Funny, I agree with him because of things like Covid being self-inflicted. We're so unable, as a species, to avoid even known risks (yes, we've known about the risk of new Coronaviruses since SARS), prepare for them, or deal with them when they've actually occurred. Even now, a not insignificant part of the US population thinks Covid is a hoax. Or that climate change is a hoax. We're reaching a point where catastrophic failure is just a stone's throw away, and we're already seeing the system buckle (rise of the Republican's hold over Congress, the rise of Trump, the rise of far right activists across Europe, growing environmental issues causing things like surges of refugees and civil war, unrest across the globe, etc.). It's only going to get worse from here as problems go unsolved and people's suffering grows.
HN user
Voliokis
It's hard to determine what our ancestors actually did. I'm sure you could argue any number of solutions they might have used. I'm wondering though what the prevalence is of these afflictions were back then or now in modern hunter-gatherer societies. The latter is not proof of anything, but it would be an indication of what a possibility might be like.
It's been done for as long as I can remember.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_binning
Iirc, early Celeron were often just Pentiums with defective (and disabled) cache
Seems to me like you're the one that cares too much about "orange man bad".
https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/edward-snowden-t...
https://phys.org/news/2016-07-wikileaks-nsa-leaker-edward-sn...
https://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/23/us/edward-snowden/index.h...
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2013/06/12/try-nsa-...
https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nsa-leaker-edward-snowden-fai...
https://www.france24.com/en/20140807-snowden-russia-nsa-resi...
https://www.newsweek.com/edward-snowden-latest-nsa-leaker-wo...
Check the dates. Most of them are from before Trump, and the last one is long before Trump floated the idea of pardoning Snowden.
I don't think Biden could do that. It would be as bad as, if not worse, than another 4 years of Trump as president. It would mean that there are no standards by which a president is held accountable, and considering how many lives he has cost and the corrupt things he has done betraying the country, it would make the next Republican presidency that much worse.
Why is there a statute of limitations for government officials? This shouldn't be a thing when you're entrusted with the responsibilities that you are concerning an entire country and its citizens.
Isn't there an online check to ensure you have a license?
Currently working part-time as a PC technician. Recently had a 10 year old PC here that had to be upgraded to W10. Did Microsoft complain? Nope. I replaced the HDD with an SSD and it ran fine. I've done this with 10 year old laptops too. I simply prefer a platform that doesn't decide for me whether I'm allowed to install it or not. And any device that runs fine on W10 now will most likely run it fine in the future too. Microsoft isn't going to "drop support" for old devices just because they're tired of supporting it. It's like you Apple guys literally have Stockholm syndrome, rationalizing this crap to yourselves.
And you'd be surprised what kind of old hardware still works on W10.
Unless you're on a device that can only be upgraded to 10.13, after which it won't get security updates anymore after 11 is released. Meanwhile, I can still put W10 on 10-12 year old PCs and it'll run fine (if the hardware wasn't particularly terrible even for back then). It might not support some of the latest features, but it works and you're not subject to some arbitrary decision by Microsoft as to whether you're allowed to use W10 or not.
Afaik, there's an offline mode. It seems like you're forced to complete an online update before you're allowed to start the game proper though and you might be stuck with the original data on the discs even if you could skip that, which would sort of suck.
I agree it's not a great article. I wonder though - is there sufficient data out there to make a good article with the same title?
However, bug bounties are not a job. Nobody is forced or obligated to do anything. I'm giving them 'a pass' in the future :) It's great people are discussing this and surely it will improve things for future researchers.
Shouldn't people like you be able to do this for a living if you want to? It's valuable work. It has real market value. It seems like you're doing this for fun and genuine interest and I do admire that. Maybe you don't want to taint your motivation with the idea of "how much money can I get for this?" I get that too. But as an outsider, I see this low pay-out and I see exploitation under the guise of "doing the right thing". I genuinely want you to be paid more. You deserve it.
I feel like the only way this kind of thing will change is if people are more vocal about how inappropriate the low compensation is for a company like Slack. Public criticism is necessary and, unfortunately, the only tool we have nowadays to effect change. I understand if this isn't a hill you want to die on, but I hope that other people (particularly people who aren't in bug hunting) are willing to pressure Slack to reconsider its policies.
