Adding delay means you have to keep more connections open at a single time. Parallelism doesn't favor a server if your problem is already a small server getting hit by a big scraper
About 20 kilobytes of socket + TLS state, if you've really optimised it down to the minimum. Most server software isn't that lean, of course, so pick a framework designed for running a million or so concurrent connections on a single server (i.e. something like Nginx)
This is offtopic (and not affiliated in any way), but I recently read this blog post [https://benthams.substack.com/p/what-to-do-if-you-love-meat-...] which gave me an interesting point of view about this, much in line with what you are saying, but most importantly, an actionable (and easy if you have some spare money) thing to do.
I have since started donating to the mentioned organization, because I can't really bring myself to stop eating meat for several reasons (although I do avoid octopus just as you do), but at least this way I believe I might make a small difference.
Also, I recommend not reading the linked post about factory farm hell if you'd like to avoid having horrific descriptions planted in your head for weeks.
I love meat yet stopped eating all mammalian and fowl protein more than 30 years ago. I compromised with fish, but have gone long stretches without. Yet somehow protein is still very primary in my diet. As many people speak of this difficulty to evolve and change their diet, I have come to theorize that people have a deep seated cultural need for sacrifice -- something must die for their meal to be legitimate. The OP/OA explores the history of this idea. With all of the well developed plant protein options, some imitative of meats and others unique and viable, and the obvious looming problem of scaling livestock production with population growth and climate change, there must be something deep seated holding our evolution back.
Interesting framing, I've seen a similar 'If it's a meal, then where's the meat?' attitude from my own family, I've had some thoughts on where it came from, but I think part of it was escaping poverty in my grandparent's generation, and seeing 'success' as being able to afford meat in the first place.
Meat was then a part of every meal, because doing otherwise would be socially... embarrassing? Not necessarily in a conscious way, but in a way it would be like giving you kids gruel. (Not that I have a problem with savoury oatmeal now :P)
Then my parents grew up in that environment, and it was just part of the landscape of life. Meals have a meat ingredient. Or meat is the meal.
There's a similar resistance to breakfasts that aren't egg-based. (honorable mention oatmeal again for breaking through) Or a similar resistance to eggs as the protein source for dinners, notice it just doesn't happen in north american cooking very much. Happens in other cuisines all the time though.
I don't think it needs to be some deep seated gene-based flaw (at risk of putting words in your mouth) it only needs to be 'normal', and there's massive resistance to changing what's 'normal' when diverging from 'normal' isn't immediately more emotionally or physically comfortable than staying. Sometimes even then, if it makes you an outlier in the social landscape.
I think the prevalence of the "soyboy" epithet is also evidence though. And hunting is a deep seated cultural value -- it is a rite of passage for many in American culture and is an important component of American masculine identity.
Definitely not ruling it out, it's not 0% for sure. Though as a Canadian I don't think we got it as bad here, so I wouldn't say I really have any idea how big a factor it is. Especially in the USA.
> As many people speak of this difficulty to evolve and change their diet, I have come to theorize that people have a deep seated cultural need for sacrifice -- something must die for their meal to be legitimate.
Of course something must die, but it's not because of culture. Even the most devout vegan would surely concede that the plants they eat must die in order to render sustenance from them. The reality we live in, even if we don't like it, is the simple fact that something must die for us to continue living.
> Even the most devout vegan would surely concede that the plants they eat must die in order to render sustenance from them.
Let me (far from a vegan) try to disagree: you can sustainably harvest the fruit or the bark of a plant without killing it, and you can certainly argue that those parts aren't alive in themselves. You could stretch the argument to include the sap and the leaves. Does a mother have to die to suckle her baby?
A really enlightened follower of this argument might limit himself not only to renewable parts of the plant, but also of animals: it's OK to eat eggs, dairy products, honey, blood pudding, but not meat, potatoes or carrots.
Of course, we don't farm those products in a way consistent with not killing the non-productive animals, with the possible exception of honey. But in principle one could.
If we had no emotional attachment to specific recipes, shapes, colors, textures of food, we'd plausibly move away from "of course something must die" quite fast. We have the tech to produce a nutrient dense food from "thin air", from waste, from any number of things that do not require destroying sentient or non-sentient life. Notable in the press was https://solarfoods.com but that's just one example of many.
Still, there is a clear and significant distinction between killing sentient life (most animals) and non-sentient life (plants or mushrooms), and there are very few people here who could not feasibly switch to the latter.
Since we can't do photosynthesis or break down some rather toxic molecules like our more primitive siblings, we must eat organic matter that once was alive. No need to delve too much in some militant vegan fantasies and rationalizations.
Plant vs animal makes little difference from rational point of view, both feel pain and we have no clue telling which one more, not that it matters in this topic. Health wise plants are better, but ideal is as always some middle ground.
Biohack our guts and we can go on whole lives without harming much, jainists would probably be interested.
The argument as I understand it is that empathy and the “clues“ are imprinted based on social norms. Little children will happily rip out plants but will start to cry if they see or hear somebody else crying. One theory is that it is all about self-preservation: An environment where one animal cries without being taken care of is considered dangerous and inherently unsafe for self. Not so with plant life.
>so why can those chemicals only come from things that were living?
Because food is a way to consume order. In Schrödinger's terms, the food chain is "life feeding on negative entropy". As you go up the food chain more and more complex organisms need to consume more low entropy things to maintain their more and more sophisticated internal structure. There's more energy in the matter of a rock than you'll ever need, but you can't gnaw on the thing to sustain yourself.
That said "life" doesn't necessarily mean "sentient animal". You can certainly expend energy to create artificial food sources but they'll always be lifelike, that is ordered for the reason Schrödinger lays out.
Yes, the weird truth is that donating a small percentage of your salary to a charity like this is a lot easier than trying to be vegetarian/vegan while still being about as effective.
That site says ~$25 per month, which is not a lot for engineer salaries. Or $50/month if you want to make up for your past choices too.
FWIW I've donated a lot to The Humane League and Giving What We Can's Animal Welfare Fund.
Perhaps a contributing factor is how HN shows only the final non-eTLD [0] label of the domain. If it showed all labels, you'd have seen "engineering.fb.com" which, while not a dead giveaway, implies that the problem space is technical.
It would be nice if this aggressive truncation were applied only above a certain threshold of length.
We are actually saying different things, and your point highlights an error in mine (i.e., I assumed they show the eTLD from the PSL plus one extra label, but apparently they have their own shadow PSL which omits things like pp.se and therefore occasionally shows nothing but an eTLD?) but either way we agree that showing more would be better.
It’s been twenty years so my opinion is skewed and my memory is quite faded, however, I’ve got opinions on the guide and class in general.
The main thing is there are no surprises or tricks. The exams are straightforward and EXHAUSTIVE. I do all the assigned homework twice. Once when we cover the material and again before the exam. Let’s hope that strategy pays off again.
I have used GlassWire (not affiliated) for a few years without issues.
It's also rootless so I assume it has the same restrictions, but it's been very helpful with apps like Uber, which I use seldomly, but prefer not to have their notifications shoved in my face every 30 minutes.
It's also helpful for disabling access to most of the bloatware that comes with e.g. Samsung phones and such.
Probably not blocking everything, but I feel like it's at least something.
It feels like the strength and type of withdrawal symptoms for each substance plays a big role here.
I've only ever been addicted to caffeine and cigarettes and while my withdrawal symptoms were terrible (almost-disabling headaches, anxiety, etc) I don't think they were ever so bad that it would make me violent.
As opposed to people I knew that were addicted to cocaine and meth which would go absolutely crazy for their next fix. In the particular case of the person that was addicted to cocaine, money was not an issue and would still become violent when the fix was not available, so I don't think it's necessarily a function of price or access to it.
Of course, my sample size is very small but given that I also know a ton of people that quit cigarettes and caffeine without becoming violent, I would say withdrawal symptoms are probably a strong component on how violent people get.
