Just about any shirt is going to have a higher spf/upf than any normal sunscreen. Also who puts sunscreen on their hands??
A long sleeve sunshirt with a hood or better yet a floppy hat is where it’s at. I have a couple of the Colombia PFG ones that I wear for working outside, though I’d like to see if I can find something cotton instead since I’m not a huge fan of synthetic fibers.
I put sunscreen on my hands or I will have completely burnt hands. There's many of us who cant have more than about an hour in direct sunlight (and sometimes much less) before redness and soon burning occurs.
Nearly everyone I know puts sunscreen on their hands. Here in Australia, the world melanoma capital, sun safety is drilled into you as a kid, to the extent that "no hat no play" used to be official policy in most schools.
Also for the other comments there are gloves and face masks but I think most people do fine without them unless you're working outside
For the nerds here working indoors during the hottest times of the day... they may need more sun than they get really, rather than blocking it with toxic sunscreens (depends on where they live?)
It means only 2% of the harmful rays (UVA) are getting through the shirt or alternatively the skin under the shirt can spend 50 times as long in the sun as it could without any protection.
Just from basic logic this has to be false. Maybe there are some translucent t-shirts that are SPF 7 but my skin always reacts much more to sun exposed parts that have SPF applied than it ever did under t-shirt. And no i use high quality SPF50 and reapply.
I would approach anything windows-rs with care, the team is the one responsible for killing C++/CX in name of C++/WinRT, and then leaving it half baked to go play with Rust and windows-rs.
Nothing they said on stage at CppCon 2017 came to fruition.
You're better off doing the UI in WPF and calling into Rust DLLs.
Makes sense, Microsoft doesn't have the best track record in supporting frameworks.
I myself have never worked with C++/CX or C++/WinRT. My Rust journey has been exclusively on POSIX systems, so seeing windows-reactor and getting a UI in a couple of lines is pretty cool.
I would never (at least not in its current state) recommend it for production though, as the crate containing reactor isn't even on crates.io.
Could you share some of the promises made that were abandoned? (I just realized that question sounds like AI... I promise you it's not).
Except the Visual Studio tooling comparable to C++/CX never came to be, using C++/WinRT feels to this day like using ATL with Visual C++ 6.0, except
"This isn't meant as a negative statement. cppwinrt has reached all of its goals and is generally considered complete and largely bug-free (1). Whether WinRT/WinUI/WinAppSDK is the future is debatable. My experience has shown me that the Windows operating system is at its best when you embrace the Windows API as a whole, including Win32/COM/WinRT, and not just the latest shiny wave. You can see this in action with the popularity of projects like win32metadata and windows-rs that support both WinRT and non-WinRT APIs seamlessly."
And for as long that that runs on your computer, I don't care.
But the problem is that for many people they now believe it's ok to present a 10k line vibe-coded PR that only has been verified against external behavior, and some Senior Engineer needs to review it, in time, under pressure, without too much push-back, and lastly, it's the Senior Engineer that gets paged at 2am because something has fallen over.
Also, those scripts tend to start a life of their own, and because it looks good enough, people don't look at them again.
I recall a bug of someone vibe-coding a cleanup script for folders older than $x (on Windows).
Get the CreationDate, and sort. Delete older than $x. Except CreationDate can be null and null is always smaller than $x.
Maybe more relevant is "Engineer syndrome" — the tendency of technically minded individuals to assume that their expertise in one area makes them an authority on everything
I think the problem overall is just that we live in a society that conditions us to get validation from the size of our paychecks. Software engineers get a fat paycheck and think "well I must be really smart. Why else would society compensate me like this?". I'm sure it's a problem in all sorts of highly-paid fields. I'm always shocked by how many physicians I see write massively ambitious, terribly researched generalizations (see Jared Diamond and the experts in relevant fields that will spend the rest of their lives dispelling myths he spread)
> There seems to be a desire for a narrative that AI really just can't replace productive work, and that it's all a mirage.
Yes, and juniors aren't known for their productive work in the beginning. That's not their purpose. Their purpose is to do the mundane work, because it is important for them to become less junior and more senior.
That is robbed of them.
Which in 5-10 years means the need for senior developers is gonna shoot through the roof.
> All the software engineers we need for the next 20-30 years are already in the current workforce.
There's no way of knowing what the industry will look like decades from now. Even assuming the prediction that seniors become 10x more productive, that would mean software becomes much cheaper to produce. Does that induce enough demand for additional software that keeps employment levels high? Could be, who knows.
Alternatively, maybe software hits a saturation point where there just isn't as much new ground to cover and employment levels crater. That could happen too.
This was the case in Belgium a couple of years ago.
Everybody had to go to a store and have their ID read by the system, and if they didn't, the phone number would be shut down.
Unsure how that worked for MVNOs though.
Now I live in the USA and am well-familiar with the spam calls. I wonder if this new rule will reduce/prevent them. I think in general the ability to spoof numbers should be banned / controlled. Someone from India should not be allowed to call me with a caller ID from Mayo Clinic.
> I think in general the ability to spoof numbers should be banned / controlled.
This has absolutely nothing to do with burner phones and the proposed changes won't do anything to change that.
~5 years ago there was a big push (in the USA) to try and solve it with STIR/SHAKEN but I've not been involved or paid attention since then, so don't know if anything came of it. It's a legitimately hard problem to solve though. Lots of engineering and backwards compatibility technical problems, but also political, logistical and commercial issues are abound. You've also got some turtle issues too; it's attestation all the way down.
> This has absolutely nothing to do with burner phones
That is not correct. There a phone farms operating purely on burner phones / disposable sims.
Even for legit use cases, this path is often way easier/cheaper than go through official channels.
Use cases range from carrier-NAT proxies at < $1 per GB to text message spam.
But... what does your comment have to do with burner phones?
A burner phone is a phone number whose owner is not officially registered somewhere as the owner.
A spoofed phone number is a false declaration that you're calling from number XXXXXXXXXX when in fact you're calling from YYYYYYYYYY.
You might notice that there is absolutely no relationship between these two ideas. You can be registered and lie about your phone number. You can be unregistered and not lie about your phone number.
>>> I think in general the ability to spoof numbers should be banned / controlled. Someone from India should not be allowed to call me with a caller ID from Mayo Clinic.
>> This has absolutely nothing to do with burner phones and the proposed changes won't do anything to change that.
> That is not correct. There a phone farms operating purely on burner phones
This is total nonsense. A phone farm that doesn't spoof caller ID isn't presenting false caller ID.
Wish I could recall the podcast I listened to a few years ago that was telling the history of robo-dialers and caller ID spoofing. The general gist was that AT&T was making money off it from 1-900 operators so they weren't eager to self-regulate. So even though ending spam calling is a bipartisan issue, feet were dragged on the implementation.
If anyone's eager to do podcast archaeology, IIRC one of the angles was investigating dead government agency phone numbers, and some lady entrepreneur in the 80s. Might have been Reply All, but the market regulation angle makes me think Planet Money.
of course, politicians exempt themselves from the spam call category. Political speech is the most important speech!
Probably not the issue isn't knowing who owns a number it's that the actual number for the call is just a data field that's not validated or required to be correct. Spam calls would be a lot less annoying if they had to come from real numbers that could be blocked instead of being able to spoof as many numbers as they want.
Spam calls are a different issue (spam is usually VOIP). Spammers also often use spoofed numbers since STIR/SHAKEN is somehow still not properly implemented.
reply