Everyone's gotta start some time. My first comment wasn't until almost exactly a year after I finally made an account (according to search, but that lines up with my memory), and I didn't even create an account until I had been reading for a couple years IIRC.
I think it's often people that have an emotional response that make their first comment if they've been a lurker for a while already.
FWIW I think people are reacting negatively to you is because you've done the equivalent of walk into a community center where someone is showing their hobbyist art project and loudly proclaimed all the problems and that you'll be more interested when they fixed it up enough to make it to a real gallery. Not only is that person missing much of the point of why that person did it and judging it by standards it was never intending to strive for, but doing so around others that are there to appreciate it for what it is actually hampers their enjoyment and the empathic happiness they feel for someone striving to do something for the fun of it.
In other words, most people don't really care if this materializes as an actual product or project that's widely usable. It's a cool hobby project and some of us appreciate that, and appreciate people documenting their process in doing such things.
Thanks for the explanation. However, do you think that the author is going to learn Rust this way? You should honestly check out the source code. I do not think that this is in any way educational if the aim is to learn Rust. Maybe the aim is not that, but then why Rust? It could have been done in Forth, too.
For what it's worth, a UK prince is one of the few people or groups of people that I would assume were likely not hiding Nazi sympathies. Their entire country, and specifically their recent royal ancestors, where subject to Nazi aggression and responsible for countering it. There's a long history of dressing up as those you want to lampoon, especially in British media.
Well, there is Edward VIII which as an American who doesn't follow UK monarchy drama was flabbergasted and in disbelief to learn about and which triggered a wikipedia rabbithole after seeing in particular the closing credits of The Crown S2E6
I haven't watched it, and skimming the wikipedia page isn't making it obvious what you might be alluding to, other than maybe him touring Germany prior to the war.
I'm not entirely sure where the downvotes came from since other than you nobody bothered to respond, but maybe it's based on people's belief that Nazis are some special and unique threat or that the only thing that should be thought about when they are mentioned is concentration camps and their treatment of the Jewish people, but they did so much more than just that, even if that was uniquely horrifying for the period. The Jews weren't the only people sent to concentration camps, and overall, WWII cost 70-85 million people their lives. Nazi Germany affected so many people, nobody gets to claim them as uniquely their own boogie men to the exclusion of all others.
Hmm, from some light reading I'm unsure how active he was as "part of the plot". In any case, that sort of supports my original claim, in that the British royals not only have a history of Nazis attacking their country, but trying to meddle with their royal line and succession, which also wouldn't enamor the royals to them.
Honestly when watching I had figured The Crown was playing it up for drama or invented it whole-cloth because the whole thing was so foreign vs what I was taught about WW2 British monarchy. And that's why the way they calmly deliver receipts (artifacts from the Windsor File/Marburg Files) in the credits triggered a rabbit hole of surreal bewilderment. In fact you will find historians of the British royalty who say The Crown was very lenient in its handling. But specifically about S2E6 there's a section here that summarizes what was in the episode
I actually ran across that and read the relevant section when googling earlier in this thread. To me it seemed unclear what his motivations allegiances were, just that enough people were worried that he was a piece on the board that could cause problems that he was removed from it. That doesn't mean it was likely, it just means that they didn't want to deal with the complications of having to think about it at all would entail, or to worry about players that would be enticed by it, etc. I imagine in a time of way you try to reduce complexities and unknown as much as possible. Even if a few people have concern over him, it may be easier to just ship him away and appease anyone's concerns if he's not meaningfully important to the war effort. He was made a major-general, but how much experience he had in that role and how good he was performing in it is unknown to me, but I suspect it was at least partially honorific or nepotism whether from the top down or emergent (do I promote the royal or the unknown? Which is safer for my career...).
But that's all during the war, and with one individual of the royals, and I would think the rest of the royals would not be happy going forward with the Nazis thinking they could mess with the line of succession/assassinate they King.
More likely your initial comment was downvoted because it provides little additional context and makes a claim without support, as if it's self evident. Comments such as that rarely do well on complex topics. My own rule of thumb is that if I'm stating something as fact and I'm writing a single sentence, it's likely a low effort and low usefulness comment that is unlikely to be beneficial to the conversation.
Your comment immediately above this was likely flagged because of your inflammatory accusations and assumptions about why your were downvoted, and IMO shows a alack of introspection about possible reasons as to why you were downvoted. Much better to ask why than to throw out accusations, at least if your goal is to have a useful discussion or learn something (bot of which require some level of assuming good faith to others here).
I think that's mostly BPA and phthalates, and microplastics are often listed along with those, but I'm unsure if it was actually tested or if we notices people had a lot of microplastics and just assumed that was a likely source.
I remember at least one study that pointed to 250k nanoplastics in a liter of bottled water [0]. Possibly these types of particles weren't studied. There are certainly many different toxicants to be looking out for; overwhelming to the point of being pointless.
Nothing as in there is no outside noticeable change in behavior and they report no change in speaking, or nothing as it relates to the topic of this thread, in that they have no profound or spiritual experiences?
Depends on the type! Generally might be true for SSRIs but not always for TCAs or lithium which can have the opposite effect. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8788508/ (just one example)
If they’re doing high doses of psychedelics and only experiencing a body high, then they’re either on a drug blocking its effects, or they’re not taking a 5HT2-A agonist. They simply do not just produce a body high at high doses, you will know when you’re tripping.
This isn't completely true. Tolerance to psychedelics is a thing, and can often ve extremely long lasting. I have a friend that when given heroic doses of 2C-B(50mg or more, orally), hardly experienced more than threshold level effects. This was 2C-B tested and confirmed to have 95% purity, and it affected me exactly as expected. He was not on any drugs except hash, which is typically synergistic.
In his case, according to him he yad used 2C-B very heavily many years previously, and it seems he developed an extremely high level of tolerance which remained unchanged for many years of non-use.
In the cases discussed in the thread, it's possible that something similar was happening. Indeed, many antidepressants also alter serotonin receptor expression over time, and it's plausible that in some people, these effects could linger for a long time.
I agree in that case, long-term SSRI and psychedelic use complicates things. But in general, I would not say the literature points to tolerance being long lasting. Tolerance is built up quickly, and then quickly lost. There have been many (reproduced) studies on the effects of psychedelics and tolerance build up, and they show it doesn't last for more than a few weeks (psilocybin / LSD).
I'd be interested to see those studies. I think there could be a couple different types of tolerance, one of which only occurs with rather heavy use. It's something I've seen reported anecdotally from a number of people who've used psychedelics very heavily. It might not show up in human studies because of ethical concerns. There could be some interesting pharmacological differences too, where this only occurs with specific drugs. The psychedelics are quite varied in terms of pharmacodynamics beyond just the 5-HT-2 receptor subfamily.
We need more studies on the long term effects of heavy psilocybin use. We know how chronic use of alcohol and cannabis affect people fairly well at this point. We also know a lot about regular psilocybin use, but not a whole lot about what happens to people if they take it for 20 years.
So, like normal history just sped up exponentially to the point it's noticeable in not just our own lifetime (which it seemed to reach prior to AI), but maybe even within a couple years.
I'd be a lot more worried about that if I didn't think we were doing a pretty good job of obfuscating facts the last few years ourselves without AI. :/
That's about as clicbait a title given the content as I can imagine. I would summarize the article as:
- Subsidy schemes can often cause problems where monoculture farmable tree crops can reduce biodiversity can cause problems. But I think it's worth noting that replacing trees with another is not what I would call, or what most people likely think, when referring to new forests, and even if we ignore that point, the problem is not the new forests in general but the incentives used to cause it to happen.
- Carbon sequestration may be overestimated because if the ground is already rich in carbon, some of that may be reduced so the overall additional effect of sequestration is less than one might assume.
Neither of those are really in support of "new forests can do more hard than good" in my opinion. They may be worth discussing, but this isn't a good start for a useful conversation on the BBC's part.
A lot of things I would have previously said were impossible have happened in the last half year. If only a few of those things were of the impossibly good type.
So, what if it's a bug in a project that has forked a few times with renames? You're possibly inviting people to ignore a CVE that says "chrome" or "webkit" or "blink" in the name, when in reality it could be from far enough in the past that it affects all of them.
What about project with a license that allows for easy inclusion of source in another project (BSD license, for example). If most people are exposed to the bug through a bunch of other projects that include it, what do you name it? Any choice likely implies something that might keep people from looking closer initially when they are affected.
What about this specific but? Should it say CoreAudio, or iOS, MacOS, or just Apple?
Naming things usefully in a way that conveys additional information is hard. Looking up CVEs is fairly easy. Just throw it into a search engine.
You have it backwards: I can't remember to care about CVE 2025 31200 vs CVE 2025 32100. People should refer to CoreAudio Corruption Antelope and the infrastructure should allow em to easily search for that and get it unambiguosly linked to CVE 2025 31200 (or was it 32100? Better double-check.)
You can remember CoreAudio Corruption Antelope a lot longer than you can care about 2025 301200.
As for whether it's CoreAudio or IOS or Apple or whatever: as long as it is not woefully inaccurate, it's fine. The format is necessary to prevent people from marketing "Extreme Apocalypso" as the name for an input issue in syslog that can only be used to fill a disk slowly.
a CVE is just a link to uniquely identify a specific problem. They often also have names, coined by the people that discovered them, such as "heartbleed". A CVE is similar in concept than a URL shortener but with more procedural name generation.
A CVE is not the actual exploit or security issue, it's a way to reference the exploit or security issue. Internally, before this got a CVE entry, it likely also had an entry in Apple's internal bug system tracking. The identifier for that is similarly just another way to reference this specific problem.
A CVE number is no different than an incrementing ID in a database, except that it encodes slightly more information in the name. You can try to put additional information in the identifier, but it's hard to change after the fact, so you want to be careful what you put. Should you put the score in the identifier? Careful, they often increase after additional scrutiny is given to the issue. What about the product name, as is requested here? Sometimes additional products are discovered that are affected later. Sometimes those are just as important or more as the original, but the correct people that knew weren't contacted until the CVE was released. A CVE is most useful in providing a global id that different parties can use to reference the same item in their own databases.
It's an identifier. Keep it simple. Call it whatever you want in addition to that. If you subscribe to the CISA catalog update mailing list, they reference items like so, which is perfectly fine IMO:
- CVE-2025-4632 Samsung MagicINFO 9 Server Path Traversal Vulnerability
But that's not the CVE itself that is noting what it affects, that is CISA proving a summary of the problem, and notably in this case, one that's more descriptive than listed on the item itself and a combination of a few fields.
Edit: I'll note that from looking at a different response to me, that if you were just suggesting people name stuff more usefully when submitting here, I have absolutely zero problems with that suggestion, which should be obvious by the above. I interpreted your original comment to mean "CVE's should have more context in their names", which is what I disagree with if we're talking about the name as identifier.
"Hey, Kentrak! I'm concerned about 2600:1401:d000:38a::1aca."
versus
"Hey, Kentrak! I'm concerned about the Akamai node that's answering for www.apple.com!"
If you are staring at the same one for hours upon hours, you might remember the number. I'm saying that any time someone is referencing a CVE in any other context, they should use a memorable, informative, searchable, non-clickbaity name.
Previously I have expressed negative feelings about people claiming Heartbleed, Shellshock, and so forth -- they are unnecessarily dramatic. Now I feel that we need a middle course.
CVEs are always filed against a specific product. If it's in a library, then it's typically the library and not all of its user. All of that information is already in the CVE database: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-31200
What OP wanted to stress is that just the CVE number on its own is not very helpful as a title. It would be helpful to at least mention the type of vulnerability and the affected product according to the CVE database entry.
I'm happy to be wrong about this, but it strikes me that the fallacy of this argument is that it says that some bugs would be ignored because of namung confusion. But that's already the status quo for all bugs!
I have a secondary reservation which is that people don't really browse for bugs by name in the way that this argument suggests.
Also, both of them could be solved just by replacing Antelope with a serial number.
> the fallacy of this argument is that it says that some bugs would be ignored because of namung confusion. But that's already the status quo for all bugs!
I don't think so. The difference is when you arbitrarily constrain data your introduce errors and edge cases. Either the name is standardized in which case what can go in portions of it needs to be constrained, or it's not. If it's constrained, someone will need to make a decision on what's appropriate and inappropriate to add. If the list of items that can and should be put in that field is large, you're likely so see some or (most) omitted.
The real question is whether that omission will be viewed as people to imply something is unaffected before they look more closely, and then ignore what might be something important. An argument could also be made that people might see a CVE name without a product and decide that it doesn't affect them, or ignore it when they might have looked closer because something in the name caught their attention, but I think that's a slightly different problem. I think my stance can mostly be boiled down to not wanting to unintentionally train people to rely on something that is unreliable.
I'll freely admit there are cases for both sides of this and differing opinions. It's similar to Postel's law in that it deals to a degree with human nature and people's propensity to take shortcuts (in both actions and thinking), so what we're actually talking about is how we perceive human nature and how it interacts with systems we create.
If you haven't read it already, I highly recommend reading The Gervais Principle, Or The Office According to “The Office”. It's not that it maps to reality perfectly, but it's an interesting lens through which to look at work and your relation to it. It helped me soften my view on some of my coworkers by understanding their motivations better, and also helped me to accept a point of view much more similar to yours about the work I do. Also, if you're a fan of The Office, it's fun to revisit it and examine it in a new way.
That sounds fascinating, and I worry it will be "humor that is way more documentary than I am at all comfortable with", like, say, Office Space or Idiocracy. :)
Great timing, though, I've been in need of a new read and I'm a Ricky Gervais fan. Thanks!
I think it's often people that have an emotional response that make their first comment if they've been a lurker for a while already.
FWIW I think people are reacting negatively to you is because you've done the equivalent of walk into a community center where someone is showing their hobbyist art project and loudly proclaimed all the problems and that you'll be more interested when they fixed it up enough to make it to a real gallery. Not only is that person missing much of the point of why that person did it and judging it by standards it was never intending to strive for, but doing so around others that are there to appreciate it for what it is actually hampers their enjoyment and the empathic happiness they feel for someone striving to do something for the fun of it.
In other words, most people don't really care if this materializes as an actual product or project that's widely usable. It's a cool hobby project and some of us appreciate that, and appreciate people documenting their process in doing such things.