strbean

even what can be done.

I think this could be solved with bridge bots to make your MUD multiplatform. You could have a dedicated web app, an IRC bridge, a Discord bridge, etc.

Discord-brained users can still use your MUD and contribute to network effects, and you can provide an off-ramp ("I just want to play VarelionScape, maybe I'll just open the dedicated website on my phone instead of going on Discord and digging through the server list").

Routing tasks to models by complexity like a job for a LLM.

I'm sure there are degenerate cases, but I'd bet a relatively small model could do the job.

That's actually an important part of the theory of Roko's Basilisk. The danger of being tortured only applies to those who are aware of it. Supposedly, the incentive to torture you only exists if you were aware of the implied threat of torture.

Once you're around 80 it'll wake up anyone

Source? I haven't been able to find info on this. I get resuls on nocturnal tachycardia and such. Nothing on elevating a sleeping person's heart rate and observing the result, though.

With respect to this idea, I'm not particularly interested in either of those goals. More the general longevity and health improvements that come with regular exercise irrespective of weight loss or muscle gain [1].

I haven't been able to find much in the way of research on the tolerability of EMS during sleep. I would be surprised if the idea is actually feasible. It just seems like it would be such a big win if it was.

Personally, I frequently toss and turn and breath heavily, and wake up with a high heart rate. But then, my sleep quality is terrible and when I got a sleep study the sleep phase diagram looked like a seismograph reading during a 4 hour long earthquake, so...

1: https://theconversation.com/exercise-extends-life-even-witho... (Maybe not a great source but I think there is a wealth of evidence for this)

Well, it's causing muscle contractions. At high enough intensity, it should raise your heart rate. It's just a matter of what intensity level is tolerable during sleep (and the effect on sleep quality), no?

I'd love to find out if electrical muscle stimulation while sleeping could effectively provide exercise without causing excessive sleep disruption. Could be a zero-effort supplemental form of exercise for sedentary people.

Interesting, I've got a Sony Google TV and it's been the best smart TV experience I've had in a long time. Prior to that was Samsung TVs and a Roku TV (forget which manufacturer) and they all had massive decay in performance over time.

There is a setting on my Google TV (I think it is 'Disable Personalization' or similar) that gets rid of most of the ad-space and turns the home screen into just a list of apps that I actually have installed.

It is easy to sideload apps like SmartTubeNext, and the Plex client works well, so that covers 100% of my needs.

Interesting, thanks for the info!

Another question: how does this approach compare to trying to repair the pathogenic variants in the cancer? I asked here about that approach recently and the response was mainly about delivery difficulties: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48285386

Indeed, there's no "be a better/stronger cancer and spread more effectively to more hosts" the way there is with bacteria or a virus.

The rare exception: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clonally_transmissible_cancer

Depending on how the LNPs are designed, would resistance also potentially cripple the cancer cells? Like, it stops surfacing some cholesterol receptor because the drug is being delivered by LNPs that target that receptor, and now the cell is starved for cholesterol?

I've heard about drug resistance in bacteria leading to slower growth / reduced virulence. Maybe the same would occur with cancers. A drug that could effectively switch an aggressive cancer into a slow-growing one wouldn't be the worst thing.

_RelationshipBackPopulatesArgument = Union[ str, PropComparator[Any], Callable[[], Union[str, PropComparator[Any]]], ]

Seems like that's... one more substantive meeting?

First link is announcing the initiative was submitted, second is a private meeting where the initiative was presented to the comission by the organizers.

Then there was a public meeting on 16 April 2026 and a public meeting on 20 May 2026.

Is there a specific part of one of those meetings that indicates they want to go a different direction than the California bill?

From the last link:

If designed responsibly, most games that connect to the internet can operate indefinitely without publisher support. This has been a customer expectation for over 50 years. We are open to any solution that solves the problem. We are flexible on specifics and implementation by publishers. We understand that not all game features may be operable in a discontinued game. We are not seeking ongoing support from publishers after a game has been discontinued

This sounds like the California bill would address these issues.

edit: Particularly, I'm wondering if there is any serious push for release of binaries / source code prior to the end-of-life of a game, which seems to be of particular concern.

