Hacker News uses nesting tables for comments. This comment that you're reading right now is rendered within a table that has three ancestor tables.
As late as 2016 (possibly even later), they did so in a way that resulted in really tiny text when reading comments on mobile devices in threads that were more than five or so layers deep. That isn't the case anymore - it might be because HN updated the way it generates the HTML, though it could also be that browser vendors updated their logic for rendering nested tables as well. I know that it was a known problem amongst browser developers, because most uses for nested tables were very different than what HN was (is?) using them for, so making text inside deeply nested tables smaller was generally a desirable feature... just not in the context of Hacker News.
> Have you seen JPEG XL source code? I like the format, but the reference implementation in C++ looked pretty bad at least 2 years ago. I hope they rewrote it, because it surely looked like a security issue waiting to happen.
At this point, in 2025, any substantial (non-degenerative) image processing written in C++ is a security issue waiting to happen. That's not specific to JPEG XL.
Well, the first public implementation dates to 2020. And, the Cpp choice is obvious, simpler integration with the majority of existing image processing libs, tools and utilities. Not to mention GUI toolkits.
Nonetheless, we should really bear in mind how entrenched Cpp is. If you normalize CVEs by language popularity Java looks downright dangerous!
No new code goes in that violates the rule, and ideally no code at all goes in that is both unsafe and parses untrusted data (regardless of sandboxing) and old code doing both gets replaced.
A giant pile of C++ can be used for rendering, not parsing untrusted data. A giant pile of C++ can sit behind a validator: a memory-safe JSON validator can vet a stream, before an C++ library deserializes it. Etc.
Mozilla's position for some time now has been, "we aren't opposed to shipping JXL support, but we'd want to ship a decent implementation in a memory safe language, not the reference C++ implementation". That position hasn't been met with very much criticism.
Google's position, on the other hand, has been a flat-out "no, we will not ship JXL". That's what has been met with criticism. Not an imagined reluctance to shipping a C++ JXL implementation.
It's Google, it's one of the biggest tech companies in the world making boatloads of money, in part off their browser. They're currently best known as one of the companies trying to create AI God. They really can't write an... image format parser?
> If someone shows up with a testosterone level of 700 you can (and should) explain that low testosterone is not the explanation for whatever they’re suffering from.
I'm not going to say TRT clinics are the best actors here, but to an actual endocrinologist, diagnosing hormone issues isn't so simple as looking at single point-in-time measurement of total testosterone.
Testosterone levels naturally vary even for a given individual - two readings at the same time of day on different days even a short period apart can be dramatically different - and that's not even taking into consideration the fact that total testosterone levels aren't the sole (or even primary) mechanism for diagnosing androgenic endocrine issues.
Yup that's right. I had multiple low (<200) tests over 3 years, and finally was able to get on it (haven't actually started it yet to be fair).
Now I am worried about the long term effects, but it's been so long that if I am on it for the rest of my life and it does help me, that's good enough.
> Saying that the men's vitality clinic "pushed you" into a treatment protocol is like saying that a fertility clinic pushed you into getting pregnant.
No, it isn't. “Men’s vitality” doesn’t mean “getting pumped with testosterone regardless of indications” the way “fertility” means “getting pregnant” in either literal denotation of words or the understanding of the general population.
> Sure, it's a common outcome, but you had an idea of what you wanted out of it before you walked in the door.
Yes, but in the case of fertility clinics, getting pregnant aas definitely the outcome beinf sought. Being pumped with testosterone isn’t the outcome being sought from a men’s vitality clinic, it is (even for the people who are actively thinking about it) a mechanism (and not an appropriate one for every patient) for atteempting to acheive the desired outcome.
If you go to a fertility clinic and they don't attempt to identify the source of your fertility issues and just pump you with hormones not indicated for your specific issue, that would be wrong, too.
> No, it isn't. “Men’s vitality” doesn’t mean “getting pumped with testosterone regardless of indications”
When I Google "men's vitality clinic", the top result I see is titled "Your experts for testosterone replacement therapy...". TRT is front and center.
> Being pumped with testosterone isn’t the outcome being sought from a men’s vitality clinic, it is (even for the people who are actively thinking about it) a mechanism (and not an appropriate one for every patient) for atteempting to acheive the desired outcome.
