No, it is, the comment you're replying to is correct in what it said to you.

> The Privacy settings applies only to access to the Documents folder without the user interaction.

Yes, BUT, the user interaction is irrevocable. There are two user interactions here, one is "please access Documents this one time" and the second is "please don't let this app access Documents again."

Of course, if the stakes were higher you wouldn't even think to defend this behavior. Like if you were dealing with a nuclear weapon launcher and there was a big panel saying "TARGETING SYSTEMS: 0 targets (Permission Lock sandbox excluding 450 potential targets needing approval)" and then you poked around and found out "uh... why can I still go into the interface and target Milan and the big glowy 'launch missiles' light then starts lighting up and presumably I can launch a nuclear strike on Milan?!" and someone says, "oh yeah, that's because back when we were demoing it, the general had us punch in a random city to show what the targeting UI looked like, and we randomly chose Milan... it's okay, to fix it someone just needs to go and manually remove the warhead and put in a different one and then we'll restart the system and it'll forget all its targeting data for the old warhead" -- that'd strike you as unsustainable.

But this is very low-stakes for us so it seems less outrageous, but fundamentally it is a solid buggy behavior, "The UI makes it sound like there is only one system at play here, but there are actually two and the other system can override a specific revocation that's placed at the level the UI controls." Even if there are going to be two systems, you expect that their security controls will both be followed, or that the second one will know enough to be able to say "I say no, but I am being overruled" in its status panel.

So like influencers get to hear other influencers explaining this "you can reinvest your profits and then you won't have profits" type of advice... but then they will put it right next to unsound advice about "by the way, a great way is to invest in a "business" trip to Greece to sail the Mediterranean, it is "team-building" between you and your spouse and kids who are all employees of your little influencer company, oh by the way you should buy fancy watches so that you can show them off in your videos, and get a very expensive hairstylist to do your hair -- as long as you make a video about it!"

And it's like, no, the tax courts actually have procedures they follow to determine if those things are personal expenses or business expenses and 90% of the advice that you hear here are some form of tax fraud.

But from the point of view of a company, as the tax year comes to an end you hopefully have extra money left in the bank, now you can either use it to buy things that the company needs and thus grow the company, or you can hold onto it where if you're a C-corp the government will take 21% of the year-on-year delta, or you can pay it back to the shareholders as a dividend and they pay 15% capital gains tax on it. (And of course you don't have to dump the whole account into just one bucket, you can choose how much goes into each of the three.) And when it gives the advice "pssst, you should probably reinvest most of it," that's a standard practice explicitly sanctioned by the government.

Like, the whole point of open source is that this thread is not a thing. The whole point is "if this software is taken on by a malevolent dictator for life, we'll just fork it and keep going with our own thing." Or like if I'm evaluating whether to open-source stuff at a startup, the question is "if this startup fails to get funding and we have to close up shop, do I want the team to still have access to these tools at my next gig?" -- there are other reasons it might be in the company's interests, like getting free feature development or hiring better devs, but that's the main reason it'd be in the employees' best interests to want to contribute to an open-source legacy rather than keep everything proprietary.

BSD-type stuff is very simple because it says "here is this stuff. you can use it as long as you promise not to sue me. I promise not to sue you too."

Very simple.

GPL-type stuff is intrinsically more complex because it's trying to use the threatening power of lawsuits, to reduce overall IP lawsuits. So it has to say "Here is this stuff. You can use it as long as you promise not to sue me. I am only going to sue you, if you start pretending like you have the right to sue other folks over this stuff or anything you derive from it. You don't have the right to sue others for it, I made it, so please stop pretending and let's stop suing each other over this sort of thing."

Getting the entire legal nuance around that sort of counterfactual "I will only sue you if you try to pretend that you can sue others" is why they're more complex. And the simplest copyleft licenses like the Mozilla Public License have a very rigid notion of what "the software" is, so like for MPL it's "this file is gonna never be used in a lawsuit, you can edit it ONLY as long as you agree that this file must never be used by you to sue someone else, if you try to mutate it in a way that lets you sue someone else then that's against our agreement and we reserve the right to sue you."

Whereas for GPL it's actually kind of nebulous what "the software" is -- everything that feeds into the eventual compiled binary, basically -- and so the license itself needs to be a little bit airy-fairy, "let's first talk about what conveying the software means...", in various ways.

The interesting thing here is that as far as the courts are initially ruling, these from-scratch reimplementations are not human works and therefore are not copyrightable, which makes them all kind of public domain. Slapping the MIT license on it was an overstep. If that's how things go then Free Software has actually won its greatest sweep with LLM ubiquity.

Also, don't take a role that interviews like that unless they work on something with the stakes of Apollo 13, haha

The only framework we have figured out in which LLMs can build anything of use, requires LLMs to build a robot and then we expose the robot to the real world and the real world smacks it down and then we tell the LLMs about the wreckage. And we have to keep the feedback loops small and even then we have to make sure that the LLMs don't cheat. But you're not going to give it the opportunity to decrease the wealth tax or increase the income tax so it will never get the feedback it needs.

You can try to train a neural network with backpropagation to simulate the actual economy, but I think you don't have enough data to really train the network.

You can try to have it build a play economy where a bunch of agents have different needs and different skills and have to provide what they can when they can, but the "agent personalities" that you pick embed some sort of microeconomic outlook about what sort of rational purchasing agent exists -- and a lot of what markets do is just kind of random fad-chasing, not rationally modelable.

I just don't see why you'd use that square peg to fill this round hole. Just ask economics professors, they're happy to make those predictions.

The metagame within 1kbwc is that at the end of play people generally vote on which new cards to keep for seeding the next game, and which to discard. So you get a rush of joy if everybody liked your card and wants to keep it.

For an example of metagame play, one deck developed Angry Sheep, Sleepy Sheep, a bunch of sheeps, plus some rule card of "if there are more than five sheep, the person with the most sheep wins." People liked those, so they kept them. Then someone created a different card called the Sheep Herder, all of a player's sheep get stacked under the Sheep Herder, which passes one player to the left every time a sheep is played, so it slowly goes around the circle vacuuming up sheep. People liked this but started making Angry Goat, Sleepy Goat etc. so that they could have an alternate victory condition. Which led to the Goat Herder card that goes to the right as new goats are played. The meta-joke then reached its peak with the Herder Herder, which picks up Herders and moves them around the board, dropping the things that they are herding as it moves.

The key to 1kbwc is that anyone can at any time create a card that says "I win the game" but that is no fun, not unless someone has a card called Counterspell that says "play me at any time to discard a card that some other player is playing, before it takes effect" etc. The metagame of 1kbwc allows the deck to become its own story and the players of the many rounds after rounds of it, are rewarded as the storytellers.

    { let count = 50; const interval = setInterval(() => { addSnakeNode(); if (--count <= 0) clearInterval(interval); }, 100) }

Or, if you're making orange juice, make the ingredients label say oranges. But you can split it up, take the peels, put them into a hydraulic press, extract out oils that have the concentrated aroma and flavor of oranges, homogenize some of that into the juice. Or you can centrifuge the juice, or you can pass it through osmotic filters to remove some of the water and concentrate the flavor. No rule saying you can't treat some of the juice similar to sugar beet juice and try to isolate its sugars. At the end, you reassemble a perfect consistent mixture. The label doesn't have to tell you about any of this, it just has to tell you that the ingredients were oranges.

(The recipe for the best lemonade you'll ever make is like this, it's just lemons and water and sugar, but you zest the lemons into the simple syrup you're making with the sugar water, then strain it with cheesecloth or a coffee filter, before adding to the juice and water and pulp.)

Imported oils, you can basically do anything that some middleman country allows you to do with the oil (in particular mix with cheaper oils) and then say "oh this is imported olive oil, olive oil according to someone else's standards”...

