No different from ski resorts trading snowfall futures

Why do you think that an end to death is close but not close enough for the average aged HN reader

“Close” in a relative sense. They implied we’ll have the cure for death in the next 2000 years or so, with the 99% and humans having existed for roughly 200K years. Sounds plausible to me.

m'lady

They give you a good buzz, especially if you are a relatively opiate naive person. If you happen to have an addict friend that wants to sell their methadone or suboxen to buy real stuff, then it ends up being a lose lose for people trying to stop overall use

Bupe + naloxone doesn't give any buzz and it blocks you from getting high from other opiates. i guess maybe if you were opiate naive maybe it would IDK. but that would be really dumb to take if you want to get high take the real shit

Definitely can from methadone especially mixed with a benzo

for sure people sell it but they're going to use with or without it.

studies have shown that those who don't get long time sober and do replacement therapy on and off nonetheless have longer periods of abstinence and lower death time frames (not sure how to phrase that they dont die as much/soon)

Methadone is even more dangerous than the real stuff: just withdraw syndrome can be fatal.

yeah it's gross. i'm 100% for just giving actual pure opiates out for free to addicts that don't yet want to get clean.

in a lot of ways it would be safer. clean, known dose, less theft to pay for drugs, less violence no cartels

Source? I love npm stories like this and couldn't find it on the first page of google.

If you cross your eyes a little the second one shows a schooner

> The biggest benefit of TDD is that it removes the fear of breaking your code.

This isn't true at all. TDD forces you to write unit testable code, which will have lower cyclomatic complexity, looser coupling, and generally be easier to maintain.

Writing tests second always leads to a suite that is more expensive to maintain than provided value.

And unit tests suck for catching bugs anyway, it's really about writing better code up front, which will have lower bugs and higher confidence by definition

> Use it for ad-blocking in your home network and to finally browse the web, watch videos etc. without annoying ads.

It doesn't really do this as well as a browser adblocker, YouTube ads for example can't effectively be blocked with pihole

Actually, it most cases I find it significantly beats what a normal in-browser adblocker will do. More importantly, it does this for my phone, etc.

But yes self-hosted ads, etc. won't be blocked. For that, there are other solutions.

Personally, I use both.

it's not really fair to compare it to an in-browser adblocker that way, especially since using them isn't mutually exclusive. PiHole blocks ads whether you are in a browser or not, an instant benefit for everybody on your WiFi network.

In fact, one of the best things about Pi-hole network wide blocking is the removal of those 5 to 10 second otherwise unskippable ads in apps.

Exactly this. Ads in places like news apps disappear, a big plus for pihole.

Absolutely. Defense in depth; Pi-hole will cover devices that you can't install an ad-blocker on while the ad-blocker will cover some edge cases where Pi-hole can't do it.

It should never be considered an "or" situation; you want "both" as much as possible.

Watching videos with Javascript turned off, there are no ads.

Google tries to force users to turn on JavaScript by needlessly making the YouTube website "require" JS to be turned on to play videos.

However it is easy to play the videos without using JavaScript using just basic HTML.

Example

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23076239

there seems to be a solution: https://github.com/kboghdady/youTube_ads_4_pi-hole

a lot of in browser ad blockers are based on url and css selector patterns. Meaning that if the developer updates the site which changes the dom, the ad blocker may not work.