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

I currently use Hapi (https://github.com/tiann/hapi/) for this and find it quite handy. I can easily tap into a session on my PC from my phone.

Before that I used Happy (https://happy.engineering/) which is also open source and a lot more sophisticated. It has a voice assistant that can chat with Claude Code on your behalf in the mobile app. However, it wasn't very reliable, and there are other reasons to use Hapi instead (documented in the Hapi repo).

Before that, Omnara (https://www.omnara.com/) a YC company and seemingly a proprietary Happy fork (?) but it never worked properly for me.

Long story short, there are a few of the around, and frankly I really like to use them. Unlike other commenters, I don't find that they wreck my work-life balance. Rather, I can go out and have a walk in the park, only checking in on long-running tasks every once in a while. The diff view is pretty good too. There are many tasks where I'd rather not stare at my PC all day and instead do other things, and these tools allow me to do that.


Also recommend Opencode which has `opencode web` built in. It's really impressive how good opencode web is. It's far more polished than I'd have expected from a free alternative!


What.cd were extreme sticklers for quality! When you applied to get in, they did a live interview on IRC to test your knowledge of ripping, transcoding, and different kinds of compression, how torrents and private trackers work, and their code of conduct. I remember studying for it. They also had ways to make sure you weren't cheating like checking your screen, as well as very aggressive automated checks for VPNs and blocklisted IPs to prevent ban evasion and multiple accounts.

They also had good incentive structures for keeping the bar high -- you could get kicked out for having a bad ratio, so the easiest way to pump your upload up was to fulfil obscure requests for FLACs you could purchase online but were extremely difficult to purchase (if you're lucky it's just an unknown artist on Bandcamp). I discovered a lot of obscure music this way, some that I'm still looking for to this day after it shut down.

Because I cared so much about being part of that private tracker, this is what also prompted me to rent a seedbox for the first time. I paid in Bitcoin out of paranoia (I lived in Germany where the fines for piracy are HEFTY, and they actually do come after you) back when Bitcoin wasn't really worth that much, and later found that that old wallet suddenly had a couple thousand in it instead of the spare change I couldn't move!


I must have joined at a different time because all I needed for me, a total annoying script kiddie leech, just needed an invite code (or link? I forget)


Does this background process have any neurological backing (literally a part of your brain) or is it more of a mental mode?


Literally part of the brain.

Limbic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbic_system

Frontal Lobe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontal_lobe

Disclaimer: I only know this from armchair psychology books like Habit, Start with Why, etc.


FYI: octopi is not the correct plural for octopus.


The author may like https://omnara.com/ (no affiliation) instead of SSH-ing from their phone. I have a similar setup with Obsidian and a permanently-on headless Claude Code for my PKM that I can access through the phone app.


I haven't dug into all the sources, but I think there's a potential confounder here, or maybe even reverse causality. The author seems to assume causation when the studies only indicate correlation. E.g. the first link says "chronic loneliness increases mortality risk" but the actual source says "actual and perceived social isolation are both associated with increased risk for early mortality".

So for example, it's possible that if you already have chronic illness, a disability, or any other kind of health issues, you're more likely to have higher social isolation and therefore be more lonely, in addition to having a higher mortality risk. There's an outside variable (your health) that is correlated with both (loneliness and mortality), but that doesn't necessarily mean that loneliness causes mortality. If this were the case, we could defend claims like "autism increases mortality", because we already know that autism increases social isolation.


Poor health increasing social isolation isn't even a hard casual path to argue. Common health problems can physically restrict how often and how long one leaves the house: people on oxygen can only travel as far as their supply and weakened lungs can take them, or people with bowel disorders might be reluctant to be do anything without easy and discrete bathroom use, people with visible symptoms might be embarrassed and avoid socializing.

The loneliness-associated protein study linked in TFA doesn't seem to control for health status. So preexisting conditions may have affected the correlations.


Yes, this seems blindingly obvious to me. Maybe because I have chronic health problems myself. Perhaps those blessed with good health are blissfully ignorant.

When you are chronically ill, socializing falls pretty rapidly down your list of priorities.


That said, it seems pretty clear that incentivizing healthy socialization can significantly improve quality of life, reducing perceived suffering and quite possibly improving outcomes through reinforcement of the various social needs we have.

We are fundamentally social primates; there are prior studies demonstrating the overt harms of isolation and ostracization in humans, primates, and other mammals. Our immune systems, metabolism, and cardiovascular health are all tied intimately to things like stress and hormones, with feedback effects that can amplify disorder, or suppress it, depending on the directionality of the inputs.