This is such a weird distinction to try and make.
I frequently see ads for these services, and even when they're not so explicit as that one is about what they're selling, it's extremely clear what demographic they're going after and what the hook is.
Testosterone being a Schedule III substance, "men's vitality" is the way that they can legally advertise an service that prescribes AAS. It's no more of a secret that men's vitality clinics prescribe testosterone than it is that fertility clinics are prescribing estradiol. Both of these are sex hormones that induce a specific effect on the body which the patient is looking for.
Can I imagine someone walking into a men's vitality clinic and being surprised that they're getting offered testosterone? Sure, and there's also that German couple who went to a fertility clinic because they weren't having a baby, and were surprised to learn that they needed to start having sex.
Clueless people exist. That doesn't mean that it's not readily obvious to anyone who's paying attention what these clinics exist to do, and how they do it.
> So is Warren being an asshole here? I mean, we haven't seen a Dick Tracy movie since the 90s. I am out of the loop so trying to understand.
Well the rights were held by Disney from 1988 until 2005, and then they were tied up in court (between Beatty and Tribune) until 2011, when Beatty won the rights. The movie you're referring to was released in 1990.
So Beatty has held the rights for only 14 of those 35 years. Although the first special he made was released in 2010, during that legal battle.
> It does, however, make providing housing more profitable, which, on the margins, will drive more landlords and home builders into the market, decreasing long term costs
Landlords are, by and large, not the ones who create new housing units, and "lack of profit potential is" also generally not the main impedance to creating new housing in most locations either.
>and "lack of profit potential is" also generally not the main impedance to creating new housing in most locations either.
It somewhat is. Housing builders can only do so many projects per whatever cycle they run. They will optimize towards building fewer projects that are highly profitable rather than building tons of low income housing or starter homes that each have much lower profit.
Builders don't want to scale up, they want to make money. Building would also be abysmal to scale up anyway, because it's somewhat skilled labor that you pay peanuts for.
This is just one of the ways that wealth inequality results in market failures.
People with lots and lots of wealth value each individual dollar significantly less, and are therefore willing to part with significantly more dollars per unit of service or product. That means you always get a much higher profit margin targeting stupid rich people than anything else. So everything is built around bilking these dumb but wealthy people for everything you can, and nobody builds or sells much to the poorer people. This drives prices for things up in general, and starves the market of oxygen for meeting the needs of less wealthy people.
Ask any developer, big or small, who their target market is, and they will not say "poor people" and this has been true for decades, and the difference between "poor" and "not poor" has only continued to grow.
Really, any place where building falls behind demand you should expect the lower profit affordable housing to be the first projects cancelled. Economically it only makes sense to service the affordable housing market if the luxury housing market is too saturated to support more projects.
He set up two computers and manually played low-res DRM-protected MP3 files out of one and into the other for weeks, documenting the process on BoingBoing. He touted this not only as freedom but "preservation."
> He set up two computers and manually played low-res DRM-protected MP3 files out of one and into the other for weeks, documenting the process on BoingBoing. He touted this not only as freedom but "preservation."
I see. When I hear "record collection" I think of vinyl records, so I was quite confused how DRM was relevant there.
Sounds like the analog hole. You play DRM material out the audio port and at the same time capture the input of that and re-encode in a non-DRM format.
> It does not sound as such if you read the content of the post. It's hardly a misconception to suggest that gay men do not generally fall in love with women.
Aside from the fact that this premise is incorrect, it's also inapplicable, because, as far as the essay mentions, the father never said he was gay.
How do you know the father never said he was gay? He may well have said that to the man he enjoyed dating as opposed to the wife whom he clearly didn't like very much.
The essay mentions the father being gay, reasonable to assume he said it. Unless you think he was bisexual, but I'm willing to bet you don't actually think that and this is just you being silly and you do actually think he's gay.
> (6) Online child sexual abuse frequently involves the misuse of information society services offered in the Union by providers established in third countries.
It's quite wild to see child sexual abuse continue to be cited as a justification for far-reaching, privacy-invading proposals, allegedly to empower government actors to combat child sexual abuse.
Meanwhile, we have copious and ever-increasing evidence of actual child sexual abuse being perpetrated by people with the most power in these very institutions, and they generally face few (if any) consequences.
> Vehemently disagree. I would much rather take our most contentious issues (abortion, M4A, etc) put them on a national ballot and let the general public decide
The problem with true direct democracy isn't how people would handle high-level issues that are direct reflections on people's basic values and principles, like the two examples you mentioned.
The problem with true direct democracy is that every single person becomes responsible for understanding the intricacies of mundane-but-critical details of administration, like the third-order effects of specific tax policies, or actions that are currently delegated to executive agencies.
Except in the extremely small scale, it quickly becomes prohibitive to reasonably expect all those people to be able to make informed decisions about all the necessary parts.
I'd like a hybrid system like we have in a number of states. A mechanism for nationwide initiative petitions would be nice. Then we can get nationwide consensus on the high-level issues and leave the rest for the people whose job it is to work out the details.
The worst laws come from direct amendments and petitions because only the stuff no lawmaker actually wants their name on (or could pass) goes there - and it gets gamed to hell.
See the CA propositions - they turn into insane population wide gaslighting competitions.
Why not a mixture of both? CA for instance had their populace vote to ban gay marriage in prop 8, CA then just told the voters to go fuck themselves and tied it up and overturned it in court.
So you can see even if you literally amend the constitution in california by popular referendum, those in power can just tell the populace to go fuck themselves and they won't be recognizing it, no matter that the constitution is the supreme law of the state.
> Why not a mixture of both? CA for instance had their populace vote to ban gay marriage in prop 8, CA then just told the voters to go fuck themselves and tied it up and overturned it in court.
> So you can see even if you literally amend the constitution in california by popular referendum, those in power can just tell the populace to go fuck themselves and they won't be recognizing it, no matter that the constitution is the supreme law of the state.
Your argument would make sense if the courts had overturned Prop 8 on the basis that it was unconstitutional at the state level. But that's not what happened.
The state case against Prop 8 was upheld by the courts. The federal courts ruled against it, in a completely separate case, on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause in the US constitution. Prop 8 amended the state constitution; it did not amend the US constitution.
It's also a moot point, because Prop 8 was also repealed by a subsequent ballot initiative, with 61% of the vote.
So you’re saying popular votes are not sufficient to avoid flip flops on contentious issues, and popular voting also can step on minority groups recognized rights on a whim?
What problem is it solving again?
And notably, California is one of the most consistently gay friendly states and still flip flopped on this exact topic.
The more direct the democracy (and the shorter the timeframes between elections!), the easier it is to game the population or poke people’s buttons and make them vote on things they later regret - or deeply enjoy.
The whole court system and bill of rights is to try to put guard rails, so there aren’t (for example) purges/genocides, removing a little under half the populations rights, etc. etc. but there is only so much rules can do.
So then it boils back down to 'most people are stupid' and the reason we have representative democracy is so we can cultivate a class of elites who are smart enough and have enough skin in the game to make good decisions for the rest of us.
People recoil at the idea, but isn't that sort of what the founders were doing? They had beautiful, lofty ideals on paper, but they were all wealthy, white, male landowners. Their idea of "the People" might have been a wee bit more limited than the generally accepted definition today.
It doesn’t require most people to be stupid. It just requires people to have other things they need to do, and pay attention to, and limited ability to give a shit.
If everyone has to be paying attention all the time (and it would be 150% of the time with modern society), everyone is susceptible to being drowned in bullshit and either checking out or being manipulated.
Even with what we have now, that is exactly what is going on. Direct democracy would be even worse.
Hacker News uses nesting tables for comments. This comment that you're reading right now is rendered within a table that has three ancestor tables.
As late as 2016 (possibly even later), they did so in a way that resulted in really tiny text when reading comments on mobile devices in threads that were more than five or so layers deep. That isn't the case anymore - it might be because HN updated the way it generates the HTML, though it could also be that browser vendors updated their logic for rendering nested tables as well. I know that it was a known problem amongst browser developers, because most uses for nested tables were very different than what HN was (is?) using them for, so making text inside deeply nested tables smaller was generally a desirable feature... just not in the context of Hacker News.
reply