Why would snorting be so much worse than just swallowing the pill? The goal is to get the chemicals in the blood. Snorting apparently works quicker, giving you a stronger but shorter lasting effect. But the difference is not night and day.
A lot of people do recreational drugs while at college and go on just fine. George W. Bush, for example, is alleged to have taken cocaine.
> Why would snorting be so much worse than just swallowing the pill? The goal is to get the chemicals in the blood.
When a pill is swallowed it is gradually released into the bloodstream. Some drugs are also partially degraded by the digestive system, meaning you don't get 100% into the bloodstream. For some drugs, as much as 90% or more can be destroyed in the stomach, but this is accounted for in the dosing. Your stomach contents also go through your liver, which does first-pass metabolism depending on the drug and can reduce overall concentrations.
When someone snorts a drug, it bypasses all of that. It has easy access to the brain. It spikes the concentration the brain sees far in excess of what you would get from taking the drug orally.
This spike is where the damage is amplified. A sudden spike to very high values can overwhelm the brain's protection systems, for example.
Dopamine degradation produces neurotoxic metabolites. The brain is normally decent at cleaning these up, but when you consume drugs that spill that dopamine out at excess rates and disrupt its storage in vesicles then you can also overwhelm the brain's ability to clean up safely.
The sudden spike also causes rapid downregulation of the affected receptors, leading to deeper withdrawal effects that can last for a long time.
The sudden spike is also more euphoric. Combine that with the deeper withdrawal and it's why taking a pill through the nose is far more addictive than taking it orally.
> George W. Bush, for example, is alleged to have taken cocaine
And basically any big name in the financial industry has almost certainly used loads of cocaine. They’re mostly not suffering any horrible consequences.
But of course there’s a world of difference between cocaine use and addiction. An addict might start their day with a line, every day, but that’s far from typical use.
It's not really worse, but you can get a lot more in your bloodstream a lot quicker, so you've got to be careful with the dose.
Snorting will also shoot your tolerance through the roof, so taking it orally will no longer be as effective. Definitely not a road I recommend going down
The first two is the same article, but they point out that certain structures can be very hard to write in rust, with linked lists being a famous example. The point stands, but I would say the tradeoff is worth it (the author also mentions at the end that they still think rust is great).
The third link is absolutely nuts. Why would you want to initialize a struct like that in Rust? It's like saying a functional programming language is hard because you can't do goto. The author sets themselves a challenge to do something that absolutely goes against how rust works, and then complains how hard it is.
If you want to do it to interface with non-rust code, writing a C-style string to some memory is easier.
I would argue that having to pay more than $20 for an address, having to do weird NAT hole punching to get a direct connection between two machines, and having an internet that can easily be completely scanned by hackers are all things that are not "working".
Working for you != working for everyone
Basically functioning != Working as well as it could
There are more advantages to IPv6. We don't see all of the advantages because we can't use them, because we are still largely stuck in an IPv4 world. This is a problem caused by not enabling IPv6.
My ISP provides me with upto 8 ipv4 addresses if I want them. At auction an IPv4 to buy is only $20 each. not $20 a month, $20. Having an ISP rips you off is not mitigated with ipv6, you still have an ISP that rips you off.
I have to put firewall rules in anyway (as I don't want a random device on the internet to be able to talk to my bathroom speaker), so what's the difference?
I get an RTP stream pushed from a source, if I want it on my laptop I dst-nat it to my laptop, if I want it on my desktop I dst-nat it to my desktop, no need to change the destination on the source IP. How would I do that with ipv6 - DNS I guess, if the source supports DNS lookups (some do, most don't)
I also have the advantage of being able to steer outgoing traffic via either my DSL or via my 4g depending on various rules (including source IP, target IP, protocol, src/dest ports, DSCP tags etc). I believe I can do this with NPT on ipv6, same as on ipv4.
But sure, security through obscurity is useful.
In any case I still have to maintain an ipv4 network as some services still won't work on ipv6 only subnets (even with NAT64 and DNS64), so the choice is either having an ipv4 network, or having an ipv4 and ipv6 network.
> My ISP provides me with upto 8 ipv4 addresses if I want them.
It's great that your ISP does that. Mine doesn't, maybe it would for an extra charge if I got some kind of business account. Which makes sense, as the IPv4 addresses your ISP own are a valuable resource.
At the hacker space I'm part of we need to use a reverse proxy to run all our services on a single IPv4 address we get from our ISP.
> I have to put firewall rules in anyway (as I don't want a random device on the internet to be able to talk to my bathroom speaker), so what's the difference?
If, for example, two friends want to play a FPS game with each other they could connect directly. They still need to "punch" out to get the firewall open, but you lose the step where you have to guess at which port the message may end up. Right now I hear that with some ISP's you don't even get a public IP on your router, so even NAT hole punching doesn't work.
Not a lot of games currently provide the option to connect directly, but that's because it often doesn't work well behind NAT on IPv4 networks.
> I get an RTP stream pushed from a source
This sounds like a pretty niche application, but sure. I don't have the immediate best Ipv6 solution for you. Maybe you could switch which device has the RTP-receive IPv6 address (one device can have multiple IPs), you could do NAT on IPv6 for this application.
Right now you're using the NAT as a kind of forwarder to send the data to different hosts, so if you have a router you can run software on you could just have it forward to both devices on the local network.
> I also have the advantage of being able to steer outgoing traffic via either my DSL or via my 4g depending on various rules
Aren't these features of your router, not of your IP stack?
> In any case I still have to maintain an ipv4 network as some services still won't work on ipv6 only subnets.
You're right, it doesn't always make sense for an individual to switch. That's why we're still stuck on old technology.
But prices for IPv4 addresses are going up. There are already VPS's that charge less if you don't need IPv4. Availability of IPv6 for consumers is going up; In India it's near 80%. At some point, some kind of service in India is going to not bother to get IPv4.
The "punch out" part is the problem. You can't "punch out" without using special tricks (send UDP source port 1234 to target port 1234 on both machines at the same time and then pretend that UDP is an established connection to get through your stateful firewall)
If your firewall randomises your source ports then sure, you have to use the birthday problem style tricks that tailscale uses, it's not onerous though.
> Aren't these features of your router, not of your IP stack?
Yes, and that's where I want them to stay. Which means NATing depending on which direction I want to send the traffic (and get return traffic) -- even if I have a BGP handoff upstream. So ipv6 doesn't get rid of NAT's use, just changes it to a 1:1 mapping which is a minor benefit (and renames it to NPT)
> This sounds like a pretty niche application, but sure.
The internet has two sets of people
1) Consumers who just want to establish https connections to server, in which case they don't care about NAT, CGNAT, etc
2) People with niche applications
NAT is a very useful tool, and the ipv6 fanboys that go on about how evil it is just want to take that ability away from people because they don't understand it. Most of the arguments against NAT stem from a time when stateful firewalls were not a thing.
> Right now you're using the NAT as a kind of forwarder to send the data to different hosts, so if you have a router you can run software on you could just have it forward to both devices on the local network.
Yes, this software runs at a layer 4 level and forwards the selected traffic by translating the address. That's exactly what NAT is, it's great.
I'd be quite happy running an ipv6 network with network translation but given that far too many things simply don't work on an ipv6 only network (tv, nintendo switch, zscaler laptop), and those that do require 64 translation (github)
IPv4 addresses are not increasing in cost by the way - in nominal terms let alone adjusted for inflation. In real terms they're 20% cheaper than 2019
If you're talking about CAD in general I can see your point.
For FreeCAD specifically, there looks to be an OpenSCAD import process directly. I don't have experience with how it works, but that may be better than going through STL
I know the process is there, but I really, really doubt it does anything else than just uses OpenSCAD code to render the mesh, as FreeCAD can also deal with meshes. I think it would be pretty unlikely that the FreeCAD devs would have implemented such a rendering system based on OpenSCAD.
From my quick tests, it seems to rebuild the OpenSCAD objects using FreeCAD part workbench primitives.
But I also quite quickly found examples that don't work. I don't know if that's the import not being very good, me finding weird examples, needing to install more libraries, or PEBKAC.
>I expect a few because humans generally have a crash, whether they are at fault or not, every 700,000 miles. Tesla has 7 in probably ~300,000 miles, which should be worrying to anyone, whether the Robotaxis were responsible or not.
I had a discussion with a colleague today. He claimed Tesla had Full Self Driving, and had for years, and they were the first. That's the message some folks believe.
I've never understood why some people insist that FSD means there can never ever be any crashes of any kind, otherwise it obiviously just doesn't work.
I use FSD 99% of the time now and it works 99% of the time I use it. When it doesn't work, it is always in an annoying, going-way-to-slow way. I've never experienced it crash into anything. I'm sure the experts here know better than me, I'm just a lowly customer, but from MY experience, it basically works all the time.
This is true, it’s not an individual datapoint. When smartphones, like the iPhone, originally debuted carriers had a conniption fit because they couldn’t preload a ton of garbage apps to help subsidize the cost. Apple has been able to avoid this, but for your average smartphone this is absolutely how both the manufacturer and carrier are able to sell them so cheaply.
Every experience may not be as bad as the one the OP had, but it’s surely well within reality. Both carriers and handset manufacturers are glad to sell anything and everything about someone to make a quick buck. They’ve literally been doing it for 25+ years.
You need to think about the aggregate data. Whole trends can be seen in almost real-time.
Here’s a made up example, and it’s probably not even the best one. - Show Teckno-Detectives shows a “Cameo” of Grapple’s newest mixed-reality glasses. The data shows that 3.9 million additional people watched the episode. Investment firms who pay for the data notice and buy extra Grapple shares to cash in on the expected sales bump.
Yes, but to make it worthwhile you need a lot of data and the price scales linearly.
Let's say my phone gets $10 cheaper because of all this crap ware. If you have the aggregate of 1000 people that cost someone $10000. Is that really worth it? Is 100000 people worth $1000000? Is there some point at which the aggregate data becomes so valuable it overtakes the per-user cost?
That's what I mean - the marginal value of one person needs to be quite big for this whole thing to make sense.
There are effective North Korean hacking teams. They seem to operate from China, but one assumes that there are ways to train North Koreans in this stuff before sending them abroad to do the work.
I will agree that for most people in North Korea access to the outside internet is limited, but your claim that "All computer access is gated" is a stronger one, that I haven't seem evidence for.
Also, we know that Red Star OS exists, but I haven't seen any information about it's actual use. I can imagine it's used in certain sectors (e.g. education or certain ministries), but if you have information about it's usage I'd be interested to see that.
My gut feeling is that there is probably still a lot of cracked windows PCs also used in industry, but I have no evidence for that either. This is just based on how in my experience China works, and the fact that there is some business exchange between North Korea and China.
reply