HN user
I never said being old is an excuse to spoil. My comment was solely in response to OP's comment, which specifically mentioned the fact that this is a thread about Nethack 5.0.0. The fact that we are in a thread about Nethack 5.0.0 is not relevant to the particular spoiler at hand.
Nethack is what you get when you take a team of developers and have them focus on gameplay to the exclusion of all else. No graphics, music, marketing, apps, action sequences, or profit motive. Just pure gameplay, with a richness of interactions and possibilities unmatched by more polished modern games. Nethack is so well balanced that, for most players, being gifted the three most powerful items in the game from the start barely affects your winning chances.
AI researchers think NetHack is interesting [1, 2]. You should too!
[1] https://proceedings.mlr.press/v176/hambro22a/hambro22a.pdf
OP is talking about a several decade old version of nethack, not nethack 5.0.0.
Demand? Excuse me? There is no demand. He is free to disclose or not, his choice. I am then free to believe him or not, my choice.
If privacy were such a big concern, then why did he release the messages (without metadata) in the first place? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to keep the messages completely private?
You have it backwards. The fact that he doesn't release the metadata is interesting. If he had released the metadata, it would be wholly uninteresting.
I don't think the emails exist. What was published in court records, lacking metadata, could easily be forged. The metadata is harder to forge. Not impossible, but harder, especially long after the fact.
The refusal to provide email metadata is the most damning evidence. Adam Back clearly has the emails; he is the one who provided them in the first place during the previous court case. Everyone knows he has the emails. If Adam Back and Satoshi are two different people, the metadata should be exculpatory, and easy to share. There's literally no reason whatsoever to hide the metadata unless he is the one.
In a court of law, self-disclosure of inculpatory information cannot be compelled, so this analysis does not pass muster in a court of law. The court of public opinion, however, is quite different.
All they had to do was exempt free and open source software from the requirements, which are unworkable in the FOSS context anyway, and they would have gotten away scot-free with their tech company pillow fight.
But no, they had to let collateral damage frag the free software crowd, which is inconsequential to their aims anyway, but 100% a huge concern for those suffering the collateral damage.
Goalposts are the entire problem. I read the original article ... Holy wow, undefined goalposts!
That's what OP said. Netflix and its customers have opposing interests. The customers want to use VPNs, whereas Netflix doesn't want to allow VPNs. The customers don't care about following anti-piracy laws, whereas Netflix wants to enforce them.
The situation is the opposite for age verification laws. In this case, both porn sites and their customers have aligned interests. Both sides want to allow VPNs. Both sides want to abolish age verification laws, and if that is not possible, to circumvent them.
Nothing is wrong with WebKit, but it's not really a separate rendering engine, and the discussion is about separate rendering engines. Chromium's heritage derives from WebKit.
Update, with correct paper: https://nattothoughts.substack.com/p/chinas-quantum-tunnelin...
These assumptions are not at all unreasonable. We are not talking about a tiny minority. More than half of Americans have a garage. Utilities aren't concerned about individual households; they're concerned about average behavior. I'm just guessing here, but my guess is that if even (say) 20% of households do what I do, that alone probably makes it worth it.
I drive about 15000 km per year, almost exactly the Canadian average. There are a lot of potential households fitting this profile.
(If you're needing to charge your EV during the day, then the higher daytime home electricity rate is irrelevant. My EV has a 300 mile range, which is typical. I cannot think of any scenario where I simultaneously 1) drive 300 miles in a single day, and 2) somehow also remain close enough to home to charge at home, so that the daytime home electricity rate matters, and 3) can't wait until the night to charge.)
I'm in Ontario. 90% of my electricity usage consists of charging my electric car. The ultra-low overnight rate of 2.8 cents per kWh, introduced during the past year, is a big win for EV owners. This rate is seven times cheaper than the cheapest rate mentioned in the article, and ten times cheaper than the peak rate in Ontario. It is very, very easy to schedule your car to charge during overnight hours if you have a home with a garage. You better believe that smart pricing has shifted when I charge my car! I think this kind of benefit will become more pronounced as more people shift to electric vehicles. People won't shift demand for small appliances, but when 90% of your usage is made up of one single thing that is easy to shift, you'll get some returns.
In the case of the United States, it's not appropriate to equate the country with the current regime, since the party in power (Democrat / Republican) changes every few years, and although you may disagree, I do not view the two parties as equivalent or as forming one party.
In the case of Russia, it is completely appropriate to refer to the regime by country name, since Putin has been in power forever.
Anyway, this is a useless tangent. It should by now be clear to you and anyone else reading what I mean, even if it was not initially clear.
You're deeply misreading the English language. When I say "I need my phone" I am obviously not claiming that my phone is necessary for basic survival. There are different levels of need, and there exists a level where Russia (believes it) needs Crimea.
You are wrong. I am not defending Russia's actions. I am explaining Russia's actions. Big difference.
Putin is a greedy son of a bitch. This is not a defense. It is an explanation.
Gas isn't easily shippable like oil. Most of Russia's gas is in Siberia, inaccessible for purposes of shipping to Europe. Ukraine holds the only other gas reserves in Europe other than Russia. Gas supply is inelastic, meaning that even minor competition can lead to a big drop in prices. So yes, Russia "needs" to keep Ukraine out of the European gas market.
To the contrary, Russia does need Crimea, although military naval ports is not the main reason why. Crimean waters contain huge natural gas and oil deposits. If Ukraine were left to develop Crimea unhindered, it would overturn Russia's gas monopoly in Europe, which is practically their only source of cash. The same motive lies behind Russia's interference in Eastern Ukraine -- therein lies the rest of Ukraine's fossil fuel resources.
Russia does not actually need to extract oil and gas from Crimea, although it would be a nice bonus for them if they could. The main imperative is to prevent Ukraine from having it.
Once Russia captured Crimea, the "land corridor" to Crimea became a necessary next domino. Crimea's only source of fresh water is overland via Ukraine. Obviously the first thing Ukraine did when Russia annexed Crimea was turn off the taps. (Would you keep sending freshwater into enemy territory?) In order to maintain power in Crimea in the long run, it is necessary for Russia to invade enough of Ukraine to take over the freshwater canals that supply Crimea.
Study some geography. The US is blessed with wide open coastal access to, not one, but two oceans, with innumerable natural harbors on each coast (Chesapeake Bay, the San Francisco Bay Area, Puget Sound, Port of NY&NJ, Port of Los Angeles, etc. etc. etc.). The US has more and better natural harbors than all of Africa. We tend to take this for granted, and forget that other countries are severely limited in comparison. These limitations are exploitable.
Russia needs Crimea because without it they have very limited access to the Black Sea, and by extension the Mediterranean and the Atlantic; their other coasts, on the Baltic and in East Asia, are not adequate substitutes. The Baltic ports in particular tend to freeze in the winter -- not good if you have global superpower aspirations.
In the case of Taiwan, look at a map of China. Although China is comparable in land mass to the US, their sea access is limited to an eastern coast enclosed almost entirely by the South China Sea / East China Sea. Look at all the countries on the other side of the Chinese coast: Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Japan, South Korea, and of course Taiwan. The US has military and naval bases in most of them. In the case of Philippines, Japan, and South Korea, the US has a LOT of naval bases, notably in Okinawa, halfway between Japan and Taiwan. This is no accident. In the event of conflict, the US could easily blockade China. A quick glance at the map shows how critical Taiwan is to this calculation. If the US controls Taiwan, it owns a huge island (a.k.a. unsinkable aircraft carrier) staring down the middle of the Chinese coast. If China owns Taiwan, the east coast of Taiwan has direct access to the rest of the Pacific.
US geography is so OP that we don't realize how bad other countries have it.
(By the way, the other countries mentioned are also geographically strategic assets. Kuwait has 10 times more coastline than Iraq. Without Kuwait, Iraq has only a few ports available to ship out their oil, and no other ocean access anywhere. Israel also controls a huge chunk of the Middle East's Mediterranean coastline.)
Taiwan is also not a large landmass. Neither is Crimea, or Kuwait. It doesn't take large land area for a location to be strategically important.
You seem to be confusing "OpenSSH" with "OpenSSH Portable Release". As explained here: https://www.openssh.com/portable.html
Normal OpenSSH development produces a very small, secure, and easy to maintain version for the OpenBSD project. The OpenSSH Portability Team takes that pure version and adds portability code so that OpenSSH can run on many other operating systems.
Unless you actually run OpenBSD, what you think is "OpenSSH" is in fact "OpenSSH Portable Release". These are very different things.
The employee #8 badge, which we know is real, is typed in a completely different font from the #10 badge, has different dimensions, different photo dimensions, and the photos were clearly taken with dramatically different cameras and lighting. None of these differences makes any sense if the #10 badge (supposedly made within a week of the #8 badge) is real.
SpaceX deliberately launches satellites into orbits which are too low to sustain on their own. Once the satellites run out of propellant, which happens after a few years of normal operation, they cannot remain in orbit indefinitely and eventually burn up in the atmosphere.
On very rare occasions, a launch malfunctions in such a way that the satellites end up in unintended orbits that do turn into long-term junk, but this is not the norm.
If it's just a matter of 5% inefficiency, I have to think that there must exist some possible mechanism for capturing the economic benefits of satellite internet (with a tax, perhaps) and redirecting a portion to astronomy to increase budgets there by 5% (or more) so that everybody wins.
Space telescopes cost billions of dollars not because of launch costs but because of all the dedicated engineering required to fit the telescope into the size and weight restrictions required for launch. In the past we've always been willing to go to extreme lengths to meet launch requirements (hand-made parts with exotic materials, folding mirrors with intricate deployment procedures, etc.).
If we instead design something to be mass-produced at a cost more commensurate with that of a Falcon 9 launch, then it may well be much better than Hubble in terms of bang for the buck, but it won't be as capable as Hubble in absolute terms. Even so, although Falcon 9 is very cost effective per unit weight compared to past rockets, it does not have a large payload volume compared to launch vehicles used for previous large space telescopes, and volume is usually what you need for space telescopes (because big mirrors are constrained by volume, not weight).
Once Starship becomes fully operational it will completely transform the landscape because it is not only low cost but the interior payload bay volume is much larger than existing rockets in all dimensions.
Going up to n is surely excessive. You need a version of the Riemann hypothesis to get any sort of logarithmic bound, but a sqrt(n) bound can be achieved using unconditional Polya-Vinogradov type inequalities. (A successful Miller-Rabin test corresponds to a nontrivial value of a Dirichlet character, and Polya-Vinogradov ensures that the least such value cannot exceed sqrt(n) * ln(n), unconditionally without the need for any Riemann hypothesis.)
A reference for this material is "Explicit bounds for primality testing and related problems" by Eric Bach, Math. Comp. 55 (191), July 1990, pp. 355-380.
Neither gnome-terminal nor bash link against readline. I'm pretty sure they just copied the feature; it's not that they use readline in any way.
There's lots of other programs that use C-q for quoting, for example emacs, and readline probably copied it from there in the first place.
When pasting text, it's a different code path than quoting. The terminal surely knows when text is being pasted. If nothing else, a simple heuristic based on typing speed is enough to tell apart typing and pasting.
You can do this without pasting. Ctrl-Q Ctrl-J at the bash prompt inserts a newline into the command line without executing it. This is useful for multiline scripting commands.
Recent gnome-terminal handles these much more safely. If you paste in a newline, whether from primary or clipboard, the terminal puts a newline into your command, but doesn't press enter for you.