HN2new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | idontwantthis's commentslogin

Is this not easily patched by the provider encrypting and signing the whole payload? I would have thought that would be table stakes for an identity provider.

The identity provider is on-device and has to run on phones which don't do hardware attestation.

That’s only for selfies. If they use and id I’m pretty sure it is getting sent to a k-id server.

Or alcoholism

Holy shit that article invokes explicit nazi policy without a shred of shame.


I've wondered if massive one time payments would be a solution. Like 100k for the first kid, 90k for the second, etc. Obvious moral hazard around having kids just for the payment, but if population decline is actually a big problem, it isn't necessarily worse.

Fixing the rest of what you mentioned is obviously a good idea too, but what better way to increase society's value on children than giving them a literal value?


ive seen similar things like no income tax if you have 3 kids. i think that give you slightly better alignment because you still want to be productive.

> Unlike LFP or nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) packs, it reportedly avoids severe winter range loss, retaining more than 90% of its range at -40 degrees C (-40 degrees F). Power delivery is also said to remain stable at temperatures as low as -50 degrees C (-58 degrees F).

That is exactly the substance of the headline.


It doesn't quantify winter range. It gestures at possible benefit; without comparison to the state of the art, it's not especially meaningful. Nevermind that losing less than 10% of 250 miles is not a ton of range.

The absolute range is not the point. You can increase absolute range for any battery by having a bigger battery. The point is the low percentage lost due to cold.

Again, it does not compare this against the state of the art. We know how to heat battery technologies that are more sensitive to lower temperatures. So the interesting question would be, how does the combined efficiency compare? No such comparison is made.

This is officially the most unhinged LinkedIn post in the world. This is the winner.

He's probably really shaken that the future he imagined may not be in the cards for him and his partner.

I had a positive reaction to his post. The way he wants to spend his time seems more useful/meaningful/intentional than what most people choose to spend their time on. I hope he has success. While rare, others who have devoted themselves to studying the disease of a loved one have made meaningful progress: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto,_Michaela,_and_Lorenzo...


it’s only meaningful if there is progress made. the risk here, because this research is so personal, is that he spirals and spirals until he’s depressed or obsessed in an unhealthy way.

i wish him the best, truly, but i left the post feeling sad. if i was her i think i would prefer if my partner focused on being present and making the most of the situation. Stop trying to play superman.


I live next door to some drunks who party all night. If that house were a store it would be locked up and empty after 10pm. This is a problem of people owning residential property next to residential.

Not all are but most are. I too live in a single family zone surrounded by commercial zones in walking distance and it’s fantastic! But most of my city and its surroundings are not like this and you would need to drive to get anywhere. It’s really an almost perfect spot that I’ve found.

It really depends what region of the USA you are in. The south? Ya, things are hard, walkability was never emphasized because of harsh weather. The west coast or northeast will be more reasonable, the intermountain west is more hit or miss.

Where are these two places?!

Just talk to strangers and be kind. Compliment people. Let service workers know when they’ve done a good job. Walk around your neighborhood and meet your neighbors.

That’s pretty much the whole purpose of government and if it isn’t doing that then it has abdicated its primary responsibility.

I think many people would disagree with you that the primary responsibility of government is to protect people from themselves.

I’m talking about protecting people from evil actors with immense power to do harm.

I don't think so. What you're saying is that kids (and maybe adults) don't have enough agency over their own usage of social media; that these social media are so addicting and harmful that we cannot trust users (in concert with their parents, teachers, etc.) not to harm themselves with them, and that we must construct government apparatus to protect them.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: