chithanh

It's interesting how the README.md basically states in every other paragraph how you should not use this without authorization. The term (un)authorized and variations appear 18 times in there.

And perhaps also introduce an upgrade blocker, as the keyboard app notifies the system of a situation that would be unsafe to upgrade to newer releases

That is not a Shahed drone, that is a Geran-2 drone. Which is similar from the outside but not the same. Also Iran doesn't have stock of R-60s I think.

It proves that the medical community did not learn from Semmelweis.

Reports on Thalidomide side effects were ignored, suppressed or dismissed. Distributors sat on such reports for months while continuing to sell the drug. Overall it took several years from the first observed birth defects until the drug was banned in most countries.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/25/distillers-k...

Numerous other examples before and after that (including deliberate ignorance of fatigue and medical errors resulting from it) show how medicine elevates institutional interests and groupthink over people's lives.

Medicine figured this out the hard way after thalidomide.

Medicine never figured this out. The medical community put Semmelweis in a lunatic asylum, because physicians' ego could not accept the fact that their unclean hands were causing harm to patients. Semmelweis' modern peers continue to let millions of patients die preventable deaths due to errors in medical decisionmaking, and ego plus institutional inertia prevents serious measures against it (most notably fatigue management).

Academia is not any better though. There was the recent high-profile retraction of a publication on opioid exposure via human breastmilk which was widely cited and the basis for many child custody decisions: https://retractionwatch.com/2026/03/03/canadian-pediatric-so...

The microgrid system is currently fuelled by natural gas but it is capable of using more sustainable fuel sources such as biomethane and hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO).

So it runs on 100% fossil fuels, dunno if that can count as achievement? Biogas will remain way too expensive, and vegetable oil compares unfavorably with solar when it comes to land use.

There is a difference between productive business and basic infrastructure. Just look at China, they have state capitalism with free market economy according to the 60/70/80/90 rule. The state capitalism covers most basic needs like utilities, healthcare, and public transport extremely efficiently.

The free market economy is ruthlessly efficient in the national and international market due to involution and strategic loans from state-owned banks.

Not all capitalism is equal though. The overlap between socialism and capitalism is state capitalism, and it turns out if you want affordable childcare, healthcare, utilities, public transport, etc. then state capitalism is the way to go.

It has a negative price precisely because at that given moment, nobody can use it for anything else.

The problem here is that the production of hydrocarbons, ammonia, etc. from electricity can only make back its high upfront investment when it runs basically 24/7. This is a challenge for renewables.

In China which recently opened a large off-grid green ammonia plant in Chifeng, they use multiple tiers of energy storage to ensure constant electric power availability.

In China the participatory model works and citizens overwhelmingly approve of the outcomes (when it comes to domestic policy).

In US, which is a liberal democracy, you have outcomes like 20% satisfaction with Congress, yet >90% incumbent reelection rates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation_in_th...

I'm not saying everything is good and democratic in China and bad in the US, but the answer is a bit more nuanced than some people here like to think.

A 1 party system can still be democratic in a way. Just participation in the policymaking works differently. In China this is feedback from the public and local committees.

Also that freedom of speech is very limited is correct, and there is extensive online censorship. But that doesn't mean the government ignores what people think. Almost all domestic government policies are broadly supported by the population. And when public opposition is strong then the government is known to delay implementation or change course.

Notable examples are Covid Zero, the K Visa, and the reclassification of drug use offenses.

Far more Chinese think that their country is a democracy and the government serves the people than in the US.

Whether this is objectively true is another question, but from their perspective, that's what it is.

I put the blame squarely on Microsoft, how they released a turd with WP7 (a shiny one with responsive UI, but nonetheless a turd).

About phone OS upgrades, remember the HTC HD2 which originally released with WM6.5 but could be upgraded to WP7 and then to WP8 through after-market community ROMs. It was also Microsoft's decision to not officially allow that.

In the US, Windows Phone tried for the "iPhone experience", which made carriers unhappy

Carriers were especially unhappy that Microsoft bought Skype at the time and tried to run it as a loss-making business to undermine carrier voice and messaging revenues.

Windows Vista SP2 was basically identical to Windows 7 RTM, with mostly cosmetic differences.

What changed is that by Windows 7 launch, PC specs had caught up with system requirements and WDDM drivers had matured and were no longer crashing all the time. So the first impression was very different.

It turns out rather ok without actual infinity, by limiting oneself to potential infinity. Think a Turing Machine where every time it reaches the end of its tape, an operator ("tape ape") will come and put in another reel.

UEFI specification is also over 2300 pages long now. For comparison, Open Firmware (IEEE 1275) was 268 pages.

Sony supports pairing Bluetooth devices via USB since PS3 and Apple supports this since wireless peripherals with Lightning port.

However the protocols to do that are all proprietary and mutually incompatible. At least the PS3 protocol has been sufficiently reverse engineered so you can plug a DualShock 3 controller into a Steam Deck and have it just work wirelessly afterwards.

Manufacturing labor cost in China has surpassed parts of Eastern Europe.

I agree that infrastructure, supply chains, political stability, and education are the primary drivers for attracting manufacturing to China.

I think the concern here is more with the implementations (coming out of China) than the instruction set itself.

Yes that is the pretense, but what they actually want to block is RISC-V adoption.

It's a bit similar to car industry opposition to right to repair, they ran TV ads claiming dangers for safety and security if independent repair were allowed. Louis Rossmann did a series of videos on this.

Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't. Like when Sun Microsystems submitted ODF for standardization to ISO, it was so successful that Microsoft had to do it too for OOXML. In fact MS pushed so hard that it left a huge trail of destruction in the standards committees.

Other times, like with the "ISO power plug", the result was ISO/IEC 60906-1 which nobody uses. Swiss plugs (IEC Type J), which this plug is based on, use a slightly different distance for the ground pin, so it is incompatible. Brazil adopted it (IEC Type N) but made changes to pin diameter and current rating.

It's their citizens who sacrifice to make solar power cheap enough.

No. Manufacturing labor cost in China is not cheap. In fact since 2012 or so, it is more expensive than in most of Asia. Companies who want cheap labor look elsewhere.

https://www.economist.com/business/2023/02/20/global-firms-a... (Archive link: https://archive.fo/tdhXJ )

China is also the only major economy where wages have increased at the same rate as GDP in the last 40 or so years.

Or Sen. Tom Cotton asking Tiktok CEO Shou Zi Chew whether he is member of the CCP, being told that he is a Singaporean citizen, and then asking again.

Win10 IoT LTSC does not cover all use cases though.

When it comes to gaming, for example Windows Mixed Reality is not included and cannot be installed afterwards (but then again, Microsoft dropped it from Windows 11 too, so no loss there).

Only way to keep it is staying with consumer Windows 10 or use 3rd party software like Oasis.

The later Intel Macs with T1/T2 chip also come with a number of caveats on Linux. Don't expect those to work out of the box with standard Linux distros.

No. One major obstacle with M4 support is SPTM.

M5 has major GPU changes again so that is even more ways off.

Me and anyone else reading this.

In that case, no "we" don't, because I am reading this and I do not agree with this "standard" nor your characterization of what I wrote.

Mechanisms are inferred from empirical evidence, I don't see how you can treat them as two separate categories. For example, in your crash test dummy analogy, verification through crash tests (with dummies) is empirical evidence.

This is not how it works. Crash tests are used for validation, but the data from crash tests is generally not used to infer mechanism. Physicists don't come up with a new theory of mechanics every time a crash test has an unexpected outcome.

If you name proxy experiments that support your views (crash tests) as mechanisms and ones that don't (SSB replacement with NNS RCTs) as "empirical evidence is valid only for the situation in which it was obtained" then sure, everything you want to believe is supported by sound science and everything you don't isn't.

I don't think you understand. If you want to support a public health intervention you either have the empirical data with a relevant endpoint,

or you can point to mechanism which bridges the part between the data that you have and the outcome which you want to achieve.

When it comes to pharmaceutics and food additives, our mechanistic understanding is insufficient so we often have to resort to empirical studies on humans, including RCTs (Pfizer's Covid vaccine trial had tens of thousands of participants) and also observational studies at population level. And it is the last part where artificial sweeteners fail to show benefit so far.

When it comes to seat belts, our mechanistic understanding is sufficient so we don't need to resort to empirism. Yes we perform validation but only to check if there are no design oversights in the vehicle nor shortcomings with the simulation software, typically in a low triple-digit number of crash tests. But no humans involved and especially no control arm with humans.

(Well if you ignore the one study on the efficacy of parachutes which was done as RCT https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k5094 )

So it doesn't meet your own goalpost

It does, because again, mechanism is provided. You could say that the study has weak evidence for the mechanism and it works like that perhaps only for sugar. Because that some mechanism is found in mice does not mean it is also found in humans, and it would be a fair point. This is why many species are tested and so far the results held up (testing humans takes too long for obvious reasons).

Your other responses seem to suggest you just have something against sweet things (even when you seem to acknowledge there are other factors at play like acidity and tooth decay)

We are talking about school lunches here. Sweet meals are bad (whether sugar or artificially sweetened) as it trains children's palate and shapes lifelong preference for sweet food. Hence I support banning artificial sweeteners as California plans to do.

When it comes to sweetened drinks, switching from sugary to artificially sweetened is not empirically shown as beneficial. This is the hurdle that proponents of public health interventions to replace sugar with aritificial sweeteners need to overcome.

Did they try every possible "artificial sweeteners"?

The study which I linked in another reply looked at various commercially available artificial sweeteners and some combinations. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14203032

This is necessary because not every species' taste receptors respond to every type of sweetener, e.g. rats do not respond to NHDC.

These aren't like the same substance tweaked a bit where you're in a endless ratrace with the chemists.

Well it depends on who has the burden of proof that a certain food additive is safe and does not cause undesired long term effects, especially in children.

Ok, so we already have your standard

Who is "we"?

I don't know what you are going on about. Empirical evidence is one thing, mechanism is another source of knowledge by which we can shape public health policy. While empirical evidence is valid only for the situation in which it was obtained, mechanism is universal.

For example, we mandate wearing seatbelts in cars in the name of public health. It is however not necessary to do seatbelt on/off RCTs with actual people. How we know that this is beneficial: Because physics, verification through crash tests (with dummies), and because we know that seatbelt mandates increase the frequency of people wearing them.

Going back to the original question, it was clearly shown in observational studies that giving children sweetened food is bad: Childhood dietary habits shape lifelong food preferences, and preference for sweet food leads to worse outcomes regarding chronic diseases later in life. This has been shown in lots of research, both in humans and in animal models:

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adn5421

https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16030428

https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjr050

With randomly adding or substituting sugar with artificial sweeteners there is however no empirical evidence nor known mechanism which supports a public health benefit. In fact the mechanisms we know from animal farming suggest a detrimental effect.