" The goal to make money and to provide healthcare are at fundamental odds if you ask me. (Or they don't have to be, but the natural "experiment" of for profit healthcare in places like the US tells us much.)

I think there is a big piece that is left unsaid here: capitalism. If we had to boil down a university to one imperative, it sadly seems to make money (ideally, for some, as a means towards the true ends). Lots of good points raised, as I can say from direct experience, but too often capitalism is just assumed or ignored as the underlying principle at work.

I've seen this in reference to knowing when stainless steel cookware is ready to put oil on it, so that you don't get sticking and burning, i.e. small droplet of water shouldn't sizzle and evaporate but Leidenfrost. But I have to admit to still not being able to get the best results like that (more oil? less heat?) and still need to figure out how to use stainless correctly.

Tips?

Fine, rather than "underlying theory" use some other words, basically does any new proposal give us predictions, solve some unexplained phenomenon, do something simpler and more compelling (sure, a matter of taste, but so is all of this to some degree), in short, does it tell us something new. Newton certainly did as he gave a law to describe and predict successfully the motions of the planets, for instance. I don't think we are saying anything different really. There wasn't a predicitve framework before (as far as I know), but then there was, so that is certainly progress. But the bar gets ever higher as we know more for what a theory should do. Just writing down an equation that can fit some data and can make predictions is great but is not the end of the story. We could just have some arbitrary functions that fit the data we have and call it a day.

Absolutely. I'm out of the field these days, but e.g supersymmetric WIMP dark matter was the most popular but got more and more clugely with low energy supersymmetry seeming less likely (or not as useful in solving the problems it meant to solve). Everyone would come up with some tuned ad hoc model for whatever dark matter "signal" was in fashion (before being ruled out); none of those were compelling. Fun to play with maybe, but didn't really tell us anything.

I won't get into an argument about MOND. Don't take my word for it, take the vast majority (all but a few?) of anyone working in the field. And don't take Milgrom's word for it (or the one reference given) either, for that matter, as clearly he has a horse in the game. Sure you can continue to make MOND work to some degree, but is it really predictive if you keep adding things to make it work? What is the underlying theory? (The proposal in this linked article is interesting in that regard.)

Okay, so maybe I did continue the argument a little :) I love for people working on alternative less mainstream ideas. But MOND was never very alive to begin with, let alone decades later. Let's move on.

After a little more of a skim: the paper seems mostly to be about reproducing an equation like that of MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics). Which, fine, some people are fans of MOND (not most, and for good reason from the theoretical which this might address, to the practical like previous comment), but there's a whole lot more than just the dynamics of rotating galaxies to consider. Without even going into that (bullet cluster, lensing, n-body simulations, galaxy formation, etc.) it doesn't (yet?) replace anything.

The article in question here is a followup to that, as a preprint and linked in this submission: "In a recent paper [0], which has not been peer-reviewed"

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.19459

A peer review and a popular article exploring the proposal, though written by someone pretty qualified, are not the same thing. At the very least the audience and evidence presented are not nearly the same.

In classic internet fashion I only did a quick skim/search of the article and preprint of the paper (linked in this article). However, neither make mention of the bullet cluster [0] or "particle dark matter" and seem to rely more on galaxy rotation curves.

While the bullet cluster may not be as definitive as we would like, it is at the very least very strongly suggestive of particle dark matter or something similar. As far as I remember modified gravitational theories without particle dark matter don't offer a good explanation of the bullet cluster (in short, evidence of a non- or weakly interacting but gravitational matter).

I won't argue with schemes like MOND or this proposal that can explain rotation curves, but the bullet cluster at the very least is a more interesting test these days. Without even a mention of some alternative explanation here (from my quick look), it is a non-starter for a dark matter-less theory. And a pretty glaring omission (again, maybe I missed it) for what is a well-known observation.

Still, alternatives for quantum gravity, and anything that might say something about dark energy, are exciting. Falsifiable ones especially. But if you didn't address the bullet cluster then...

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster

Well that is worrying in a way I didn't expect

Oh, I thought these would be to create spacetime diagrams. As in Penrose Diagrams: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_diagram

Fun (or I guess "fun" depending on the outcome here) detective story. But would be nice to have the context of what sort of company this Pi was found at. What might be a motive to be tracking devices and be inside the network?

Not exactly a side project, but same idea:

After not getting a faculty job (and after a couple of postdocs) a wrote an essay about failure in academia. At the urging of a friend, I pitched it to a place that liked it and published it. The response was really surprising to me, all the kind random messages I got. And someone asked if I wanted to apply for a job opening they had, teaching writing at a university. A couple of weeks later I had moved and was in the classroom, the last place I expected to be. It was teaching in an area I never expected and not research in my field, but I've always enjoyed the teaching part of university life.

And that story, along with all the rest here, is what I tell my students about putting work out there. Good and surprising things happen!