Here's what we always tell founders about demo videos: "What works well for HN is raw and direct, with zero production values. Skip any introductions and jump straight into showing your product doing what it does best. Voiceover is good, but no logos or music!"
The video I provided was a raw, uncut, video. The editing is done by Screen Studio, which only does the "zoom" effect. But there's no studio magic there. I didn't speed anything up or cut out buggy bits or even do a retake!
Yes, its also failing on my workspace account but worked on my personal. Might be a bug or a delayed deployment for workspaces b/c it might need to be "enabled" by admins?
Oh well. Uninstalled. This was my first experience doing software development guided by AI. Doesn't seem like a tool that will serve me well in the long run.
If the origin of that was a single study, you should learn about then replication crisis in psychology that called into question large swaths of results, after around 2/3rds of studies failed replication.
Both this advice and whatever the OP recommends are both subject to the “replication crisis” critique. At least until you dig in and become confident in the reliability of the research backing the claims. No research is cited in this article. Some of the advice seems unlikely to be research-based (“drink coffee 2 hours before the exam but not right before”).
Litigation is not just 'file and forget'. Deno, or any other organisation, needs to contribute in time and effort for several years. In my opinion, "media attention / clout" is a fair compensation.
I'm guessing this is technically challenging. There are VPN protocols designed to be difficult to differentiate from other encrypted traffic. As a result, VPN providers based outside the UK know that they can just ignore the UK law and probably won't be successfully blocked in the UK.
Enforcement, one countries laws don’t apply in another. Which is kind of why the age verification thing won’t work… There will always be some jurisdiction that’ll ignore things for profit.
Not entirely true. If I'm incorporated in country A and want to offer a service in country B, I'll have to comply with the local regulations. Furthermore, most VPNs have local presence in the EU as well. NordVPN is incorporated in Panama, but also has an entity in The Netherlands.
Many areas of law enforcement are whack-a-mole. There's no online gambling regulation so strict that it will stop unlicensed sites from existing entirely; that doesn't mean the rules are pointless or resources dedicated to enforcing them are wasted.
Sure. However, the effort spent vs. what is gained has to be considered. Not all games of whack-a-mole are created equal.
VPNs are incredibly easy to spin up, gambling groups are not. Within a week I could probably spin up a dozen or more semi-legitimate VPN companies. Multiply that by however many hundreds of people are willing to do the same. Add a few thousand more people willing to spin up completely shady 'free' VPNs.
The scale quickly exceeds what you can possibly block, unless you firewall the nation.
Sure. But majority of the people (as seen with China, or Russia) do not care about VPN and won’t care. So, it seems to me that this way it will be easier for law enforcement to achieve what they want just because the target pool is already smaller.
>But majority of the people (as seen with China, or Russia) do not care about VPN and won’t care
The article that our comments are under are about an 18x increase in sign-ups from the UK for one provider, a 2.5x increase for another provider, a 10x increase for yet another provider, etc. in just days.
I'm curious about your stats for China/Russia, though. Where/how do you find out how many internet users in those countries have a subscription to and/or use a VPN? Would those stats continue to hold true if there was not a great firewall in China, and just rudimentary IP-blocking of VPN providers?
> The article that our comments are under are about an 18x increase in sign-ups from the UK for one provider, a 2.5x increase for another provider, a 10x increase for yet another provider, etc. in just days.
Those numbers mean nothing without the baseline. What if before it was 1 person and now it’s 18x more, totaling 19 people?
W.r.t. data about China and Russia, I don’t want to pay for market reports, but occasional discussions about China, for example, show that about 35% of internet users use VPN (https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/i3afnz/how_many_peop..., the thread has some links for more info). However, it is unclear how many of those users are private citizens use VPN to specifically bypass censorship. From my anecdotal experience from work and my PhD, most Chinese I met just don’t care about censorship and lack of access to FB, YouTube, or whatever. Chinese are like western users for the most part, on average they need social media, financial apps, maybe search, etc. they are not actively looking for censored info.
>Those numbers mean nothing without the baseline. What if before it was 1 person and now it’s 18x more, totaling 19 people?
They obviously don't mean nothing. Knowing absolute numbers would be much better, but knowing that the direction of the trend (people previously not caring now care) is informative by itself. It's safe to assume that more than 1 person had a VPN subscription previously.
I appreciate the link and additional insight. The way you phrased it before, I was expecting you to quote sub 10% or less. 35% is not inconsequential, especially considering the environment.
In the end, I'm not convinced you can extrapolate Chinese internet usage patterns to the UK, given the large cultural differences (specifically in regards to internet, history of censorship, etc.). Someone who has grown up their entire lives under the great firewall will react differently to censorship than someone who has grown up their entire lives under a mostly free internet that is now being censored.
> but knowing that the direction of the trend (people previously not caring now care) is informative by itself.
Sure. However, without baseline numbers how do you know who are the people signing up for VPNs? This is the whole point: is it the general public en masse, or some of tech people who had no VPN before?
> In the end, I'm not convinced you can extrapolate Chinese internet usage patterns to the UK, given the large cultural differences (specifically in regards to internet, history of censorship, etc.). Someone who has grown up their entire lives under the great firewall will react differently to censorship than someone who has grown up their entire lives under a mostly free internet that is now being censored.
Of course culture makes a huge difference, but you cannot strongly prove the opposite just based on the assumption about cultural differences. I think the the average consumer simply does not care enough. Remember, the expectation on average is that the access to the information is free.
In my experience, it lacks a lot things that Nia can do:
- nia can do deep research across any docs / codebase and then find any relevant links or repos to index.
- it also supports both private and public repos :)
lmk about ur experience with context7 (if u used) it and what docs did u use?
last time I checked, context7 depended on an opt-in from library authors expressed through a marker file in the repository, which is negatively affecting adoption and docs coverage.
"In the Fall of 2023, Apple introduced a new metric called “Time in Daylight” as part of watchOS 10 with Apple Watch Series SE (second generation) and Apple Watch Series 6 or later. This metric uses the ambient light sensor in Apple Watch and an associated algorithm to estimate how much time is spent in daylight and maximum intensity (lux) in 5-minute increments."
There are countless studies that billions of people are Vitamin D deficient. Our bodies are designed to get most of that from the sun. Lots of people never even leave their house on a given day.
Where is the data here? That article simply declares that there is a global epidemic of vitamin D deficiency and I followed the citation it gives to back that up, which is this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000291652.... Except this citation is also not a study. It's an opinion piece that just declares people are vitamin D deficient without doing any measurements of how much vitamin D anyway has circulating in their blood. It appears to be a narrative review, not a study.
I'm not saying the claim is for sure wrong, but at some point, to make this claim, someone has to have actually measured vitamin D levels in some broadly representative sample of humans and you could post that instead of whatever came up first in Google Scholar when search for "vitamin D deficiency."
I should've been more specific. The study you link states that 'To prevent vitamin D deficiency, one should spend 15 to 20 minutes daily in the sunshine with 40% of the skin surface exposed.'. The screenshot on lume health shows a goal of 120 minutes.
Moreover, sun exposure is not by definition 'healthy'. Spending two hours in the sun at noon in the middle of summer does more harm than good.
> Nonsmokers who avoided sun exposure had a life expectancy similar to smokers in the highest sun exposure group, indicating that avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor for death of a similar magnitude as smoking.
> Women with active sun exposure habits were mainly at a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and noncancer/non-CVD death
Not surprised there because people who spend more time outdoors will typically be participating in physical activity at the same time, while people who avoid sun exposure will typically be seated while participating in sedentary activities.
If we want to see if sun exposure is the sole reason for longevity, we will have to force the subjects to sit on a couch outside.
Claiming that not getting sunlight is the same as smoking is pure garbage.
> Claiming that not getting sunlight is the same as smoking is pure garbage.
So you're throwing out a whole study because it didn't cover a specific confounding variable you thought of, than stating a claim with no evidence backing it up?
That's pure garbage.
They specifically call this out in the abstract.
> We obtained detailed information at baseline on their sun exposure habits and potential confounders.
> The study you link states that 'To prevent vitamin D deficiency, one should spend 15 to 20 minutes daily in the sunshine with 40% of the skin surface exposed.'. The screenshot on lume health shows a goal of 120 minutes.
Linearly it follows that if one wears clothes that cover more than 40% of lit skin, then the duration would be adjusted to match the total skin-area/time.
If one start with 1.85 m^2 body surface area, 40% of that is .72 m^2. If clothing covers 50% of a human and the human's shape and hair occludes half of that remaining, you have .46 m^2 available for sunlight. .72 m^2 * 20 is 14.4 m^2/min. divided by .46 m^2 it seems that 31.3 min would be the daily amount.
This seems much less than lume health's goal of 120 min. Otoh, given there is less opportunity for get to 14.4 m^2/min daily (I'm looking outside at a nice rainstorm), maybe the 120 min has some catchup factor?
Morning and evening sun are excellent due to the high levels of Near-IR and IR. However, it is devoid of UVB needed for vitamin D synthesis. You need morning, evening, and midday sun.
Really the conclusion of that paper, that people are not vitamin D deficient, ought to be that people are sunlight deficient. This is why studies that involve supplementation of vitamin D frequently show no effect. Vitamin D is only one of many many ways in which light affects biology.
The paragraph near the end about babies needing fortified milk because breast milk is insufficient in vitamin D is laughable. It seems pretty obvious that babies are one of the most, if not the most, sunlight deficient demographics.
Besides, many standards have been created over the past 20 years, yet most invoices are still only sent as PDF.
reply