HN user
I just got an email notification and while I can understand that they're doing this (all those GB must add up to a significant cost), the relatively short notice seems unnecessary.
Your full name does not appear at all in the human readable text of your website...
Even having a publisher doesn't address the underlying issue: There are simply too many 'indie' games. Relatively simple high-concept low-fidelity retro games don't have a huge audience and that audience is getting swamped with a torrent of games of varying quality.
Knapsack is only about weight, while this is about (most likely) packing 3D cuboids. But that problem is NP-hard, too ;)
But what percentage of systems is actually ONLY implementable using a block-chain-based cryptocurrency?
I love decentralisation as much as the next guy but it's not a feature. Apart from the obvious authority-circumvention (both positive and negative), what killer features do these systems have?
All the interesting projects I've seen for ethereum rely on Intel SGX to bring ground truth about the real world onto the chain.
Clicking yes might not even be necessary: I recently went to a laywer-oriented event (IANAL) that discussed the GDPR and it had a cheerful talk about "Alternatives to Consent"
The talk listed all the possible ways the law allows you to store/manipulate user data without requiring explicit consent... There are a shocking number and iirc they apply basically whenever you have a direct consumer relationship with some company.
This xkcd came to my mind when I read that: https://xkcd.com/1019/
It's sobering to think about how easy it must be (for a sufficiently funded organisation) to effectively determine "public discourse" on a large number of topics.
Then again, never underestimate just how willing people are (all on their own) to grab their virtual pitchforks without much consideration.
I'm sorry to say this but your country uses an outdated, deprecated implementation of Democracy. While we respect it greatly for its historical value as one of the first stable implementations, it is no longer recommended for production environments due to its many known critical bugs, most famously the first-past-the-post issue in its election algorithm.
Instead we'd recommend one of the European-republic forks (E.g. Germany's federalism 2.0) or, if you're feeling adventurous, one of the smaller forks like 'Direct Democracy' or the nordic-style forks.
Please note that those newer implementations have significantly higher system requirements, usually calling for a well educated population that is willing to debate and compromise rationally.
That's a great idea! Not only does it just 'feel right', it also prevents some of the legal mess people were seeing with effectively moonlighting for the hiring company.
As a minor, your parents decided for you, but once you're 18 nothing is stopping you from either trying to re-negotiate the contract (i.e. become politically active) or trying to find a better deal (emigrate). You can also decide to simply unilaterally break the contract (become a criminal) and in practice you could even live without such a contract in a variety of vast areas that are largely uninhabited.
You're not being compelled to accept this contract, but it's such a good deal that few people decide otherwise.
What's the point behind Gulden, though? Why do I need a cryptocurrency for anything they're doing? Do they allow anonymous gulden -> IBAN transfers? If yes, that'd be a unique feature but also one that has obvious potential for misuse and might not go down well with financial institutions and regulators.
That's a great concept: The fact that a list of {name, email, mobilephone number} allows you to effectively re-create your own network wherever you want is pretty cool.
I read the open/closed in the article as less about that and more about the fact that e.g. I can't push a twitter post to Facebook without Facebook specifically putting that function into Facebook. I also can't combine the comment streams from Twitter and Facebook. That's the kind of openness that I thought the article was referencing.
For some reason I get a horizontal scrollbar - there's a bit of white background to the right that doesn't seem like it's supposed to be there.
I know you're just using it as an off-hand metaphor but fire is actually one of the most useful tools in preventing and fighting large fires (e.g. forest fires).
It's just an if, not an iff ;)
Short answer: They didn't survive. IIRC a significant portion of all humans born in past centuries simply died as infants/children, usually from things that are trivially preventable today with basic hygiene, good nutrition and antibiotics/vaccines.
Humanity as a species obviously survived because people simply had a lot of children to compensate the high mortality rates.
I think the long tail isn't an issue. We'll probably have dual stack equipment for the next few decades. What matters is getting the large websites on IPv6 so that people browsing on mobile (usually NAT64) or developing nations (usual CGNAT) can get a non-sucky web experience.
Heck, if all the sites on that page where green, mobile Internet would suddenly be a lot better since the carrier NAT boxes would have to deal with ~90% less traffic.
The big issue here are AWS/azure dragging their heels (and I assume some CDNs, too)
It makes sense that Google would be fully IPv6 enabled, after all they are the mobile-first company and IPv6 can make mobile connection experiences a lot better, especially during peak network usage times.
NAT. If your server is only available via IPv4 then the client (user) needs an IPv4 address. Sadly there are so few IPv4 addresses that virtually everybody has to share with at least some people/devices and go through NAT (your home/office router, or for countries where ISPs don't have large ip blocks, some large NAT style router at your ISP). NAT is a horrible hack and causes all sorts of issues (port forwarding being the most common issue).
