Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more cpncrunch's commentslogin


What does that have to do with the link page which contains zero references to medical studies?


It mentions the studies but doesn't link them. I was being helpful by linking them. I'm aware that the original article doesn't.


That does seem to be the case. The Lindqvist study specifically said that sun avoidance was as bad as smoking iirc. Sun exposure has been one of my main activities for over 10 years. The evidence is now overwhelming.


I'm in the other camp. Sunlight never feels great and the best I've ever felt is working nights.


This isn't really about it feeling good or bad, rather it's about the effect of sunlight in significantly reducing mortality.

I agree that strong sunlight on a hot day doesn't feel good.


> This isn't really about it feeling good or bad,

I'm not sure that's true over the very long run.

We're talking about a proscribed health practice that results in continuing discomfort and sickness. Even if the benefit manifests as predicted, I'm skeptical it can make up for the low quality of life.

edit: I'm far from alone in this. When I share my aversion to sunlight, I find many more folks who feel similarly, than I do people who are puzzled by it.


Exactly. I just tried fact checking the "milking" bit. Looking up lists of care home groups, Allegra Care came up first. Looking at their financial statements (all public, and include full details of profit and loss, thanks to UK company law), their profit in 2024 was 30k, and in 2023 they had a 300k loss. So not exactly milking!

I think running a care home isn't a great way to make a huge profit.


If your company shows profit in official reports you must fire your CFO.


As others have noted, if you don't have hardware decoding for the codec being used, it will suck up a huge amount of cpu. Last year I got a new Macbook Pro with M3 Pro cpu, and it's amazing how little cpu it uses for video playback. After watching an hour of Youtube, the battery is down only about 5 or 10%.


What exactly is "expeditor name"?


No, gmail will never let you send from an address you don't own.


No, if they had had the password they wouldn't have needed to do all of that. They could have just logged in, perhaps just needed the 2FA code. However, you say that you gave them both enhanced security codes (I'm guessing this was a gmail backup key), and you also gave them the 2FA SMS code. These are the only two things you need to take over any gmail account, and it doesn't require knowing the password. It's just purely social engineering.

The only question mark is the email from google. It sounds like it was a scam email, so it would be interesting to know whether/how it was spoofed.


No, it sounds like they got him to create backup codes, which (along with SMS 2FA code, which he also gave them), that is all they need to take over the gmail account. Job done.


I'm not seeing the headers anywhere in the post.


Ok, I see them now...for some reason it took a while for the article to be updated.


It would be helpful to see the relevant headers to understand how it was spoofed, and if it would have been obvious from looking at the headers.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: