HN user
I'm struggling to tie your comment to what the author is getting at. The advice to write thoughts down so you can stop thinking about them isn't offered as a way to achieve more efficient performance, it's to let yourself stop worrying.
I have no real opinion on the project in question but devotion is not a fungible, generically applicable resource you decide to apply to one issue or another. Run a test for whatever "IQ/g-factor/ability" handwave you're referencing on someone that loves their work and someone that doesn't.
They're similar, but at least with traditional pagination you have a very clear page transition boundary. You can manually loop through Next → Ctrl-F repeatedly much faster in my experience. With infinite scroll I'm left to work out my own "pages" by eye or some other mechanism, which is slower. Not by a lot, but still slow enough that I feel the friction.
(Edit: I emailed them and the article has been corrected.)
a Library that contains 251,312,000 volumes of random sequences of letters (1,312,000 being the number of characters in any given book, each of which admits of twenty-five variations)
This seems to be a typo of sorts. I believe the correct number is 25^1312000 (sequence length m, n possible values for each, n^m distinct possible sequences).
Having hit this in the past, my guess is it was originally written with a superscript, then the text lost the formatting (leaving 251312000), and an editor left it as 251,312,000. Always worth checking final rendering for any text you expect to include superscripts.
I agree that it's a somewhat unfair generalization that paints a harsh picture. The core point of the argument still holds though, I think. A cynical response might be to say that the difference is the employer is accounting for longer-term replacement hiring/training costs, rather than short term value extraction. The optimization has new parameters but the structure of the relationship is still fundamentally transactional. I don't really think that's how things generally run, though.
Both parties should want a place that's enjoyable to work over the long term, yet sometimes the company will have to make hard decisions. Priorities slip or people are straight-up unable to avoid, say, laying off half the staff. Framing and context matter, as always. "Your employer is not on your side" is hopefully not a statement about the day-to-day interactions with your boss, or even a statement about company values, but it can serve as a reminder that there's always a line somewhere, and, intent aside, your best interests may simply fall on the wrong side.
The article mentions it.
There exist several closed-form solutions to Fibonacci sequence which gives us the
false hope that there might be an O(1) solution. Unfortunately they all turn out to
be non-optimal if you want an exact solution for a large n.
That's an interesting US fact, but the story is about the UK. Is it likewise restricted there?
Isn't the purpose of the example to make it hard to just trivially deduce y? If you know y = 1/(1 - t) then yeah it's undefined at t = 1. The example given doesn't seem to lend itself to that though, and a lesson is to know when your tooling isn't good enough.
I believe it's been shown in video feeds that Lee Sedol had left the room before move 37. He came back from a smoke break and noticed AlphaGo's shoulder hit play. It's of course still dramatic when he comes back and sees it. You can see some discussion about it at https://www.reddit.com/r/baduk/comments/49zik4/the_sadness_a... and the moment in video at https://youtu.be/VunLUhNP_Aw?t=2590
I have an Apps account and just installed it from the Play Store.
You don't need --standalone to get only certificate files, by the way. You can also use certonly with --webroot and it'll work just fine. The certonly is the key part.
One thing I hope they make a little clearer is how to delegate cipher suite selection to certbot. I saw some discussion about making options-ssl-nginx.conf use, say, one of Mozilla's server-side configurations (whichever one you've configured). That way you could include options-ssl-nginx.conf and it'd auto-update over time.
I think you're confusing this list of attributes with a separate list used for rollouts and tree search. The ones above are definitely used for the neutral networks in the policy and value networks. See: "Extended Data Table 2: Input features for neural networks. Feature planes used by the policy network (all but last feature) and value network (all features)."
Is there a source of the rules for colour choice? I had thought it would be another nigiri as in 1st game. Choosing it based on the 4th game's result would imply Lee Sedol would have been given white. Since he won with white, isn't it an unfair advantage in general? For instance, if it were 2-2 after the 4th game.
the AI took its time when it thought it was ahead, and played exactly as aggressively as needed to win
Don't human professional players do exactly this? They care about playing the best move and winning. The difference is that AlphaGo is likely much more accurate at determining what "95% probability of winning" means in terms of gameplay. A human has a harder time judging the eventual outcome of a game, and so plays more "aggressively" (favouring point margins to account for variance in the estimate, etc.) than AlphaGo might.
It's worth remembering that AlphaGo was partially, initially trained on the previous game records of professional players, to form the basis of its policy network and so on. AlphaGo's victory over Lee Sedol is impressive, but it does rest on the combined total experience and long study of humans. That's why it's even more exciting to me to hear that one of the DeepMind team's next efforts will be to see how AlphaGo plays when it starts learning "from scratch".
I'd be interested in hearing about the process of returning to the District Court (or really any previous court) to defend on a fair use argument. Was that case not closed? Was it left pending until the question of copyright itself was addressed by the appeals court?
How did you convince them you were him and that you hadn't stolen your own identity?
This reads to me like a more verbose version of "Incorrect username or password." I'd favour the shorter version that gets the same point across.
I don't know enough about client implementations to say whether it is unsaveable, but let's say it is: why would 308 exist? That suggests the HTTP spec folks believe it's fundamentally changed meaning. With new-301, new-302/303, 307 and 308, we'd cover each of the 4 cases. Seems to strongly suggested that's necessary.