Similar inefficacies have been seen clinically e.g. in [3] and are (caution, anecdata) widespread on the internet, with "melatonin doesn't work" being a popular search term with tons of articles about it. An honest to goodness test seems to have been done at [4] where they made sleep disturbance symptoms "disappear" by resuming treatment at a lower dosage, but instead of blaming the neurons they are blaming the liver, saying that it got overloaded and couldn't clear melatonin out of the bloodstream anymore in some patients—I just want to include that as a plausible alternative explanation so that you don't take my words as gospel truth or anything. I’m trained as a physicist, not a physician, and there is this meme of people with physics degrees thinking that everybody else’s field is their expertise and like I want to be deliberately self conscious about my limitations here.

[1]: PDF Warning: https://www.herbogeminis.com/revista/IMG/pdf/melatonin-adhd....

[2]: https://academic.oup.com/sleep/article-abstract/33/12/1605/2...

[3]: https://www.psychiatrist.com/jcp/effects-exogenous-melatonin...

[4]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20576063/

Sleep aid melatonin is shipped in pills containing ridiculous amounts of the stuff—I’ve seen 10, 12, and 20mg myself, Amazon has a 40mg fast dissolve and 60mg gummies.

This spikes your blood amount with 100x-1000x of your natural cycle of melatonin. Why? Because melatonin is not, repeat not, the signaling molecule that makes you sleepy. It responds to light levels and triggers the cascade of other molecules that make you sleepy, several hours after it peaks. So that's why the 100x overdose—you are trying to kick those secondary mechanisms into overdrive, “hey everyone it is black as the abyss of hell I guess we gotta sleep!!”, because Americans taking melatonin want to pop one just before bed and have it knock them out.

And it does that for like 2 or 3 days before your body starts down-regulating all of its sensitivities to those melatonin byproducts. Nerve cells like to be tickled, not zapped, when you shock them like this they react angrily.

You want to use melatonin to reinforce circadian rhythm and fight jet lag, you do it with amounts in the ~100 micrograms range, slow release if you can find it, and you take that at sunset and let it reinforce your normal cycle. If you're looking for an acute sleep aid, take a walk, get fresh air, drink water, and if those don't help pop a Benadryl/Unisom (it's the same drug either way). If you have doctor’s orders of course follow those, but if you're just trying to self-medicate that’s how you do it.

Absolutely unsurprising that punching your sleep apparatus in the gut once every day for five years increases some sort of stress on your heart.

The current tool to wrap your bytecode with a VM so that it becomes standalone is Burrito[1], but there's some language support[2] (I think only for the arch that your CPU is currently running? contra Golang) and an older project called Distillery[3].

1: https://github.com/burrito-elixir/burrito

2: https://hexdocs.pm/mix/Mix.Tasks.Release.html

3: https://hexdocs.pm/distillery/home.html

But even if the margin is not quite as wide as the back-of-the-envelope calculates, it's still bigger by a decent margin, right? For instance [1] estimates with more detailed methodology that it's $2.9T over 3 years or ~$1T/year, with at least 44% of that attributable to obesity, so like ~$400B/year, whereas [2] talks about $240B/year cigarettes, $250B/year alcohol.

Of course Lustig would say "TOFI people exist, obesity isn't the problem, obesity is just another symptom of metabolic syndrome, so 44% is an underestimate for the costs of bad nutrition." Not sure I agree there but he'd defend higher numbers even if we agreed to use these sources as kicking off points.

And yeah I agree that the question of "what do we do about it" is something that he appears to have a very opinionated take on, but I'd like to see more hard data. Like I'm happy for him that he had a big study that showed reversal of metabolic syndrome symptoms just by switching sugary food out for starchy food while holding weight and calorie consumption constant, but how we get from there to "eat real food -- the problem is not what's on the nutrition label but all of the antibiotics and adulteration that they don't have to tell you about on that label" stuff seems a bit opaque.

[1] https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-economic-co...

[2] https://www.cdc.gov/chronic-disease/data-research/facts-stat...

The combination of fibers then leads to a given packet of calories traveling further down the jejunum as it gets absorbed, which makes more of the bacteria living along the length of the intestine happy with you, as well as protecting from blood glucose spikes that come with concomitant "crashes".