I see the "just so" element of explanation to this study, but I think that even if the underlying causal factors are more complex, it is so directionally correct that I have no problem with the conclusion of the study, even if it's not correctly justified scientifically.


And don't forget that physical loneliness, that is, actually being alone, eliminates one major feedback source that something could be wrong with your health, or a source of immediate aid if e.g. you go into cardiac arrest.

Maybe the researcher above touches on these things, but more generally, there should be a standardized probability and statistics exam for ALL aspiring scientific researchers, and a high score should be the minimum cutoff. The influence that a statistically flawed study can have over our collective futures is too dangerous.


> The influence that a statistically flawed study can have over our collective futures is too dangerous.

An even bigger danger: with all of the flawed / p-hacked / over-hyped studies, the public (and the legislature) will start to believe that NO science is real.

It worries me how much argument there is over things I consider to be facts. And how much effort goes into undermining science when it is not in the corporate interest (eg cigarette manufacturers funding “inconclusive” studies).


The first source I clicked into was a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

What you say sounds true about chronic illness and isolation. These researchers are looking at research done using actual interventions and real results.

What should they do to analyze this more than RCTs and then meta-analysis of RCTs?

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s... Tackling social disconnection: an umbrella review of RCT-based interventions targeting social isolation and loneliness


Another huge factor is probably lack of feedback loop. Its surprisingly easy to press on by yourself through various health issues until its too late. However someone around you might say you look pale recently you should see doctor as an obviously contrived example.


My dismissive but practical take is "well yeah there's nobody in the room to call an ambulance when you have the heart attack you'll most likely have", which mindfulness classes and support groups don't help with. There's practical benefits to having people around.


There was a funny statistical artifact I read once (well, for some value of 'funny') that home was a terrible place to have a heart attack, because people are willing to 'just lie down and see how I feel' rather than in a restaurant or movie theater where an ambulance will be called.


It would be interesting then for similar studies to add a dimension in addition to self-reported loneliness on self-reported time spent outside the home. While it's likely that sedentary elders are lonelier, it's not a 100% overlap (some elders live with close family and some lonely people are still very physically active/outside). You would expect lonely, active people to have lower death rates than lonely, sedentary people with similar pre-existing conditions under your hypothesis, and it would be a powerful thing to prove because it's a lot easier to make people go out than to make them make friends.


Then what about work from home? Does it increase mortality?


I bet any change in mortality due to increased isolation is offset by decreased deaths due to traffic acidents.


Or related: there's no one to nag you about going to get that funny ache checked out. Men particularly are notoriously reluctant to go to a doctor for various reasons but a worried partner might persuade them.


When this happens to us, my wife says, "This is another reason why married men live longer."

She's not wrong...


By these statistics there aren’t enough healthy people to provide care for those that are less healthy

The challenge here is that healthy people don’t desire to be around unhealthy people.

Society provides no incentive or social benefit for otherwise healthy people to be around the unwell to call the ambulances. Even as a nurse, hospice worker or caregiver, the pay/benefits are non existent for the amount of emotional and physical labor needed for care.


You don't have to be that healthy to call an ambulance! As long as not everyone in the sick-and-poor commune has a heart attack at the same time this should be a safe enough system.


Ambulances are expensive enough that people are hesitant to call them, sometimes even in life threatening situations.

And if the person is unsure whether the situation is critical, they might try to "sleep it off" rather than driving or getting a ride, because ER is also kind of expensive and you could be stuck there all day.


In US. But there are places with proper socialized health systems, where one must not be afraid of bankruptcy by calling an ambulance.


I once did a course with a paramedic on basic aid. We were discussing choking, which is a condition that really needs a 2nd party to intervene. Someone asked what to do if you live alone (with no close neighbours) - the answer was essentially ‘good luck’


The idea of the heimlich is to put sudden force on the diaphragm and force air upward. You can do that alone by pushing your upper abdomen against a chair back, counter, railing, whatever. Not something I've ever tried, but good to know about in case.


And if you're alone it's worth running with a chair into the street to do it as visibly as possible.


Sure theoretically. Outcomes are dramatically better if someone else is around


Most people don't know how to do a self-heimlich.


I know how to in theory, and I think I'm probably "above average" at calm-in-crisis, but my confidence that I'd calmly rescue myself via self-heimlich while unable to breathe is not high.


Dying of natural causes is ok though.


Preventably dying of natural causes is kind of a waste, though.


>Recent meta-analyses examining 2.2 million individuals across 90 cohort studies reveal that social isolation and loneliness trigger measurable biological cascades comparable to traditional disease risk factors.

Its frustrating, because cohort study experimental designs like these can in principle chip away at reverse causality (i.e. observe loneliness exposure before a cardiovascular disease prognosis, compare difference-in-difference between treatment/control), but the meta-analysis doesnt clearly state whether this constraint was applied. But even a study like this would have issues with medical participation, so that would need to be controlled, preferably with a prospective design.


Having a spouse or friend nag you into going to the doctor is undoubtably a part of the effect, both for the practical side and for the feeling that someone would care if you were ill. (Assuming this is what you mean by "issues with medical participation.")


As an anecdote, I have a couple of elderly family members who did not mellow with age. Instead they became even more toxic and abusive as they approached their 80s. (I have another who was the complete opposite.). The abusive ones hurled curse words as soon as you entered the door; then they "switched" personalities and acted as if nothing happened. I also know of an acquaintance whose son had the similar personality traits even though he's only in his 40s. The son needed a 24 hour a day caregiver because he's mentally challenged. In short there are a whole host of physical and/or mental problems that confound the situation.


>The author seems to assume causation when the studies only indicate correlation.

once I heard Feynmann say in a youtube video that (paraphrasal) "we don't know what causes gravity, we just know that it exists, it's a property of matter"

then I realized, our experiments never show causation, they only show correlation. gravity has 100% (in our experience) correlation to matter. admittedly, that's a pretty good correlation, but for all we know, gravity causes matter. energy too, apparently.


Philosophers have worried for a long time about whether we can actually observe causation.

David Hume was famous for arguing in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding that we can't observe it and we instead have a "custom" or habit of expecting effects to follow causes.

> After the constant conjunction of two objects—heat and flame, for instance, weight and solidity—we are determined by custom to expect the one from the appearance of the other.

Religious philosophers have sometimes gone to the extreme of occasionalism, where they've maintained that patterns and regularities in nature were just habits or customs that God chooses to follow:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasionalism


Skipping punctuation makes your writing harder to parse. It's a false economy.


i didn't skip any punctuation


You skip uppercase letters though.


> If this were the case, we could defend claims like "autism increases mortality", because we already know that autism increases social isolation.

Are you aware that life expectancy is much lower for peel with autism than the general public?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6713622/


I was not aware of this, but this actually supports my point, since the reasons in that study seem to be correlated physical comorbidities, so that makes the claim "autism increases mortality due social isolation" both easier to make (as you can misinterpret the stats) as well as less defensible.


Social isolation is also not the same thing as loneliness. The paper recognizes this and gives different outcomes for three distinct categories (social isolation, loneliness and living alone). The blog post mistakenly cites the outcome for living alone as the outcome for loneliness.



If you think things through like that then you can only ever attribute physical, material, biological factors as the only things involved in mapping the causation. In other words, every time we attempt to draw the line to mortality, it gets hacked down as we keep reducing the argument.

We cannot explore the possibilities of truth if we do that, but I can appreciate the due diligence. It’s a tricky subject, but life experience informs many of us that there is something more going on than “I materially feel like shit”.

There is a taboo element to loneliness that isn’t often discussed, and that is “I feel hurt that I can be left alone, or that anyone can be left alone or isolated”. So, while the source of the isolation could be material, the feeling that manifests from it is an actual hurt that one feels from the actual thing (isolation). For example, we may be killing our elders when we isolate them in care facilities.

I can’t say if we have the sense as a society to accept data that suggests this pain can be linked to mortality. Isolation in itself isn’t the killer, it’s the pain of “well how could any society leave anyone alone”, and such a phenomenon can be witnessed in the macro outside of yourself (how can we leave people on the street? Etc).

Loneliness and isolation is often in sequence, after abandonment, or negligence, or unforgivingness (if the person “deserved” the isolating). A phantom, immeasurable pain. And even more painful, to deny it afterwards.


There is considerable evidence that people who live alone are at greater risk of hospital re-admission, probably because they are less able to care for themselves properly.



The myth of the lonely hero (and probably risk taker) has been mentioned as a problematic factor before


Of course there is no direct causation between loneliness and death. You don't directly die from lack of social interaction, but you do directly die from lack of food. However, there is a clear causal link between loneliness and habits that increase mortality.


No I believe its reasonably well established that being lonely itself takes a toll on your health. Stress goes up etc.

The problem is that this article is overstating the effect on mortality because its not controlling for confounding factors very well.


> Of course there is no direct causation between loneliness and death.

Of course there is. If you are alone at home, who calls an ambulance if you have a heart attack or similar condition? If you are living together with someone, the chance they are arund while it happens is all thats needed to skew the statistics.


Do you not believe that mental well being is affected by loneliness? And that mental well being could affect mortality?


The APIs thing: it's not just Chrome, but Chromium too. I first noticed this when trying to replicate some of the screen sharing UI (buttons to share different things) from Google Meet, only to find that no non-Google domains have access to those APIs in the Chromium source code. Made a huge deal about it but nobody seemed to care.


You could just edit the domain restriction out of the Chromium source, no?


Not sure how to DM on here, but I just checked your landing and wanted to ask in what ways you're better than clerk.dev?


Clerk is great for new builds in the react ecosystem. We focus on more complex use cases where there are multiple user types (e.g. freemium, enterprise, partner, internal), multiple applications, or both. Having everything in one system removes a lot of tech debt and helps teams move faster.

And by "happy to chat" I meant by my email in my bio (which I just added to the public part), if it'd be helpful!


This is an excellent point. We launched on PH and reached #1 of the day and #1 of the week. We barely got any new customers, but we did get a lot of inbound investor interest. I'd say that if you're fundraising, it's worth it, but otherwise you need to go to where your customers are (ours were not PH users).


For half my life I had an Egyptian passport, and for the other a German passport. Having experienced both sides, that bit of paper is without a doubt the most valuable thing I own.

It's hard to quantify the kinds of doors it has opened for me. I was able to get a scholarship to study in the UK that covered home/EU rates (a third of international rates, while I might not have been able to get even a student loan otherwise), get government funding for a PhD that would not have been accessible to me otherwise and other grants, travel to international conferences without thinking twice about visas (unlike many colleagues) meeting people that would impact my career and skipping all sorts of and barriers along the way, and never had to worry about deportation because of the EU settlement scheme, easily become a founder (no visa sponsorship needed), and so much more! Even travelling/business in the the middle East, being German rather than Egyptian is an entirely different life, one that my cousins cannot even begin to imagine.

There's a parallel universe where I'm stuck making ends meet in Cairo where I was born, dreaming of a brighter future, feeling all my potential fade away. I know because my immediate family is that version of me - no less talented or worthy of the opportunities I got because of my nationality!

I see the kind of freedom that I have because of that passport as one of the biggest modern injustices.


> I see the kind of freedom that I have because of that passport as one of the biggest modern injustices.

I think you're confusing a vague and abstract problem of "injustice" with a very concrete and real difference in ways different countries manage their public services and institutions.

You only listed personal benefits that a country like Germany provides to their citizens and the higher education institutions built up by the UK, and how it contrasts with the ones provided by Egypt.

Quite bluntly, this is a discussion over privileges. Not injustice, but privileges. I assure you that countless people from Germany, UK, the EU, or anywhere in the world, would desperately want to have access to the same opportunities. Depicting this as a matter of being granted a passport is at best survivorship bias, and at worse an affront to those who had it but still weren't lucky enough to benefit from the same opportunities.


> different countries manage their public services and institutions.

This is the injustice. The decisions made by these institutions are not just. Sometimes they're business decisions (e.g. a university can make more money price gouging international students, when we're getting an identical education).

There can be an overlap with privilege, but at that point you're arguing semantics. For example, I'm privileged if I don't get racially profiled by the police, but it is also unjust for police to racially profile me. To say that it's down to the institutions/countries/individuals making the decisions is the same argument as "well that bakery is a private business, they can decide not to serve you because of your nationality".

Of course there are Germans and Brits that haven't had the same opportunities that I have had, and of course it wasn't handed to me on a silver platter either; I still had to work hard. But my point is that if I were Egyptian _no_ amount of hard work or luck would have gotten me where I am. It would have been quite literally impossible.

I'm not even going to begin to crack open the can of worms that is the colonial history of the same countries (in my case the real and lingering effect that the UK has had on Egypt). The way you compare the institutions "built by the UK" and the ones "provided by Egypt" makes it sound like "well maybe Egypt should just do better m" when the reality is that the prosperity of these very countries is built on centuries of injustice and blood. Call it what you want but it's injustice all the way down.


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

Search: