It seems below about ~80F you lose consciousness. This kid was nearly half that. Moreover, there have been other similar cases: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32482520/

> It seems below about ~80F you lose consciousness.

Interestingly, the case report notes that "classic cardiac electrical activity" started once the patient reached 82°F.

FWIW, I got the 80F figure from the table at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothermia#Classification

Homeless are the most visible, but perhaps not the biggest issue. See, e.g., the problem with public toilets: https://www.npr.org/2025/05/02/1248664709/-public-good-why-i...

> JOHN COCHRANE: I think the activists who wanted toilet equity did not imagine the solution would be no toilet or a fight with businesses over who's going to be able to use the toilet.

> [...]

> BERAS: Without that incentive, Nik-O-Lok was right. The free public toilets were overrun with people who had to go or people abusing drugs or having sex. Cities were changing. In lots of places, they struggled to fund and maintain public places. With no income from the toilets, taking care of them was harder than ever. Cities couldn't deal. Eventually, they closed them or let them fall into disrepair. The pay toilets may have been flawed, but they served a purpose that no public or private entity has been able to effectively fill since. John says this is a classic tale of a price control, when the government imposes a price.

I think the case for at least allowing nominal payments for toilets is pretty strong. Anything that is free either requires significant and expensive oversight to mitigate anti-social behaviors, or a society that has equivalent anti-social checks baked into the culture (which the U.S. definitely does not have). We should aspire to ubiqitous free toilets, free transit, etc, but there's an infinite number of things people want to be free, or at least subsidized. The public has to pick & choose and allocate its resources wisely.

Note that almost everywhere in the U.S., transit is strongly subsidized and often effectively free for the most in need, but it might require some legwork. In SF where it's quite trivial to get this subsidy (https://treasurer.sf.gov/economicjustice/sfmta-transit-disco...) people still balk at the requirement, though I think the people who complain the most are the ones far too wealthy to have to worry about these things. Some government programs, especially Federal programs, have onerous application and reporting requirements specifically designed to dissuade use, but individual transit subsidies aren't generally structured this way. In SF and to a lesser degree California, there are armies of people paid to hold people's hand through these processes (mostly for Federal and Federally subsidized programs, as many state and especially local programs tend to be very low friction).

I love paying a euro for the toilet in Europe and getting one that 1) actually works and 2) isn't utterly vile.

Tell that to the many prisoners who participated in and benefited from HIV and hepatitis vaccine trials. What a travesty it would have been if there were a blanket ban on prisoner research.

Research on prisoners is subject to stricter standards, though. From the HHS website:

> Research involving prisoners is permissible only if the research involves one or more of four permissible categories, or if the research meets the criteria described in an HHS Secretarial waiver that applies to certain epidemiological research [...]

> (i) the study of the possible causes, effects, and processes of incarceration, and of criminal behavior, and

> (ii) the study of prisons as institutional structures or of prisoners as incarcerated persons. [...]

> (iii) research on conditions particularly affecting prisoners as a class; [...]

> (iv) research on practices, either innovative or accepted, which have the intent and reasonable probability of improving the health or well-being of the subject. [...]

https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq...

Copyright violation is not per se a crime. I think a colorable defense of fair use, even if it would fail in a civil trial, would negate the mens rea element. I can't easily find caselaw or articles regarding this, though, as most criminal copyright cases involve straightforward reproduction and distribution schemes. Maybe that's because prosecutors won't press cases that might raise a question of fair use?

But I agree with your larger point. AI companies have copied Uber's aggressive posture, pushing the legal envelope with expectations of positive return. Surely they'll continue doing the same in other areas.

> It is important to note that usually, something like 98% of noise complaints come from 1-2 individuals, even in areas with thousands of residents.

Research paper for anyone interested: https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/airport-nois...

And when there's any talk about airport capacity expansion, newspapers and anti-development organizations trot out statistics about thousands of complaints per year from residents, and then the conversation shifts from expansion to reduction. sigh

> Can you do that with a dynamic array?

Yes.

  #include <stdio.h>
  
  #if __has_include(<stdcountof.h>)
  #include <stdcountof.h>
  #else
  #define countof(a) (sizeof (a) / sizeof *(a))
  #endif
  
  void
  foo(int n, int a[static 1][n])
  {
   printf("sizeof *a: %zu\n", sizeof *a);
   printf("countof *a: %zu\n", countof(*a));
  }
  
  int
  main(int argc, char *argv[])
  {
   int array[argc];
   foo(countof(array), &array);
   return 0;
  }

  $ ./foo                            
  sizeof *a: 4
  countof *a: 1
  $ ./foo 2 3
  sizeof *a: 12
  countof *a: 3

Tested using Apple clang 21.0.0 and gcc 15.2.0.

The syntax for using passed VM arrays is stilted; you're operating on a pointer to an array, which can get confusing and is error prone. Because of the semantics for array passing and need for backward compatibility it's too easy to get it wrong without the compiler catching mistakes and complaining. Though, the C2y _Countof operator is required to error when used on a non-array, so using _Countof(a) instead of _Countof(*a) will fail. (GCC and clang also have warning diagnostics that work for the fallback countof macro.) And there's no way (or no easy way?) to ask compilers to inject automatic bounds checking when operating on arrays, at least outside non-production debugging modes like ASan.

But C is getting there, slowly.

Caching is always optional. If you want sophisticated control over caching, or just no caching at all, you can do recursive lookups directly. Some existing DNS libraries can do recursive lookups directly, including libunbound. Ideally you would do caching of TLD nameserver addresses so you're not hammering the root servers for each query. But otherwise I don't think it's necessarily a big deal for a monitoring service to query the .de nameservers every time it checks example.de. If you had a monitor check every 5 minutes for example.de, it's only a 12x load factor between querying .de directly every check versus once per hour. Unless you're AWS Route53, that's not much of a difference relative to the traffic TLD servers handle even if you were checking tens of thousands of domains. Clamping your cache at 1 hour is probably already a much greater load factor. The .de nameservers return a TTL of 1 day for the example.de NS RR sets, so that's already a 24x factor right there. At that point you're clearly giving the .de nameservers the middle finger and relying on your own judgement of what it means to play nice.

Most memory bugs in Chromium are in V8, either entirely in the JIT or at the boundary with C++. Rust wouldn't help here because the borrow checker can't see through these boundaries, and it's precisely this opacity where the developers also lose track of things.

Which isn't to say Rust wouldn't have caught many of the other memory safety issues, but 75% is horribly misleading.

In Chromium which is the condom of the internet, already millions of developer hours of the most highly paid developers have spent their days trying to make it water tight. This is not your average software project.

The Church of the East split in the early 5th century, followed later that century by the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Altogether they may have been larger than the Roman (Latin and Greek/Byzantine) Church.

Armenia became a Christian state before the Roman Empire did, and Ethiopia not long after Rome did. (Both churches now part of Oriental Orthodoxy. Another state church around the area of Sudan emerged, too, the last of whom disappeared only in the 1600-1700s.)

The growth of Christianity in the Persian Empire created a major source of friction between the Roman and Persian Empires (the latter was nominally Zoroastrian, at that time also a proselytizing religion), creating space for the emergence of Islam, which would later lead to the end of both empires and the conversion of millions of Christians and Zoroastrians.

Christianity was never coterminous with the Roman Empire. It just seemed that way from the perspective of European history and culture. European Christianity eventually forgot about those other Christians (I'm not sure if the reverse was true, though). Relative to modern Protestantism, all of these churches have near identical theology, Roman Catholicism included. Which perhaps bolsters the point about Protestantism representing a significant break in the European historical narrative.

The notion that life is favored because it accelerates global evolution toward increased entropy predates, I think, Prigogine.

But it doesn't resolve the question of whether life, especially intelligent life, actually exists elsewhere. On Earth the vast majority of tornados only occur in a narrow swath of land because while they're immensely efficient at dissipating energy there are several prerequisites required for them to emerge. And there are many other simpler dissipation mechanisms that end up narrowing the odds of configurations amenable to tornado formation.

Moreover, these systems could easily overshoot and snuff themselves out; settling into a complex (as opposed to static or chaotic) configuration might be favored in some sense but still be incredibly rare to become established. The fact we see so many of them on Earth might just be a reflection of the anthropic principle. That is, there's a correlation between our existence and all the other complex systems surrounding us, biologic, geologic, etc.

The observable universe isn't infinite, and the more we learn about all the chance mechanisms that coincided to result in Earth, let alone the emergence of Earth life, the easier it is to believe that at this moment in the observable universe we might very well be alone. Maybe we aren't, but "the universe is big" simply doesn't cut it, not even when positing unimaginable biologies. It's doesn't take that many combined odds to conceivably end up with a number for the probability of life that is comparable in [inverse] magnitude to the size of our observable universe in stars, planets, or even atoms.

If we live in an infinite universe, then it's a stronger argument, though it wouldn't necessarily follow that life definitely must exist elsewhere even if beyond observability.

The observable Universe is very small. For purposes of life living on a planet it is only our solar system. Even if we allow some planet sized life form, we don't get enough information from planets to detect that