> Peptides are a revolution and you don't need to know how they work to know that they work

Perhaps. But knowing the mechanism of how they work sure seems fundamental to ensuring that they are safe to use.

Ban constructors? Though I don't agree with the practice, I could imagine a reason for banning destructors. But constructors? Why?

I see, thank you. I have never done embedded.

Any particular reason why you switched? I've been using Gboard for years, especially the text to speech in four languages. In the past few weeks, there was an update where the TTS feature is now in a separate "panel" of the keyboard, and it hardly works at all.

In English and Hebrew it stops after half a dozen words, and those words must be spoken slowly and mechanically for it to work at all. Russian and Arabic are right out - I can't coax any coherent sentence out of it.

I've gone through all permutations of relevant settings, such as "Faster Voice Dictation" (translated from Hebrew,I don't know what the original English option is called). I think there used to be an option for Online or Offline transcription, but that option is gone now.

This is ridiculous - I tried to copy the version information and there is no way to copy it in-app. Let's try the S24 OCR feature...

17.0.10.880768217 release-arm64-v8a 175712590 ראשית (en_GB) 2025090100 = גרסה עדכני Primary on-device: No packs Fallback on-device: Packs: ru-RU: 200

I'll try to install the English, Hebrew, and Arabic packs, though I'm certain that I've installed them already.

I'll look at this, thank you. I haven't yet gotten around to vibe coding my own itch yet so maybe your scratching will do.

  > and partly due to resistance from creatives

My favorite example of resistance from creatives was the space shuttle landing gear button. The space shuttle orbiter was technically capable of performing an automated mission, with the exception of opening the landing gear doors. This was ostensibly so that there would be no risk of the heat shield being compromised, as the landing gear doors were in the heat shield. But it is widely acknowledged that this was an effort by the astronauts office to ensure the continued need of a human crew.

For what it's worth, I support manned spaceflight. But sometimes allowing "creatives" to impede progress has its costs.

Red herring. The Puritan work ethic that seems to always resolve to "human value=human income" (regardless of the ethic's stated intentions) is what causes this, not creatives in and of themselves.

I get that there is a strong online movement to destroy the traditional American Dream value of "work hard, and become rich" but that does not apply in fields where money is not the motivator. No single astronaut has ever expressed financial gain as a motivator for moving into that profession.

Quite the opposite, many have given up fortunes and prosperous businesses to move into spaceflight.

You misunderstand the movements, they exist precisely because of a perception that "work hard" doesn't seem to always mean "become rich", many see rich (correctly or incorrectly) as a product of luck, connections, or other factors unrelated to work. The price of everything constantly going up makes "work hard" work less. They actually would like the dream to work.

Anyway, someone may not want to pursue spaceflight for the money, but everything involved in spaceflight still costs a lot of money, which has to be justified. So I think the phenomenon is still there; people still want to appear to be proving themselves through appearing to work hard and appearing to be needed.

Well I don't know any economic system that guarantees the "get rich" part, nor any that enables such a thing without "work hard". But no other system has enabled so many poor people to become rich people, as has the American system.

I don't live in the US. But I recognize the American system for what it does well.

I believe that the old proverb is "sour grapes".

The problem is not the marketing of services and products.

The problem is the vector for tracking and for installing malware on users' browsers. I'd actually love to be notified when interesting products are available - but I block ads out of the defensive stance that the advertising industry pushed many people into.

In my country there is a large religious population that eschew the smartphone. This is great - no government or private service simply assumes that one has a smartphone. All services are available via traditional means - most in three to five languages as well.

I wonder if there is some sort of metric for classifying how similar cultures are to one another. Are e.g. German Swiss more dissimilar to French Swiss, than are Florida rednecks dissimilar to Compton gangsters?

I’m not even talking about the languages, we have 20% immigrants in the population, and an even larger part has foreign roots.

We also don’t have weapons in every household, if we’re talking myths

> We also don’t have weapons in every household, if we’re talking myths

It all depends if you did your military service (which implies that you're swiss) and if you didn't decide to drop out of it or deemed as unfit. I don't think it's a myth really, it just happens to be that a lot of people don't do their military service and thus don't have to keep a weapon at home

You’re right about the source of the weapons wrong about how many there are. An estimated one in five household has firearms, with a significant percentage not having ammunition at home at all.

  > I’m not even talking about the languages, we have 20% immigrants in the population, and an even larger part has foreign roots.

Both LA and Miami speak Spanish, no?

  > We also don’t have weapons in every household, if we’re talking myths

Only the Republicans have weapons in every household?

I'm joking, I realise that you are Swiss, but until I looked at the username I wasn't sure which side of the comparison you were referring to. Goes to show that even the nations' stereotypes are not dissimilar!

HN layout got the best of me haha.

If you ever heard them talk about each other, you would definitely assume as much.

I am not a Christian, but it was arguably the Christian value system which forged the government and institutions that made these achievements possible. Such progress happens only in high trust societies.

> but it was arguably the Christian value system which forged the government and institutions that made these achievements possible.

Many of the founders were specifically anti-Christian. They were deists, and believed in a higher power, but specifically rejected the idea of a divine intervention of God or Jesus.

Christians do not own the idea of being nice to others and trusting others.

Of the 45 delegates to the continental congress, only two (Benjamin Franklin and another) were known to be deists. One's membership records couldn't be found. The other 42 were active members and on the books in their churches.[0]

Jefferson also was a deist, but he wasn't present at the constitutional convention of 1787 (though he earlier authored the Declaration of Independence).

[0] M. E. Bradford. Founding Fathers: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution, second edition. University Press of Kansas, 1994.

typo - *55 delegates attended the constitutional congress, 52 of which were on the church registers as active church members.

note: only 39 delegates signed the resulting document

I stated that the United States is based on Christian values. Not that the United States is a Christian state.

Do you value separation of state and religious authority? Women's rights? Minority rights? Human dignity? Equality before the law? Sanctity of life? Individual moral responsibility? Monogamous marriage? The objective study of history? Fair trial? Witnesses at trial? Tolerance of alternative viewpoints?

Those are all Christian values. For what it's worth, I'm not Christian.

> I stated that the United States is based on Christian values. Not that the United States is a Christian state.

And I said:

> Christians do not own the idea of being nice to others and trusting others.

But let's look at your list:

> Do you value separation of state and religious authority? Women's rights? Minority rights? Human dignity? Equality before the law? Sanctity of life? Individual moral responsibility? Monogamous marriage? The objective study of history? Fair trial? Witnesses at trial? Tolerance of alternative viewpoints?

First of all, these are all Jewish values that Christian's adopted. And secondly, none of these are exclusive to Christianity. In fact they appear in many religions worldwide, as well as secular societies.

These are all just common decency, which is why they appear in most religions, and non-religions.

  > These are all just common decency, which is why they appear in most religions, and non-religions.

You and I both wish these decencies were common. Some cultures have some variations on some of these decencies, but they are not common. Assuming that they are common is projecting your culture onto others.

This is why I mentioned the importance of high trust society.

> stated that the United States is based on Christian values. Not that the United States is a Christian state

I believe most of the founders expressed disdain at the notion that the United States was built on Christian values. They were privately Christian. But publicly American. They were trying to break the cycle of history that building countries on religious values brings.

Saying we were built on Christian values is arguing for a continuing role for Christian values. Which, in turn, leads to a Christian state. And then we’re back to popes and mullahs in charge, and the SecDef and Speaker of the House giving sermons.

The Renaissance and Enlightenment were anti-religious ideals, of the power of mankind over the gods.

Yes, exactly. Being anti-religion does not mean throwing away the entire value system.

> Being anti-religion does not mean throwing away the entire value system

It does mean being deeply sceptical of anyone importing a religious value system, or building religious institutions.

Actually a lot of the enlightenment ideas (which our government is based on) came from native American critiques of European societies. Read The Dawn of Everything for the details.

This is a bold claim that would do better than a throwaway source.

I was addressing values, not religion, but I seem to have touched a nerve. I'm not Christian, but I recognize that Christian values lead to high-trust society, leads to innovation in industry and science.

  > I suggest you look up the founding fathers' views on religion

Alright:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."

  - George Washington

"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors."

  - George Washington

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

  - John Adams

"The Bible contains the most profound philosophy, the most perfect morality, and the most refined policy that ever was conceived upon Earth."

  - John Adams

"I hold the precepts of Jesus, as delivered by himself, to be the most pure, benevolent, and sublime which have ever been preached to man."

  - Thomas Jefferson

"Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever."

  - Thomas Jefferson

Bro this comment chain is so fucked up

Well done

The "Christian value system" isn't something to revere.