302 is already bad, and 301 is already wrongly implement as RFC 2616 itself notes. Ultimately I doubt either is going to see a "fixed" implementation from a buggy one that's lasted as long as it has.
While browsers can probably "do anything" with a 301 or 302, I think in practice it's simpler.
I think the issue here is that 301 and 302 were originally intended to preserve the HTTP method but they became permanent and temporary versions of "issue a new request with a GET". So to try and fix that they provided 307 (and now 308) as temporary and permanent versions of "this resource changed location, so reissue this request at the new URL".
I actually wrote a post about this a couple of days before RFC 2616 got marked for official deprecation: https://aprescott.com/posts/http-redirects
I plan on updating that with more information once a proper RFC deprecates 2616 and 308 makes its way into something other than a referenced alternative, as it is in the current draft last time I checked.
Also, for fun, try pointing curl at a server returning various response codes and see what it does with `-X [method]` and compare it with the latest Chrome and Firefox.
I think any setup which requires the website to respond to requests intended to verify its own authenticity will probably not work. Any verification requests could be passed upstream to a separate running application in order to calculate a valid response. This response would then be passed back to the client. All other requests and code paths would still potentially go through a modified or malicious variant.
I've found autotype to be more than enough personally: http://keepass.info/help/base/autotype.html
In fact, I usually just copy the password with Ctrl-C and the username with Ctrl-B. You can configure a secure clipboard erase after n seconds.
One thing I really wish had better support is ssh-based entry-level sync of databases[1]. Keepass has a plugin for it but I don't know the status for KeepassX 2 (currently in a non-stable release state). If I could point KeepassX at an SSH remote path and have it transparently sync at the entry level it'd be almost perfect.
Part of the reason this is interesting is the possibly intentional inflation of Romney's odds (from the paper) for non-monetary gain. Indeed, losing 4 million dollars:
It does appear, however, that price manipulation by a single trader who accumulated a large directional position on Romney may have been a factor. This trader accounted for one-third of all bets placed on Romney during our observational window, and lost almost four million dollars in the process. This position was accumulated by placing large bids for Romney and large o ffers for Obama that eff ectively created a firewall, preventing prices from moving in response to incoming information. This resulted in remarkable stability in Intrade prices for several hours on Election Day, and at other critical moments of the campaign, even as prices on Betfair were moving sharply. On Election Day, these orders were removed just as voting ended in Colorado, the last swing state to close its polls. The e ect was a sharp price movement and immediate convergence to the Betfair odds. Financial gain though correlated changes in stock prices seems an unlikely motivation for this activity, since these correlations appear to have broken down in 2012. More plausibly, this trader could have been attempting to manipulate beliefs about the odds of victory in an attempt to boost fundraising, campaign morale, and turnout.
And the biased vs unbiased numbers:
Manipulation aside, one of our most striking findings is that 86% of traders, accounting for 52% of volume, never change the direction of their exposure even once. A further 25% of volume comes from 8% of traders who are strongly biased in one direction or the other. A handful of arbitrageurs account for another 14% of volume, leaving just 6% of accounts and 8% of volume associated with individuals who are unbiased in the sense that they are willing to take directional positions on either side of the market. This suggests that information fi nds its way into prices largely through the activities of traders who are biased in one direction or another, and diff er not only with respect to their private information but also with respect to their interpretations of public information.
I actually think "push" and "pull" make sense on a door since it can go both ways (although you can solve that one by using a handle on the pull side, and a flat rectangle on the push side).
The real thing you shouldn't need to put on a door, though, is how to use it: "Use as an entrance."
He also made Merry Quine-mas 2010: http://mamememo.blogspot.com/2010/12/merry-quine-mas-2010.ht...
The strings and documentation don't make it too easy to distinguish, but the docs do explicitly distinguish between aDH and ADH. I think "DH" includes any and every cipher that might use DH, but there's a good chance that for a cipher string like TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384, which uses "DH", it's actually part of the "aDH" umbrella (certificate carries DH keys). (Credit to the original author of the article for spotting that one via RFC5246.)
I indeed managed to get a B without trying to mitigate against BEAST (d). The trouble does seem to be that RC4 isn't vulnerable to BEAST, but it's not desirable because of its other vulnerabilities.
Since BEAST was fixed in TLS 1.1, I think you can require 1.1+ and get an A, but the test suggests you might break things for a significant chunk of users.
Even if you get a B because you're vulnerable to BEAST, if you prioritise 1.1+ ciphers, you'll still fail to get an A but you'll mitigate against it. It looks like Qualys themselves have a post on this, actually: https://community.qualys.com/blogs/securitylabs/2011/10/17/m...
Note that ECDH and DH are different authentication mechanisms: these require special certificates and offer no forward-secrecy.
I contacted the author about this, but I don't think this is correct.
The OpenSSL ciphers documentation[1] says "DH" is simply all suites using Diffie–Hellman, not necessarily authenticated DH, which is "aDH". I actually couldn't check if it does include aDH since `openssl ciphers -v 'aDH'` tells me I don't have any aDH ciphers!
Unfortunately there's no documentation to explain the difference between EDH (ephemeral DH?) and DHE. Are they synonyms? I'm assuming DHE is ephemeral since using a string with DHE Will get you Perfect Forward Secrecy "points" on an SSL Labs test[2]. (Run the test! Secure your web servers! You can get at least a B rating easily enough.)
I think you missed the "[/sarcasm]"!