bsdetector

Anyone that wants to see real examples can turn on showdead in preferences.

It implies that this list is the entirety of the cancelled NSF grants instead of a cherrypicked woke subset.

https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/show-award/?AWD_ID=1231319&a...

Appears it didn't receive any funds since 2022 after being extended for years (so your "daddy" is Biden) and wouldn't get any more money so was canceled to get it off the books.

If anything this shows the list includes regular grants that were canceled for normal reasons, which further demonstrates the cuts were not of real science.

The cost to the content provider can be reduced to zero by the parents, by allowing it in parental controls.

So the maximum cost to a provider is capped at convincing parents to disable blocking of the content. That could be an unfathomably large sum for pornhub or negligible for wikipedia.

The question then is what's cheaper, paying to have parents enable the content (for instance advertising to make that choice acceptable) or rating the content? If it's the former that's essentially the same value parents place on blocking that content.

You're looking at rating content in this default-block scheme as a cost, but really it's a discount. You're paying a smaller amount to rate the content "G - general audience" then convincing parents to allow unrated content.

If the default wasn't "almost nothing" then you'd be sanctioning exposing some kids to content their parents didn't want them to see. If there's no economic incentive to tag content then it's not valuable content for kids.

Ultimately the problem is the provider knows what category the content is and the parent knows what the content policy is. Providers can't say whether it's "safe" or "unsafe", only what standards it complies with. Some parents will have weird policies like "only G-rated movies or any Jim Carey movie" that can't even be delegated in any reasonable way to providers.

So the header has "PG-13, US-legal" because it's a movie rated PG-13 and constitutionally-protected legal content in the US, and whatever other markets you want to open up. Providers could even include AI ratings so as to mass-tag their content at low cost, and parents can decide if a particular AI rating is okay.

Parental controls could even restrict official ratings to country of origin, so if you approve PG-13 it'll block that content from countries where you can't sue them for lying about it.

You're already responsible for everything you would be on a private server (one user). If you go to 8chan and see illegal content then good luck telling the authorities you're not responsible because it's 'just' in your browser cache.

Some people run their own Mastodon servers, where they share and participate in social media, so there's a proof by example that your fears are unfounded.

You host your own content, and non-230 telecom rules protect a pure cache so bandwidth and always-on internet needn't be an issue.

It shouldn't be baffling to you; it's not even a hard problem to solve, and the only reason why things like ActivityPub aren't done more today is because of 230. A monopoly on data gives centralized social media an unfair advantage that's only possible through legal immunity.

Without section 230 you'd get a few large publishing outlets moderating all content and you'd also get distributed media where the aggregation is done by each individual.

There just wouldn't be that middle area where social media sites get to choose what you are allowed to say or read just because they have a monopoly on the data.

For instance, you could run your own individual Hacker News site that collects the data and creates the same thing you see today - except you could choose to only view posts and comments by sources verified as humans. Or you could turn on 'show dead' on a grander scale - your choice.

Section 230 isn't required for social media.

Wouldn't just good screen sharing solve your coffee table problem?

Just have the coffee table iPad be a display for your own iPad. You could even have a virtual iPad on your mac that you show on the coffee one if you don't have your own.

MacOS has 'high-performance' screen sharing using hardware encoder/decoder now. Windows has had this for years and it's so fast it's like actually using the remote computer. It's not like old-school VNC, the only real functional drawback is that you can't leave wifi range.

Wikipedia Wow! article says it is equivalent of hydrogen line plus 10 km/s blue shift.

Even if this was a scanning beam I think we can assume it would take a lot of energy and so may be based on a simple scalable physical process. Using hydrogen to create it makes sense as it is low mass and can be replenished.

A ship approaching a sun will see the objects on the far side illuminated fully, but objects on the near side will be illuminated only on a thin edge, like a crescent moon, because they're looking at the 'back' side of the objects.

By sending out a pulse of light they could not just light up the ship-facing side of objects but also determine their precise location and velocity. Seems like something you'd want to do to not waste your thousand-year mission by accidentally colliding with a dark object.

The Wow! signal could be just such an event.

Aliens might use some type of scanning beam rather than a big flash, but I doubt we have the 1977 data to differentiate between a beam scanning our area and a solar-system-wide flash.

Seems reasonable that an alien craft travelling between stars might want to illuminate the whole star system to detect dark objects and plot a safe or more perfect course.

Apparently Wow! came from the same area and seemingly was blue-shifted by an amount that could make sense from an approaching craft, so that doesn't sound that silly to me.

Unlikely to be the real cause, not silly.

Would this be far enough out to use the sun's gravitational lensing to image distant planets?

It seems like the idea was to send a bunch of instruments way out and then take pictures in the brief time they were at a useful distance, but if there's a planet out there we can orbit and so stop the instruments at that distance it seems like we could make a permanent super telescope.

In October when Windows 10 support ends it'll finally be the year of desktop linux.

You're thinking about energy and not cost.

For example, when solar plus direct air capture can remove a ton of CO2 for cheaper than it costs a container ship not to emit that CO2 then it's reduced cost for the same CO2 outcome even though it's using more total energy.

Regardless of whether it actually makes sense to capture carbon, you'll see a lot of sky-is-falling fanatics and vested interests dismissing it because it caps the price of carbon credits and limits economic damage estimates. You can't price CO2 at $500/ton to necessitate change when it only costs $200/ton to capture it - without quickly going bankrupt that is.

This is why the IPCC not even attempting to evaluate mechanical capture shows they aren't serious about solving the problem. They seemingly exist to push a fear narrative, and having an upper bound on the impact of CO2 limits their ability to do so.

The 1..125 loop stores 8000 bytes of string and they need to clear 8000 bytes.

There may be a fast path for adding one character, but in any case bytes of program are a valuable resource with only 64k ram so having a second loop from nearest power of two to 8000 would be a waste of bytes.

But none of those are simple key=value formats either.

What is the difference between:

    { object: { name: value }}
    { object: "{ name: value }"}
    object="name=value"

kubectl. Which to be fair defaults to output to a table-like format.

With line-based shell-variable output you have a line of variables and you have blocks of lines separated by an empty line (like an HTTP 1 header).

This can easily map to any table, two dimensions, or two levels of data structure without even quoting subvariables like in the example above. So, no, kubectl is not an example at least not how you've described it.

The nature of being nested, and also containing structures like lists, maps, etc. All of which makes it more complicated than key=value.

These are javascript objects, which are key-value. A list array is just keyed by a number instead of a string. They're functionally exactly the same as name=value except JSON is parsed depth-first whereas shell variables are breadth-first parsing (which is way better from shells).

Do you have an example of a CLI tool - intended for human use - that has output so complicated it can't be easily mapped to name=value? I don't think there is one, and it's certainly not common.

You're reading into hostility where there isn't any.

I think "it seems you're determined not to use jq" is pretty hostile since I made no intimation of that at all.

That's not your original request though, to use line-based data.

It wasn't my request and OP (not me) said "line-based data" is best. The comment I replied to said "Newline-delimited JSON ... a line-based format".

If the only objection you have is "but that's line-based!" then you're in a completely different conversation.

if anything, json output | jq is more the unix way than piping everything through shell vars.

The unix way is line-based. The comment I replied to is talking about line-based output. Line-based output is the only structure for data universal to unix cmdline tools - even tab/space isn't universal; sending structured non-line-delimited data to a program to unpack it is the least unix-like way to do it.

Also there's no pipe in the shell-variable output scheme I described, whereas "json | jq" is a shell pipeline.

JSON is literally key=value, just nested. Which you can do with shell variables.

The question was "What's not to like [about JSON output from cmdline tools]?" and the answer is that it's cumbersome to read in a shell and all but requires another pipeline stage.

I didn't even recommend shell variable output and made it clear this isn't today a reasonable solution so I'm not sure where this hostility in the replies comes from, but I assume from recognition that it's a more practical solution to reading data within a shell but not wanting that to be so.