If a game is popular enough for anyone to care, some turbonerd will get the server running on a massive cloud instance, and then people will be able to play the game.

Fans have reverse-engineered and stood up servers for tons of games with no access to the server binaries. The idea that they wouldn't figure it out when given much better resources (server binaries or source code) is crazy.

but not the EU which is currently being drafted (in a different direction)

Where can we find information about the direction the EU is going on this? AFAICT there has just been one meeting on the topic?

Imagine if every tweet had to go through a one-at-a-time queue before being persisted. There's about 6000 tweets per second, so you would have to be able to save them at <0.17ms per tweet or else you would become backlogged. If you are getting backlogged, you have to buffer those incoming tweets somewhere until they can be writted, and eventually that buffer gets full and you start losing tweets.

So for masses of solid tissue, we can't effectively deliver the payload to all the cells?

How about for lymphomas?

You'll note that even Java now recognises that "public static void main(String[] args)" was pointless ceremony.

There is still the part of the ceremony that actually mattered: having a single entrypoint instead of the option to litter side effects throughout the file and having those side effects execute automatically on import.

It sucks, but what's the alternative?

3.0 was a big missed opportunity to kill a lot of the deprecated cruft.

What's the status of just using CRISPR to fix pathogenic variants?

Plug for my buddy's project: http://agentsh.org/

Block agents from misbehaving at the OS level instead of asking them to behave.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-stranded_RNA_activated_...

This one is quite tinfoil-hat inspiring, as the research was moved to defense-focused Draper Labs and then immediately disappeared.

I know a an accomplished CS professor, ACM fellow, cited in Knuth's TAOCP (as well as being an easter egg!), who still hunt-and-pecks. In fact, hunt-an-pecks incredibly slowly.

Seeing him type really reinforced this idea.

A lot of really good reasons:

1) Higher level code is easier for LLMs to review and iterate upon. The more the intent is clear from the code, the easier it is for humans and LLMs to work with.

2) LLMs get stuck or fail to solve a problem sometimes. It is preferable to have artifacts that humans can grok without the massive extra effort of parsing out assembly code.

3) Assembly code varies massively across targets. We want provable, deterministic transformation from the intent (specified in a higher level language) to the target assembly language. LLMs can't reliably output many artifacts for different platforms that behave the same.

4) Hopefully, we are still reviewing the code output by LLMs to some extent.

Well, assembly languages are generally Turing complete. Not sure what the parallel would be in proof engines.

Ironic, you've got some typos but make a good point :)

Damn, maybe I can throw an agent at trying to unlock IMEI spoofing on my Unifi LTE modem. That one guy on twitter who does all the LTE modem unlocking never replied to my tweet :(

I was recently introduced to the term "vcware", ala shareware or vaporware, to describe these products. "Don't use that, it's vcware, enshitification is coming soon."

There's a pretty big difference between:

1) wanting functionality that isn't provided and working around that

and

2) restoring such functionality in the face of countermeasures

The absence of functionality isn't a clear signal of intent, while countermeasures against said functionality is.

And then there is the distinction between the intent of the software publisher and the intent of the user. There is a big ethical difference between "Mozilla doesn't want advertisers tracking their users" and "those users don't want to be tracked". If these guys want to draw the line at "if there is a signal from the user that they want privacy, we won't track them", I think that's reasonable.

They should just add a "Security Console", with black background and green text, and a simple shell interface for enabling/disabling flags that gate whether these requests are automatically denied or create a permissions popup. Anything dangerous starts disable by default.

Short of crippling capabilities to save dumb users, the best we can do is make the process scary enough that Grandma won't do it without calling her grandson first.

Having stars isn't a positive metric, it's more that not having stars is a disqualifier unless I want to use someones brand new toy.

My first scan of a GitHub repository is typically: check age of latest commit, check star count, check age of project. All of these things can be gamed, but this weeds out the majority of the noise when looking for a package to serve my needs. If the use case is serious, proper due diligence follows.