HN user
Was it JTRIG? In any case, here are links to the stories from the Intercept.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipula...
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/22/controversial-...
Fair point, perhaps I should have phrased it more as a technology with similar applications. I find it interesting that there are parts available now, albeit made on a 180nm process apparently.
I hope someone will give a push behind MRAM which seems like a more interesting option imo.
MRAM has similar performance to SRAM, similar density to DRAM but much lower power consumption than DRAM, and is much faster and suffers no degradation over time in comparison to flash memory. It is this combination of features that some suggest makes it the “universal memory”, able to replace SRAM, DRAM, EEPROM, and flash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoresistive_random-access...
Another point is the fact that mobile Safari wont allow the use of plugins. A wild guess is that ad blockers are the most common plugin that people use, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to add this in the browser itself as an opt-in feature.
I don't really see the difference from using an ad blocker in the form of a plugin, and blocking ads by turning on the feature in the browser itself. Ad blocking is also a feaure built into the latest Firefox release.
"I never commit to memory anything that can easily be looked up in a book." Albert Einstein
It seems like this tests a) how much you want to work at Google and b) how good you are at memorize things.
Yes, Gmail is definitely a brand but I don't need to have a Gmail account to send an email to someone who does.
I don't really get the first point about scale and brand, because the examples you give like email are built on open protocols, so it's the protocol itself that is the brand. I don't need a particular brand of email client to send emails to someone.
You could keep pointers to both the head and tail in the list object though. Then adding and removing stuff would be O(1) for both ends.
Something is odd with that site. If I enter https://www.freakattack.com it reports Safari 5.1.10 as safe from the attack. If I simply enter https://freakattack.com it reports it as vulnerable.
I doubt that would work well in practice. The reason is that timing is extremely important for this to work, if you're even one sample off you'll here a faint sound, and more than a few then it's quite obvious. So if the sound is generated by a separate OS process, you'll never know exactly when the sound is generated and you will not even have control over exactly when your own sound is played back in relation to the other process, think sub ms accuracy.
But it's only commercial in the sense that it permits commercial use, but it also explicitly leave the creator out of any compensation beyond attribution.
I think it's understood that what is done in public is public, however that is not the same as having the same information recorded, analyzed with facial recognition and machine learning technology and stored for the future.
Can't this just be turned off with the Spotlight setting in system preferences though? For browsers it seems to be the same for all that uses the unified search field, it was last time a checked Chrome with tcpdump. I personally preferred to have the URL field separate from the search field for that reason.
I don't think it's that clear cut, there are some inherent challenges related to privacy and internet, a persons past that may influence future opportunities in a way that's not really fair. In fact, Eric Schmidt has expressed that same sentiment publicly.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7951269/Young-w...
It's a bit more, the bool type can only hold two values, 0 and 1. (6.3.1.2 Boolean type #1) "When any scalar value is converted to _Bool, the result is 0 if the value compares equal to 0; otherwise, the result is 1."
I give Linus a pass. Given the success of the project and the size of the team, I would rather have a foul mouthed Linus than perhaps no kernel and no Linux.
This appears to be a false dilemma. I don't think the success of the kernel and Linux depends on Linus' foul mouth. And I think the point was that he, as a role model may influence and inspire others to adopt the same behavior.
In Apple's case, they use the ARM ISA but implement their own micro architecture and from vvhn's comment seems to also use a co-processor specifically for the secure enclave. But the link above on TrustZone hardware architecture mentions that this isn't a requirement.
"TrustZone enables a single physical processor core to execute code safely and efficiently from both the Normal world and the Secure world. This removes the need for a dedicated security processor core, saving silicon area and power, and allowing high performance security software to run alongside the Normal world operating environment."
I guess since Apple use the ARM ISA, it's still binary compatible with ARM but with a different implementation. AMD uses an x86/ARM hybrid where the ARM part is an off the shelf Cortex-A5 which already contain TrustZone.
It sounds more like they are using a Cortex-A5 to gain access to TrustZone with an existing x86 core.
It's a bit less than 4 in 100,000, which I think is an easier number to relate to.
But enabling private communication is not the same as a public free for all. Some information should use private communication, but not be shared publicly, some examples that comes to mind is credit card numbers or private encryption keys.
In this case it's removal of your own data, so it's self-censorship if anything.
It's different in principle. I'm not saying that this will be easy to manage in practice, that's not the point I was trying to make. There seems to be some clear cut cases however, like bullying and character assassinations where perhaps law enforcement is involved. I think the question it self is important, and it will be interesting to see how this works out in practice.
How so? It's not requests from the state that are discussed but from individuals. It also seems to be in line with Eric Schmidt's comment about how teens should have the right for a new online identity when they grow up. I really wish people could accept different views here and add arguments to support their point.
It's published under the CNN name, which lends a whole lot of credibility to the story. Even if CNN is not taking responsibility they probably should, and this incident is a good illustration of why.
A crude precursor to the ideas in the Alto can be seen in the mother of all demos with Doug Engelbart imho.
This isn't C++. Just adding whitespace, descriptive variable and function names and comments wouldn't add any size to the resulting binary since the code is semantically the same. Using library functions can keep your amount of lines low, but you get that back when at link time if you do static linking at least. Wouldn't you prefer maintainable code that people can easily understand. I just want this said since obfuscated minimal C code isn't the same as minified JS.
Algorithms is an interesting case since you have to ask if you are optimizing for size or speed, as an example you can implement a linear search in fewer lines of code than binary search. Does that mean that linear search is a better more optimized choice. It does if you are optimizing for small executable binary size.
That could be true for other embedded projects as well, but then it's the size of the executable binary that is of concern, not necessarily the size of the source code on your development box.
But the point here seems to be to use the group average, not to find outliers with good prediction ability per se.
What an odd spin on this story. Job's response is just a detail, the policy is agreed upon between both companies which is clear from the correspondence and Google's actions here.