Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | markenqualitaet's comments login

Organic maps isn't there yet IMO. OSMand is huge, but it's the only app to match Google Maps features.

I can also recommend BRouter (with OSMand) for bike navigation. It's ugly and hacky, but once it works, bike navigation is much, much better than Gmaps'. E.g. it's not sending you down cobblestone roads all the time.

There is no threshold for harm*. It's a cost:benefit consideration. From a cancer/aging perspective, any amount of UV exposure is bad. Tanning is a consequence of DNA damage. If your skin gets darker from sun exposure, you see evidence of your skin cells reacting to increased DNA repair signals. Malignant transformation/senescence is a stochastic event of course, but age markers pretty much suffer in a dose dependent manner.

* Of course exhausting antioxidant capacity will greatly increase damage at a certain point. I am not exactly sure if UV light can cause single strand breakage by itself, or via ROS, but antioxidants are no "shield" in any case - more like a minefield.

The antidote for damage from UV light is the pro-metabolic effects of red light. Red light hits the red metal (copper) in the Cytochrome C Oxidase enzyme [0] in our mitochondria and refreshes this enzyme. When the cells have enough energy (ATP) they can repair the damage from UV light.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytochrome_c_oxidase (no mention of red light therapy in this article).

UV light from the sun comes with plenty of red light. UV light from the tanning bed does not have any red light. In the winter I used to go tanning, then would spend 12 minutes in the bright-light room [1].

[1] at Planet Fitness. The company website doesn't have any information, but I found this page: https://thelifevirtue.com/total-body-enhancement-pros-and-co...

I was curious so performed a brief search. What are your thoughts on this study, which suggests that cytochrome c oxidase is not involved in the effect?: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2019.03.015

I think your link is interesting, in that the group without the copper enzyme also benefited from red light exposure. The copper enzyme explanation seemed reasonable to me, but perhaps there’s better explanation for why people seem to benefit from red light exposure. Maybe the benefit from red light it multifaceted.

This explains the therapeutic benefits of red light on retinal tissue.

What a horrible article, repeating the ever same superficial factoid in variation, without ever adding more info.

So apparently zinc oxide acts as a catalyst, which reacts with some sunscreen ingredients to form substances toxic to zebra fish, under laboratory conditions.

No qualitative analysis of what's reacting with what? Which substances make the toxicity? Hardly worth anyone's time at that point no?

Came here to say the same thing. I would have expected at least a small amount of chemical analysis. Something more than “toxic to zebra fish”. Also some information about how toxicity was measured like how much sunscreen the fish were exposed to, what effects it had on them.

It's not horrible just because it cannot answer all your questions. The article summarizes a research paper and provides a link for all the raw details.

Can I expect CalyxOS to support the Pixel 6 rather soon? Is e.g. camera performance dependent on closed source Google code/firmware? What are the limitations there?

I was going for GrapheneOS, but tbh seeing that one main developer's personality issues turned me off big time. I don't care about technical advantages, if I have to trust in that guy's impulse control. Too small a project for that.

You can expect a dedicated team to start working on it once they're able to get their hands on some Pixel 6 devices. They don't get them early from Google you know, there's no cooperation there. They buy them when they're released just like we do, and it hasn't been released yet so work hasn't started.

The general attitude towards GCam seems to be... Calyx isn't going to ship it but it's generally understood most people will be using it. The recommendation I got when I switched was to install the apk and disable all network access via Datura before I launched it for the first time. That works well, the pictures look great too. A recommendation I heard after I did that which I will be following next time is to extract the gcam apk from your new phone before you flash calyx and install that one (to avoid apkmirror or whatever).

GrapheneOS’s main dev can come across as paranoid, but it is sort of understandable given the history of the project. Nonetheless, they are doing a spectacular job and I think using GCam with properly set permissions is the best of both words.

Paranoia is not the problem. The problem is general hostility and not being open to other viewpoints and ideas. Also I feel some kind of power hunger, which makes me feel really uncomfortable surrendering basically full control over my phone to these people.

From what I’ve seen, he gets summoned, and angry when things like “Calyx pays great attention to usability, while GrapheneOS gives more focus to security at the price of usability” gets mentioned, which is just false.

Also, do note that it is indeed a dangerous business — false sense of security is the worst. And there are plenty of companies taking advantage of people wanting something “privacy-oriented”.

Nah, it's not about having strong options. I've been around nerds forever, that doesn't bother me. Yours might be the impression on recent HN, but if you look around he is all over the place, attacking people on various platforms, while promoting some conspiracy narrative; derailing, gaslighting and manipulation. Whatever is going on with that guy, something is definitely going on. He doesn't inspire trust, he probably needs therapy.

Micay started working on the project and got some funding from copperhead os, with the plan being that the company could provide paid support and the like.

But copperhead os broke its promises and basically hijacked the project - but Micay being a professional, he invalidated the validation keys so that existing users would not get served code not associated with him.

Afterwards he continued working on the open source project without any partnership, while copperhead os continues to take the code, add some questionable modifications to it and sell it, while badmouthing GrapheneOS.