The problem with "others will ignore it in the future and ultimately they lose" is that it's a passive signal that is too easily overlooked and ignored. It never reaches anybody with any kind of influence who can make changes. If a big exploit happens and somebody does a root cause analysis, it's never going to lead to the conclusion that "well, it's because we haven't been paying enough in our bug bounty program, we need to change that", if only because there's no data about how many people passed on helping them out because of the low payouts.
This might be unpopular, but if you don't feel like the compensation adequately reflects your effort, then you're free to do whatever you think is fair. It's your work. Slack isn't entitled to that work. Ideally, you'd check beforehand what a bug bounty program usually pays out and then decide whether to work on some other company's product that pays better. But you're always going to have people who are interested in doing this stuff and you're always going to have people who will look for the best pay-out for the work they've done.
The problem with starting with the baseline of "the right thing to do is always to disclose the vulnerability to Slack regardless of how little they pay" is that it perpetuates the exploitation of legitimate and important work by skilled workers. The onus should be on Slack to provide fair compensation, not on people doing this important work to "do it out of the good of their hearts".
Slack as a company had a revenue of $401 million last year and the average payout in their bug bounty program is $1376 (https://github.blog/2018-03-14-four-years-of-bug-bounty/). That's just disgusting.
Unfortunately, we live in a world governed by money as a motivator. While you might not be in it for the money, many people are, to a certain degree (you know, to make a living and to be able to afford a decent life). If companies are unwilling to pay anything remotely close to what researchers' time is worth, then they shouldn't wonder when people prefer to sell the exploits that they find to those who do value their work appropriately.
And frankly, we shouldn't be giving companies a pass for being cheap because "reporting it responsibly" is the right thing to do. These companies are benefiting to a great degree by offloading vital security research onto unaffiliated and unknown third-parties. Your time, as well as the time of any other hacker or researcher, is valuable and needs to be compensated. I don't see why it's fair to any of us that we should have to work for free or for low pay-outs just because we might be doing the right thing. Same goes for any other career that is badly paid just because "they're helping people".
What in god's name is with all the bootlickers in this thread? I have no love for Apple or Epic. But if this lawsuit leads to better treatment of third-party developers on the platform and Apple not being able to arbitrarily control what apps consumers get to download, I don't see why Epic is being painted as the "bad guy" by so many people here. Apple has been behaving in crazy anti-competitive ways (just look at how they historically treated any developer that dared make an app that competed with their own) for years now. It's time for the hammer to fall.
This is great, but to use it I need to sticky the bookmarks bar to the top of my screen when vertical space is already precious. Does anybody know something else that does the same thing without this issue?
I'm sure there are civilian experts and they absolutely should be involved, as well as elected representatives who are (preferably) guided by experts. Your average citizen has no business chiming in.
Have they said anything about pricing yet? This would seem like a decent solution for roaming data during travel too.
Let's go further. Make it a quiz about the general topic too. If you don't have any fundamental knowledge about a topic, your opinion shouldn't get a platform for it to spread.
I started watching some DCS dogfights on YouTube because of the last MSFS post. It looks incredible. If I could afford it, I'd definitely buy a stick/throttle and try to get into it.
Particularly Growling Sidewinder has a lot of great videos and I can't stop watching them.
I'm really not sure what you're arguing. Military research needs to be funded always, because when war starts, it's too late. Civilian research needs to be funded always, because ... anything else would be insanity. Your original statement was that we shouldn't do military research outside of war. Nothing you've said supports that.
I get the line of thought and the idea of inflated military budgets but I'm not sure your average Joe should get any say in whether a new weapons system should be funded or not. They have no military expertise and no concept of what might be necessary to win the next war. While I do think there needs to be more oversight over how budgets are allotted to military projects, it shouldn't be decided by "do taxpayers want to pay".
If war breaks out, it's too late. Especially nowadays, where technology is crazy complex and it takes absurd amounts of time, effort and coordination to get something like a new fighter plane all the way from the drawing board into production. And then trying to iron out all the bugs while fighting a shooting war? That might have worked out back in WW1 or 2, but modern wars would be over in a flash (comparatively). Either you have the technology and you win, or you don't and you lose. Our modern capabilities of blowing each other into oblivion are too effective to only start research when war breaks out (or is "near" to breaking out).
That said, DARPA has always been one of the biggest funders of research in the US, whether it's basic research or applied. Just think of the DARPA Grand Challenge (self-driving cars in an off-road setting). While, yes, ultimately their goal is military application, this cultivation of research into self-driving cars is something that will benefit everybody, not just the military.
While I do want the iOS situation fixed, I don't want the Switch or Playstation platforms to be affected in any way. Sony and Nintendo are the only publishers still making decent AAA games with the patience to sink a crazy amount of money and time into their projects. We'd all be worse off without games like Last of Us or Mario. Changing the status quo could turn them into another Ubisoft (devoid of all risk or creativity, and with a massive emphasis on microstransactions and games as a service).
And frankly, anybody bringing up consoles in this context is arguing in bad faith. The similarities are purely surface level.
Apple's misbehavior includes locking out competitors to their own apps. This is as if Microsoft started removing Halo competitors from the Xbox (which they don't do). Just because of that the case is much, much stronger against Apple than it might be against Microsoft.
I watched hundreds of users, given the choice, or doing so themselves installing / using Chrome by their own selection. It was faster. The user experience was far better.
For the first time or because they were already familiar with it? Once you've established yourself as the "default", it can be ridiculously difficult to convince people to switch to something else. Google has executed this strategy perfectly and they know that there's nothing Mozilla can do or anybody else will do. And that despite the fact that Google clearly abused its dominant position in another industry to establish dominance in this field. I'm sick of Google abusing its position and I'm sick of people defending Google because it's a "free market". No, that's not how it works.
On this score you're out of luck even now—if the author, intentionally or unintentionally, did a bad job creating the PDF, you're out of luck. This is one area where I'll give HTML the win: it is, or can be, good at things like dynamic reflow, whereas PDF not only isn't but, I believe, effectively can't be.
I'm not sure what you mean. I've never had an ebook or paper have any influence on how my PDF reader works or how I interact with it.
I have to agree. People will have to pry PDF's out of my cold, dead fingers. No way in hell am I going to ever switch to a web-based format. A PDF means that I know what I'm getting. A static document that can't do any fuckery around preventing me from copying text or doing their own weird implementation of scrolling or breaking back/forwards navigation or anything else that modern websites love to do. If I get a PDF, I know what it is and the tools that I use to consume that PDF don't change just because the author of that PDF happened to find a new PDF framework and was so blinded by the shinyness that he just had to implement as much of it as he could. No, a PDF is a PDF. My PDF readers all behave in a consistent way and give me the exact same functionality and the same interface and show consistent performance behavior, whether it's a PDF from the year 2000 or a PDF from today, regardless of what eccentric tastes the author might have, and the author has zero say in how I interact with the PDF.
That's how I want it. I'm tired of new formats and new frameworks and new tools releasing every single year that pretend they're better. The best thing about PDF is that it doesn't change. Yes, whatever, Adobe adds new features, but any PDF ebook I download has nothing to do with that, nor that PDF scientific paper I downloaded this morning. I don't want random authors to be able to dictate how I interact with a medium, because the vast majority of them are, frankly, idiots when it comes to this domain and they have no sense of good user interface design.
I currently own a Galaxy S6 Tab. I use it for note-taking and reading books (primarily non-fiction and technical PDFs). Portability is always an issue with tablets. I don't always have my tablet with me, and even when I do, it can be inconvenient to pull it out of my bag. This seems to be 5,6" closed, which sounds like something that might fit into my pants pocket, then I could always have it with me. I've tried using a recent Samsung Note, but found the lack of screen space too much of a constraint that I ended up selling it again fairly quickly.
I'm definitely interested, though of course I'm not 100% sure it'll fit my needs until I actually try it for a week. The pricing is also iffy. I'm not sure I'm willing to give such an expensive device a try, especially with Microsoft's poor record when it comes to QA on their Surface line in general.
Doubts, sure. Asking for more evidence isn't a problem. But 1) blaming the author and 2) insulting him with something baseless like "I found the article to be really naive in a Dale Carnegie kind of way, that probably appeals to someone in their mid-20s trying to reinvent themselves, but is actually a psychological dead end" is a problem and needlessly adversarial.