If you make your server available on IPv6, too, then I can use my non-shared IPv6 address to communicate with you which means that the packets don't need to undergo NAT which means a less horrible, faster connection without messy port forwarding requirements.
Probably 'Deep Neural Network'
Isn't it more likely he has your mother in law's/your wife's/your phone number programmed into his phone and shared his contacts with Facebook?
It seems like that is the source of 99% of 'creepy' Facebook recommendations: Facebook doesn't realize that while 'has phone number' is a great indicator of 'knowing somebody' it has poor transitive properties.
That's not really very fast at all. Most cars can easily go faster than that, the only limits are the human drivers and their pesky problems with reacting quickly enough at high speeds. Sure, no car could go that fast in a city but I'd be surprised if people were going to be happy with large amounts of people flying over residential areas so your flying car might be grounded by regulations/etc inside cities anyway.
If you want to make the world smaller than the most cost effective solution might be to enforce a common standard for networked cars and ban human drivers from motorways.
Cars regularly go >125mph (at least on the few bits of German Autobahn that have no speed limits) and while that is an insanely stupid thing to do with human drivers and their awful reaction speeds + their inability to know the intention of other drivers, a 125mph highway could be achieved via networked computer driven cars (and excluding human driving,of course) with significantly less effort than it would take to make flying cars available to anybody but a select few.
If they can kill the competition they can then crank the prices back up and profit of this for years and years. It feels slightly 'evil' but it does make business sense, especially if they know they can outlast their competitors.
Yes, but those would be two assembly instructions each. The basic idea of using lea over 'movl $ebp, $eax; addl 0x80,$eax'ist that we can shave off a cycle because lea can be executed in a single cycle.
However I wonder how much any of this still matters in a time where CPUs have developed to include all sorts of complex optimizations.
There's a reason why Germany/Austria/Switzerland don't usually have state-indicating toggle switches and it's because toggle switches make no sense in multiway switching [0] systems where multiple switches control the same lightsource.
I'm not sure how common multiway switching is in the US, but it's certainly super common in Europe and I guess that's why we use non-state-indicating switches, even in circuits with a single switch, because so many circuits are controlled from multiple switches that there's no point in having them indicate state.
Google 'paperclip optimizer', it's a common keyword for discussions about AI and their objectives :)
I've always been somewhat confused by chrome apps. How do (did) they differentiate themselves from extensions? Even Google seemed unsure about that as Hangouts has been available as both an extension as well as an app for quite some time.
As a user I'm really glad to see this move, along with the move towards android apps on Chrome OS since I'm hoping it will unify the Google-driven ecosystem a bit more.
Countries that have a very high focus on the 'rehab' part of prison usually don't issue lifetime and certainly not multiple-lifetime sentences. Instead they tend to send people into mandated psychiatric care (in practice often life-long) or, if a person is 'sane' yet still very likely to cause damage to others than they are placed in 'preventive detention' which is still just 'being in prison' but does not carry any punitive notions and needs to be actively renewed every few years.
The companies and people that run the prisons and the prison phone systems are both very happy with a system where a) people spend a lot of time in jail and go back frequently and b) spend a lot of money on hyper-expensive phone calls since both of those things earn them very significant money.
The question should probably be: Why should any sane person in the prison industry be for it?
This just doesn't feel right to me. Firstly, what's a "Private Encrypted Browser" supposed to be? What's making it private? What's even being encrypted? There's a high density of buzzwords and a serious lack of explanation.
While it's not always fair to judge a book by its cover, statements like "Smart Incognito™ and Built In 256-bit Encryption" sure feel weird. Good security doesn't come from random trademarked buzzwords or providing a bit number without any context. Actually, those are major warning signs that the product is probably not nearly as secure as it pretends to be. The fact that this is not open-source just underlines that point nicely. Projects that are serious about privacy and security as their main goals always provide source code, not doing so is a sure sign that something other than privacy and security is the main goal.
The entire project seems very flashy but it just gives of an odd smell. The video,too, explains very little and leaves many more questions than it answers. All this seems to be is a somewhat convenient frontend for a proprietary vpn system which allows you to have multiple connections running and associate them to tabs. That's not bad but it's certainly not some world changing super-private thing and the fact that you're trying to present your proprietary VPN solution as your great gift to humanity just rubs me the wrong way.
It doesn't help that VPNs are basically pointless for anonymity since any browsing experience that's usable by normal people (e.g. executes javascript) can be trivially de-anonymised.