From what I've read, a single drink is usually good for sleep, 2 or 3 is too much and will do more harm than good. Wikipedia currently agrees with me, but the reference is from 1980, so not sure that's the best available information these days...
How they do this is basically to send google.com in the TLS SNI then when they get to the HTTP level send
Host: signal.org
This will only work with compatible servers. In Signal's case they use AppEngine which is behind Google's network and the servers for google.com are able to connect to their app servers when given the appropriate Host header.
Yep, I had both an XO and an EEE in that order. The look on the university help desk tech's face when I brought the XO (running puppy Linux at the time) in to get a network cert install was fun. I recall moving from the XO to the EEE mainly because the latter was faster and more pleasant to type on. There were few other competing net books at the time.
I don't think so, reading real statistics on this kind of thing instead of alarmist and politically slanted headlines paints a very different picture of how the world is doing.
So you're thinking that people in the future will wonder why we weren't more parochial in our sphere of concerns? More precisely, they'll be morally shocked at the notion that we were too close to treating all humans as of equal moral worth, instead of prioritizing those that are located closer to us geographically?
Don't get me wrong, I'm very aware that most moral systems have somewhat-principled reasons to prioritize those that are geographically closer to you. This is intended more to illuminate that side of the argument than as a full-fledged suggestion for how to set our priorities. But the claim being discussed here, that the future will wonder why we let people die in the streets, is still bizarre to me in the context that you're framing it in.
toomuchtodo pointed out we're not doing enough about a problem that exists locally.
You argued that thinking globally is more important than thinking parochially, which is fine by itself. But it's totally unrelated to what toomuchtodo is saying unless we were taking global action in lieu of local action.
So I assumed you meant that, because it's critical to your comment being relevant.
If you didn't mean that, then your argument falls apart. toomuchtodo is not arguing for being parochial, they're arguing that we should be making it a priority to fight this problem at all.
That's a very niche problem in comparison - we're talking hundreds of millions of people leaving poverty across the globe compared to under hundreds of thousands dying of opioid overdoses. Perhaps it's because I'm not American, but I just don't find it that concerning when put into the larger picture.
Perhaps you not finding it concerning emphasizes the problem. As an American, it greatly concerns me. It’s also why populism and nationalism have taken hold in first world countries.
That some tiny portion of the deaths in your country are from opioid overdoses? People voluntarily injecting themselves with drugs and fucking up? Why exactly does this concern you so much? It's hard to see it as representative of a larger systemic problem beyond the American drug enforcement and medical systems resulting in over-prescription of opioids and fenantly entering common usage. Not much beyond that, is there? I don't see a larger trend to extrapolate from that.
The opioid epidemic is a symptom of underlying socioeconomic and societal issues. That is why it concerns me so greatly. It’s a canary in the coal mine, if you will.
I don't think so - over-prescription of opioids and more common usage of fentanyl seem to the be the key factors in the death increases. Nothing to do with underlying socioeconomic conditions nor societal problems. I don't understand how you're making that leap - care to elaborate?
The whole lower and middle classes? What do you mean by this? What does "quietly" mean -- there's been a ton of activity on the opioid crisis in Washington lately?
It is fascinating how frequently modest increases in quality of living in third world countries is wheeled out as justification for the predations of capitalism. If we're going to have a serious conversation about how the world is doing that has to include the fact that the global economy is predicated on continuous growth despite finite natural resources. There is also a few environmental issues that might be relevant.
I'd advise reading the article I linked, the increases are far from modest in many cases.
I'll agree with you on the environmental issues, but I think we're well on the way to solving those too and largely via the same mechanisms, Chinese solar is close to pushing coal out of business on price. That's not to say there's no role for regulation in the environmental direction though, I certainly think there probably should be, but how to do so globally and fairly is a bit of a catastrophe.
I would be honestly delighted to know through what mechanism you believe collapsing marine fisheries, coral bleaching, the Pacific trash gyre, global warming accelerated desertification, aquifer depletion, topsoil depletion, and a whole host of other issues I can't name off the top of my head are on the cusp of being "solved".
I wouldn't say quite that low, even S&P averages are often higher than that.
But 48% monthly is going to be something like a >1000% yearly interest rate. You really don't get much more of a dead giveaway than that, at that point you're either a fool or you're gambling and hoping you get out before a greater fool does.
Yeah, I managed to miss a digit when I ran the numbers myself so I was off by an order of magnitude when I wrote my post. Glad you checked it. Fucking hilarious what these guys will say - of course, I think that's a goal, to shock anyone remotely reasonable or who even tries to do back of the envelope math out of interest in it.
Rather than Ponzi scheme, I'd classify the investors as participating in a Pump & Dump.
A Ponzi scheme is when it's an investment vehicle (i.e. hedge fund) that provides returns to older investors through capital acquired from newer investors. In this case, by contrast, it's overhyping (to the point of fraud) a publicly traded security in hopes of rallying some investors to buy in, which increases the price, further validating the potential and convincing more investors to buy in.
Merely participating through buying in a Pump & Dump process is completely legal; it only becomes illegal if you're the party using fraudulent information to increase the value of the security.
> A Ponzi scheme is when it's an investment vehicle (i.e. hedge fund) that provides returns to older investors through capital acquired from newer investors.
Isn't that exactly what they did?
From the Article:
> Pincoin was particularly unique in that it offered bonuses for bringing other people into the program, a tactic that might sound familiar. The scammers paid out in cash until January when they began sending iFan tokens.
Pump and Dumps make their money by selling the asset once it's price has been inflated. In this case, the money was made throughout the whole ICO by fraudulently selling a security.
Offering bonuses for bringing other people into the program is a Pyramid Scheme tactic. Ponzi is specifically in cases where there's a portfolio manager or something controlling the entire operation and allocating returns to early investors through distributing the capital of the new investors.
>The company first ran the Pincoin ICO, promising constant returns to investors
>Investors have been told that they would enjoy a profit rate of 48 percent a month from their initial investment, and recoup all investments after four months.
> Pincoin was particularly unique in that it offered bonuses for bringing other people into the program, a tactic that might sound familiar. The scammers paid out in cash until January when they began sending iFan tokens. Then, last month, the team vacated their fancy offices leaving only an oddly well-made – if incomplete – website in its wake.
Regarding your example, you're asking the wrong question. That's not a Ponzi scheme because it makes it clear what kind of returns to expect and that the returns simply come from other investors. A Ponzi scheme involves persuading investors to invest (and reinvest the returns) on a fraudulent basis.
What Charles Ponzi did, and what has come to characterize Ponzi schemes today, is fraud. He made investors think that they were investing in something tradable (stamp coupons) when he actually only ever paid the returns using other investors' money, and it was able to go on for so long because most people simply reinvested their returns on the basis that they thought it was a sustainable investment.
This dynamic doesn't exist without fraud. No one is going to invest in ponzischeme.io on any other basis than exactly what it is, betting to get in early and to cash in their returns before everyone else does.
That said, if I was the world dictator, the ponzischeme.io guys would be in a labor camp, where they would be forced to do meaningful work.
Looking for a way to do better remote access to Linux boxes - Microsoft's RDP completely nails it on Windows, I used to quite like NX, but don't hear much about it these days, how do you find x2go, particularly from a server configuration perspective?
X2go is super easy to use, pretty much install and go. You need a client, I've used the linux and windows client. Both work well. I think you can make their python client work without windows admin rights, but it's been awhile since I tried that.
I browse websites with it, and unless it's very image heavy, it's as smooth as a local browser. If you have large images, scrolling can get choppy. Same with videos, they can be choppy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_use_and_sleep#Alcohol_...