JSON is not immediately usable by and is cumbersome to parse correctly in a shell.

A simple line-based shell variable name=value format works unreasonably well. For example:

    # ls --shell-var ./thefile
    dir="/home/user" file="thefile" size=1234 ...
    # eval $(ls --shell-var ./thefile); echo $size
    1234

Unfortunately it's too late for this and today you'll be using a pipeline to make the json output shell friendly or use some substring hacks that probably work most of the time.

SPDY's header compression allowed cookies to be easily leaked. This vulnerability was well known at the time so had they even asked an intern at Google Zero to look at it they would have been immediately schooled.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=779413

In their performance tests vs HTTP 1.1 the team simulated loading many top websites, but presumably by accident used a single TCP connection for SPDY across the entire test suite (this was visible in their screenshots of Chrome's network panel, no connection time for SPDY).

They also never tested SPDY against pipelining - but Microsoft did and found pipelining performed the same. SPDY's benefit was merely a cleaner, less messy equivalent of pipelining.

So I think it's fair to say these developers were not the best Google had to offer.

there’s no way to measure time directly. It clearly exists, yet all you can measure is change of things besides time.

If it can't be measured then it can't be said to clearly exist.

Imagine a cellular automata where particles have lots of "slots" that could be used for moving or interacting. As the particle speeds up and more slots are used for moving, there are fewer slots for the kind of interaction change that we use to measure time. At the highest speed, with all possible slots used for motion, the particle would experience no change, which is indistinguishable from no time passing.

Does that sound familiar to anything? It's certainly possible that light being a speed limit, time dilation, relativity, and so on are in some way actually describing change rather than time.

if running without swap and there exists any ram which is accessed less commonly than the next-most-commonly-accessed area of disk currently not in cache, the memory utilization is suboptimal.

Memory that is swapped out is a small write operation, which generally is much more resource and wear intensive than a read; a program memory page and disk cache page are not equivalent.

Additionally, the swapped out program memory may be required again and cause an unpredictable delay in program operation; when a user has to wait for a menu to open while it is swapped back in that is suboptimal use of memory.

A modern operating system should have compressed memory rather than swap. Take the pages that would be swapped out for being rarely accessed, if they compress well then free the page and store it in an area for compressed pages. This will get most of the expanded cache benefit from swap without delays, wear, or possibility of the system grinding to a halt.

The tweet's 17 Mb/s is UDP down from satellite, so no ack replies from the phone, and 15% packet loss.

So it really doesn't say anything about upload speed.

because of how competition over mining rewards works, [bitcoin] has the characteristic of consuming more and more energy the more it succeeds.

New bitcoin from mining is halved every ~4 years, so every four years miners can afford to spend only half as much electricity to mine from that revenue.

As revenue from new bitcoins tapers off the work expended will self limit to the value of transactions. If you're charged 1% to include your transaction the value of energy used to mine a block will eventually not exceed the fee for including those transactions.

So it doesn't have the characteristic of consuming more and more energy and is self-limiting in how much energy is used. The bitcoin energy problem will take care of itself in time.

There's probably a checksum in the URL so that typos can be detected without actually trying to access the video.

If you don't know how the checksum is created you can still try all values of it for one sample of the actual ID space.

Could be that dividing by zero is every number so it's 2 and it's also 3.

Or in the blog terms, the inverse of multiplying by nothing is dividing by everything.

The point is that it's not so easy to narrowly construct a legal contract that covers the manufacturers from liability.

Don't you think Mozilla's message would be much stronger if their privacy guide had an example of what the legal agreement should look like? I didn't see anything like this, maybe I missed it. Clearly manufacturers have gone overboard in some cases, but I don't believe it's that easy to make you guys happy.

There are lawyers in the audience here, how about post some legal contract that protects manufacturers from a passenger pressing the OnStar button while the driver is in the gas station bathroom and being liable for anything resulting from that, and every other possible liability from OnStar. I'll take my -4 and your lack of constructive counterargument as the answer I know it is.