I wouldn’t go as far as to make psychological advice on someone based on a few interactions, but seeing how people in the industry can burn out from some rude comments, being totally backstabbed does explain his behavior. Also, do note that he is a professional security expert (the upstream android project routinely takes commits from his project) and unfortunately even with the best intentions, one can create absolutely shitty distros regarding security. Being critical of them may look “competitive”, but he only wants end users safe.

That's what I believed until I had a direct (online) conversation, which got unpleasant very quickly. Maybe there is a grain of truth in there, but I am more inclined to think it might at least be exaggerated by a lot.

*opinions. Sorry can't edit.

I think you vastly overestimate our current understanding of the brain/neuronal processing, even singular (neuron) cell's workings. The fMRI enthusiasm turned out wrong a long time ago and there hasn't been much progress since, for all I know. And knowing a gene sequence wasn't enough either. We are still lacking theory big time. For most all of biology, we do not understand anything fully really. Not in neuro science, not in evolution theory, and god forbid not in genetics. Complex != complicated. Complexity is a hard barrier. We do not have abstraction for emergence, merely still recording thing's reactions when you poke them in different ways.

Do we even understand how DNA replication works? It's a relatively simple mechanical process, but it's performed by molecular mechanisms that exhibit oddly intelligent behavior.

How could you objectively measure the impact of social media, when pretty much everyone in that age group uses it. And those who don't, probably have factors not applicable to all. The very decision to abstain from social media may hint at a different neuronal setup/vulnerability.

If the research we got is the best we can realistically get, this author is making a dishonest and misleading argument.


Because you are changing the daabase schema to introduce a stupid version field to store "normalized" passwords rather then just doing the check twice on mobile platforms.

Hashing takes a lot of CPU time. And btw you don't even need to change the database schema. You could encode the version in the password field itself. Django does this and it works great

The database would contain existing passwords without normalization. You also you have to hold the unnormalized password. Super silly to do that to save a few processor cycles on login.

It's amazing how much misinformation is in this thread. You should do further reading on password hashing and rethink whether you really have to store two different passwords...

Hashing one or two 10 char strings takes basically no time on even old mobile hardware.

Good password hash algorithms specifically are designed to take a while. They add latency to the subsequent page load when you click “submit”.

Not if you are using algorithms specifically designed to take a lot of CPU time, which is a best practice


Personally I think, whatever ctrl-s is doing instead of saving, is the only really hostile default in vim. To a beginner it's the "mysteriously break vim for good" shortcut. And maybe the lack of ctrl-c/-v clipboard management. I hate pasting things into default vim.

That is not vim, ctrl-s/control-q turn on/off flow control. Very useful if you want to temporarily pause command output.

You can turn it off using `stty -ixon`, and this also wouldn't be a problem in a graphical vim, but vim would need to have a keybinding for it.

Oh, yeah right. Thanks. I forgot the details there. This even goes to your e.g. .bashrc right?

Tho, couldn't vim overwrite this somehow?

In any case, this legacy feature is a major pain in the ass for beginners. Today ctrl-s/-c/-v and maybe ctrl-z have another meaning IMO and sticking to legacy is messing with heads unnecessarily. Pantheon terminal manages to e.g. make ctrl-c context dependent copy/cancel.

Does (neo)vim offer a similar debugging experience? Visually stepping through code and setting break points and stuff?

I like vim's code navigation, but I miss the autocompletion features of bigger editors. Can you make vim tab complete like sublime? Last I tried, it was never as "one key to rule them all", but required some additional finger-fu and attention. Also moving selected code around (so I can make engine noises) is a must.

Something about VS Code just feels wrong, but it's pretty much exactly enough of an "IDE" for me. Tho, I strongly dislike the project based file management. Would like to have a solid vim setup instead.

Debugging is one of the reasons I keep using vscode. There is vimspector but I never tried that.

For code-completions coc.nvim offers similar config and plugins as vscode. There is official lsp support for neovim now but coc.nvim works fine.


Podcast looks good. Thanks for sharing.

Heads-up for those who care: It's a commercial podcast with sponsors, trojan ads and all, sadly.


It's not. I couldn't get through the first 2 episodes without rolling my eyes every 10 minutes. It's full of all the standard neuro-bunk that is everywhere these days. Making very obvious points about human behavior that neuroscience does not illuminate, but making it sound otherwise ("kids are more impulsive because their brains are different"...duh). And cherry picking studies to confirm some "blow-your-mind" point that is actually much more fuzzy and contentious than he is willing to describe ("brain rewiring ONLY occurs during sleep"...not remotely supported by any study anywhere, and conveniently he never posts any sources or studies in his description or on his website). The cherry on top was noticing that he invited noted neuro-bollocks offender Matt Walker (who wrote a book called "Why We Sleep" which literally never even attempts answer the titular question). I'd pass on this one.

I agree. Listened to the episode on ADHD and it was pretty lame, unstructured and somewhat wrong at times. Also saw there is an episode with Lex Fridman, so I guess it's the same pseudo intellectual bla bla bla sponsor juice. Not the best advertising for those big name universities, tbh.

Btw. I can wholeheartedly recommend the "big biology" podcast, if you are interested in biology in general.

I've found his recommendations/sponsors to be extremely useful. They are curated choices in market areas I am unfamiliar with.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact