I genuinely thought this one was a satirical take on the narrow-mindedness of the aliens in the original, even though the story tries to paint humans as narrow minded. I guess this fundamental human trait to believe that their cognition is the ultimate way to think in the universe ironically leaked into all these stories as well. Real spacefaring civilisations would probably have seen all kinds of intelligence rise from sufficiently complex systems.
This disregards the fundamental reason why people buy index funds in the first place. Rules for consistent GAAP profitability and cooldown periods specifically prevent retail investors from being exposed to particular malicious stock market tactics and overall risks that otherwise could significantly hurt them in the short term. So it's more like saying "you don't like extra risk? too bad."
Yes, if someone thinks that the top 500 companies include too much risk then yes too bad, you need to move out of SPY.
It isn't called the S&P495 because they kick out 5 of the biggest companies that some people consider to be risky.
I personally think its super risky to want to be Diversified and NOT include any exposure to SpaceX. Yes, Elon is unique but that doesn't mean his companies are going to fail especially given the potential risk of AI changing the world. Is IBM going to keep selling overpriced IT outsourcing in 5 years?
It's not about the overall long term risk of the company, it's the inherent short term risk of the IPO that will potentially hurt retail investors. Why not have them trade for a while and go to business as usual so things settle down and the index can prevent wild fluctuations? The only ones who might benefit from this rule change are pump-and-dump types.
The goal of SP500 is to provide exposure to the 500 biggest companies, not protect shareholders. I think IBM might do poorly when AI destroys their overpriced IT outsourcing business, but that doesn't mean SP500 should kick them out.
Again, that's not the issue here. Long-term, these things should absolutely go into the index if they fulfill the size requirement. It's the IPO process that has people worried (and rightly so).
The reason why I liked the SP500 is especially BECAUSE they had guardrails against unprofitable speculative companies that just got added on the stock market. On average those stocks are going down on their first public year. The SP500 made sure to have a cooldown period before adding them.
Now you are trying to justify why we should have them anyways, even though I never chose that to start with.
The issue everyone is having is the rule changes to add them in a couple trading days. How can you defend that?
That's actually very common even with respected bug bounty programs. Communicating exploits to anyone else (let alone the general public) will at the very least make you ineligible for rewards.
>Putting not just your project at risk, but your entire machine/network.
Between average hackers and extortion groups, foreign governments and state sponsored actors and last but not least my own government, I don't think there's much room left for non-compromised supply chains these days. Treat everything that can run foreign code as potentially compromized and keep everything compartmentalized. If you keep your crypto wallets or private banking info on the same machine where you do development, you're asking to get shafted one day. Or if you keep your big corporate github keys on the same machine where you do private weekend projects. It doesn't matter what you use in particular, even if some vectors are currently more popular than others.
Was it really though? Yes, Docker has become so ubiquitous that you probably can't get a job as a dev anymore without knowing about it, but I wouldn't trust most users to know these specifics. At the very least it is probably less known than sudoer or SUID misconfiguration risk, and even those are not what I'd call "general knowledge" that everyone who uses it knows about.
There's no such thing as a sandbox "on your machine" when you really think about it. The code still runs on the same hardware and there are tons of ways to fiddle with said hardware that could be exploited (like rowhammer). The only "real" sandbox is fully dedicated hardware down to bare metal with zero connections to sensitive systems.
One of the perks of designing for cultist brands. Like, Apple could ship the next iPhone looking like the most ugly phone ever, and they will still make boatloads of money from their devoted followers. Same goes for Ferrari. If you want to find actually good designers instead of these celebrity designers, watch out for designs that don't have a cult-like following yet.
If you get every iPhone ever released, in black or black-adjacent, and lay them camera-side down and off, it would be difficult to line them up in the correct order.
Not much has really changed with them, and I'm not sure much really can.
Building a ramjet that is more efficient than rockets while travelling at several times the speed of sound is the easy part. The hard part is getting up to that speed first, because they give basically no thrust at low speeds. So you always need a two component engine and fuel system, with each component being useless at either launch or in-flight. Basically a similar reason why only the military uses VTOL planes. The military has no problem strapping a rocket booster on a ramjet missile.
And once you do all that, you will need to also handle the massive atmospheric heating from friction, so that the whole thing does not melt during flight.
Again, not that problematic for missiles due to shorter flight times and single-use ablative heatshields being viable.
You can't get "oxygen high" from breathing normal air. The O2 levels will always stay the same unless you stop breathing for a while. What will make you feel weird in the head when breathing too fast is the reduction of CO2 in your blood.
One a friend and I hooked ourselves up to continuous pulse oximetry and had a contest to get the lowest recorded oxygen level. We tried everything we could think of, from just holding our breath to end-expiratory breath holding to hyperventilating to clear O2 (I used to do some recreational free-diving) beforehand to exercising (jumping jacks)...
Neither of us could get it below 98%, and this was at a mile of elevation (UNMH in Albuquerque).
It is pretty easy if you use the Wim Hof method. Breathe deep and fast for a few minutes, to the point where you get dizzy or feel weird sensations. Then exhale and stop breathing while being fully relaxed. I've done this while hooked to a pulse oximeter and it takes quite a while before O2 actually starts dropping (especially because the effect can be delayed in your limbs), but once it starts you'll pretty quickly run into the regime where a normal oxi will start an alarm because O2 is too low. You can even go below 85% without losing consciousness, because your limbs will desaturate faster than your brain. It's also not uncomfortable, because rising CO2 is what causes breathing reflex, but you dropped its levels far below the threshold by hyperventilating first.
Interesting. As I noted above (though typo O2 -> CO2), I used the same technique you describe, which I learned in free diving, and was not able to get below 98%, at altitude.
I'm quite sure no freediving instructor would ever teach you this particular method, because it is a surefire way to die underwater on your first attempt. Free diving breathing techniques usually revolve around lowering your heart rate, not lowering CO2. Wim Hof trainers will also tell you to never to use this method when near water.
As for the specifics that may have prevented you from doing what you wanted: If you breathe too shallow or too slow, you won't clear enough CO2. In freediving this is normal (even wanted), but for Wim Hof practice it means you didn't do it right. You really have to breathe so deep and fast that you enter an uncomfortable zone. It's not unlike physical exercise, except it's mostly mental.
> I'm quite sure no freediving instructor would ever teach you this particular method, because it is a surefire way to die underwater on your first attempt
Definitely no instructor involved, just a dumb 20 year-old living in Puerto Rico. It admittedly was dangerous, but I am living evidence that it was far from a "surefire" way to die. It was one of a hundred ways in which I put my life at risk during my 20s. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> As for the specifics that may have prevented you from doing what you wanted: If you breathe too shallow or too slow, you won't clear enough CO2.
I'm confident I was doing it sufficiently well to accomplish a longer period of breath holding than I otherwise would have been able to sustain, as evidenced by having done so (in addition to the usual symptoms of lightheadedness, confusion, loss of vision, near-syncope -- yes I agree quite uncomfortable). I know people on HN love to idolize Wim Hof, but in this context minute ventilation is not that difficult of a concept; I'm usually able to estimate the response in a paralyzed patient's PCO2 fairly well when making changes to their tidal volume and rate.
I didn't search for too long, but here's at least one relevant document, in which otherwise untrained subjects were able to achieve a substantial reduction in CO2 (17.4 vs 29.0) with a mere 15 seconds of hyperventilation, leading to an extra 23 seconds of breath holding prior to involuntary breathing moments. The peripheral O2 sat nadir in the hyperventilation group appears to have been identical to the non-hyperventilation group after the first trial (Fig 8b, looks like ~94%) and was only statistically significantly lower on trials 2-5: <https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10363065/>
90 seconds of breath hold is still way too little to see oxygen drops in a finger pulse oxi. Also explains why you didn't die free-diving. Even with no training you can go much longer than that before risking a blackout (at least under normal circumstances). In fact training free-diving is all about CO2 tolerance and relaxation, so you won't even be able to store more O2. When I was reaching the 80s, I was doing 3+ minute breath holds. The first ~2 minutes my oxi stayed at full O2 sat with basically no change. In principle you should be able to induce a blackout yourself using this method without feeling an urgent need to breathe - if you do the prep stage hard enough. Just make sure you only do this when lying down in a safe position.
Can’t claim to know for sure, but I’d assume some kind of measurement limitations: the resolution and upper/lower limits of pulse ox are probably calibrated to some medical need, not to detect changes beyond what’s medically necessary
This was using equipment in the emergency department of our state's only L1 trauma center and comprehensive stroke center; I presume it was decent as far as medical monitoring equipment goes.
If you've ever done the wim hof breathing method, it is a very intense experience.
Basically hyperventilation + long breath holds. Probably similar to what free divers do without the mammalian dive reflex due to the cold water. Or like a dangerous game kids used to do when I was in school where you hyperventilate and then have someone press on your chest until you pass out.
But anyway, I'm not sure if the science would back it up, but Wim Hof describes it as over oxygenating the blood and then stopping and letting CO2 ramp up or something. Whether it is significantly dropping the CO2 or increasing oxygen during the hyperventilation phase, isn't it kind of the same thing? Adjusting the ratio.
Anecdotally, when I was doing it regularly I seemed to not get sick at all.
Blood oxygen saturation is always near 100% in a healthy person. 95% is the low end of normal. Dropping to 90% is considered hypoxemia, and 80% is a medical emergency. So there really shouldn’t be any room to increase it significantly.
In many people a momentary drop to the 80s or even below is not an emergency or anything close to it. Not saying that it is good.
Someone that is awake, sitting up, and struggling to breathe should be considered an emergency regardless of oxygen levels (and in this situation 80% would be very concerning).
EDIT: your comment is otherwise entirely correct, particularly at sea level.
No it would stay at pretty much 100% (as is normal). But co2 goes down, which lessens the ability of oxygen to come out of the blood. That's why you get dizzy when hyperventilating
Nope. The blood is already fully saturated with oxygen (in a healthy-ish person) at rest. Even intensely breathing pure o2 can't give you a saturation higher than 100%.
reply