HN user
You're going to have give us
To be fair, only some of "us" are unwilling to read a two-page document to be informed about a topic under discussion. The words you're looking for are "Defendant is not a resident of this state and is a foreign corporation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verisign
(Under "Controversies".)
In March 2012, the U.S. government declared that it has the right to seize domains ending in .com, .net, .cc, .tv, .name, and .org if the companies administering the domains are based in the U.S. The U.S. government can seize the domains ending in .com, .net, .cc, .tv, and .name by serving a court-order on Verisign, which manages those domains.
Where else would it start if not "you're not allowed to say this word because I don't like it"? Personally, I don't see why that word being banned gets a free pass. Would this proverbial slope start with speech at all? I can't imagine why one would accept one word being banned, then stand up to decry another being banned. What word would that be? Why is it more worthy than any other word?
Historically, it doesn't seem like much of a fallacy to say speech controls become more stringent after being introduced. Indeed, historically, one could remove the word "speech" and still be correct. The control doesn't go away in most cases until power changes hands, and even then it's often meeting the new boss, same as the old boss.
make the users fall into a pit of success
I don't have anything else to add but I thought this was a wonderfully evocative phrase.
To add to this, I've read accounts that US Presidents suddenly needed to be charismatic to compete meaningfully after the debates started being televised. So even being charming had not always helped one win public office.
I recall a story about Calvin Coolidge, who had earned the nicname "Cool Cal" for his standoffish attitude, about a dinner party he attended. Another guest bet him they could get him to say three words to them by the time the party was over. He didn't say anything in response, then found them at the end of the party and said, "You lose."
You went from recording license plates on public roads to logging people in public places.
This is kind of a misconception about the technology; there is not really much distinction between these things. Firstly, they are cameras which have no means of differentiating between a license plate or a dog or a tree. In addition to that, they are (presumably linux) computers that have software to find license plates in the images the cameras take, both of which (license plates and images) are stored on Flock's servers. That's how the "recording license plates on public roads" bit works.
The point is that the images can still be ran through creepy software written by creepy people to find children to get to "logging people in public places". And let's say, to put it mildly, it does not fill one with confidence to research the security in practice of Flock's image data.
Trying to teach people to garden.
Ketchup is vinegar-based. I don't think it makes much of a difference.
He doesn't. I think you misread this passage (it's the only thing that comes close):
When discussing how he would distance himself from racist groups, Mr Schnatter said that Colonel Sanders, the founder of KFC, had never faced criticism for using the N-word, Forbes reported.
Or it hits a school instead.
The idea of the conspiracy theorist is a hyperbole fabricated in the public mind by the "almost certain" activity of "groups of people trying to manipulate situations and lie to the public for their own gain". It's not that a reasonably plausible theory being discussed will logically lend credence to less plausible and unrelated ones, it's that the public is conditioned to believe that it does. That way, public discussion of any conspiracy in theory is verboten by the "conspiracy theory" thought-stopper, regardless of the theory's plausibility. Because, as you say yourself, it makes it easier for conspiracy in practice to go unnoticed in the public sphere. From a Bayesian perspective, the problem is less likely caused by the crazy people who have a poor grasp on reality than the people who not only have a reason to emphasize the crazy people (because it de-emphasizes themselves), but also the means.
the current document is instead to say
> If you are in a setting where you REALLY want to use pure ML-KEM (though we explicitly recommend you do not do it), this is the standard you would implement against.
Ah! This corroborates a point I made in another comment:
Especially given the "not recommended to implement" part of it; something (CNSA2) tells me that this "not recommended" will be widely disregarded in favor of "but it's a standard" to the point that an explicitly-known-to-be-weaker implementation becomes one of the, if not the, most deployed implementation in practice. Which is also the NSA's MO.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48773930
The "setting where you REALLY want to use pure ML-KEM" is when you are are a US government contractor and therefore required by your contract to follow the NSA's recommendations (CNSA2). Given the discussion, it seems a bit dishonest not to mention that part, no?
Funny thing about conspiracy "theory" is that a lot of the time the theory turns out to be true. In my view, the impulse to dismiss any suggestion of clandestine group activity (except if it's China's government, or Russia's, or Iran's, or...) as a "theory" is most likely the result of a psychological operation.
The Dale Gribbles of the world are not a particularly common character to meet in real life but that's the image evoked by "conspiracy theorist" no matter who the pejorative is aimed at, no matter the arguments they make nor the evidence they present. "Conspiracy theorist" is a thought-stopping, ad hominem cliché, with no place in serious discussion, yet it is widely used in exactly that; the possibility of conspiracy itself is what is eschewed in such discussions.
This (also not unbiased) comment doesn't provide any substantive arguments other than a character attack on DJB. You'd also be hard-pressed to find an appeal to authority in this article. Lastly, I'm pretty sure the comment I'm replying to is at least partially LLM-generated.
Ironically, it's the incredibly weak pro-standardization arguments that appear to be the most convincing evidence that the proposed standard is actually an instance of NSA meddling.
It is instead about "if you're going to use pure ML-kem (and we explicitly recommend not doing so), here is how to do it in a standardized way".
This makes the push for the standard far more suspicious. Why is it so important for this to be a standard if it is explicitly not recommended to implement at the time of standardization? The typical benefits of a standard would be to avoid disparate implementations, which seems fine for something that isn't recommended to implement.
On the other hand, lots of folks from the NSA coming out (covertly, in this hypothetical context) in support of a weak standard with dubious arguments is... the NSA's modus operandi. Additionally, the fact that the standard is being proposed so US government contractors can checks notes meet the NSA's recommendations(!!) is another reason to suspect the NSA's involvement (it seems weird I even have to write that). Especially given the "not recommended to implement" part of it; something (CNSA2) tells me that this "not recommended" will be widely disregarded in favor of "but it's a standard" to the point that an explicitly-known-to-be-weaker implementation becomes one of the, if not the, most deployed implementation in practice. Which is also the NSA's MO.
Edit:
Now that I think about it, recommendations like CNSA2 also support the NSA's spying capabilities. A single standard (or small set of standards) is easier to crack and exploit than many bespoke implementations. Granted, that's a bit of a weak argument since many bespoke implementations are likely to have their own vulnerabilities. The reason the NSA might still prefer standards be used is that a bespoke implementation will more likely have a bespoke exploit, meaning they can't use already-developed exploits and will have to spend time making one.
Because journalists see conspiracy everywhere.
To be fair, journalists also seem to miss even when there is an obvious conspiracy. They are a varied bunch.
This point is moot, though. The claim either implicitly includes the task under discussion or it's a non sequitur.
Well, sort of. That anthropomorphizes them and allows the sociopaths running the corporations to pawn the responsibility of their decisions to the corporation, which is actually a legal fiction that is incapable of independent thought or expression.
It's synthetic even when it doesn't feel so. If an article features a product of any kind, no matter if it's brand-specific or not, and the article isn't a blog post, then it's a pretty safe bet it's a paid advertisement. It's hard not to notice once you start seeing it.
This one is particularly on the nose about Europeans not buying enough air conditioners, though. What with the normative headline phrasing that calls out Europeans specifically (who are infamous for their stubbornness against American consumerism!). I can usually appreciate the subtlety in these articles[0], but this one's about as subtle as a brick to the face.
This is missing the forest for the trees. You'd want them represented accurately at a local level along reasonable district lines, rather than intentionally being misrepresented with district lines so tortured that the shapes they make are said to resemble a lizard. Maybe that's hard but I suspect it gets a lot easier once the bad-faith decision-makers are removed from their decision-making power. In the context you present, "competetive districts" means precisely the same thing as "representative outcomes".
Because they obviously tried to make it any insult by attacking the person they discussed with.
It is not an insult to observe another's behavior and commment on it. What you've pulled out from their comment and called an insult reads as an admonishment. It is no worse than saying "you misunderstand the topic and seem angry based on your own misunderstanding". Bear in mind, I am not saying that is an insult, either, but another admonishment. Rather, you appear to be using this accusation as a tactic to discredit people who are not agreeing with you with you.
Who said it wasn't about Palestine? Who even thinks that?
These questions are how a reader can be sure you are not discussing in good faith. I was referring to this commment, which was posted by you: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48535128>. The child comment of that one which you took as an insult appears to be expressing the commenter's exasperation at your discussion style, seeing it seems to be conducted in bad faith.
So, you think Palestine is irrelevant to the discussion of ... rolling the dice ... the Israel-Palestine conflict
I don't believe I wrote anything to that effect but you're welcome to correct the record, I suppose.
Separately, I'm noticing you told on yourself in the comment I initially replied to, the behavior observable in your comments in this thread: "So, somehow my comment angered you that you had to resort to the tactics of undermining the other side." As you accuse, you've been trying to undermine the arguments made by others rather than addressing the substantive points they raise.
They were expressing a normative statement about an observation they made; that you took it as an insult is your problem. You brought up Palestine, then said this discussion isn't about Palestine. Indeed, if you think something is not relevant to the discussion, you should not bring it up in a given discussion.
You've got it backward. The notion that criminals are simply ordinary people who find themselves in certain circumstances is the moralistic concept.
Two things can be true at once. My point was about the quote I pulled. Other perspectives on the topic are a separate matter.
But science shows that criminals are literally wired differently. For example, the brains of youth homicide offenders are different than those of non-offenders.
Regardless, science doesn't show how these differences form; this phrasing smuggles a nature over nurture perspective as a fact: "more likely to simply be bad people rather than people who happened to be in bad circumstances" (as well as "science shows that criminals are literally wired differently" and "the point is that youth who commit serious crimes are disproportionately likely to be the ones who commit crimes due to factors intrinsic to the individual"). My point is that the statements I quoted are not strictly true, they are what the author expects to be true; I suppose there may be some reason other than morals for said expectation but, seeing as you didn't deny my framing, instead reversing it, I suspect it is accurate.
People who start committing crime earlier are more likely to simply be bad people rather than people who happened to be in bad circumstances.
This is an unreasonable claim without the evidence actually being provided. It reads more as the conclusion you expect to see when you pull up a given study. Especially "simply be bad people" is not a particularly scientific phrase, and is a particularly moralistic one.
This comment made me think of pencil sharpening speedruns in the context of "preservation". Had a good chuckle. Quite a different mindset: the point is to sharpen a pencil (or 10) as fast as possible.
https://www.speedrun.com/pencil?h=In_Real_Life-Drillless-10_...
(Not to mention hardware preservation is separate from software preservation and hardware preservation is rarely referring to pencils.)
It's not silly to have issues with something.
Note this is not what OP called silly. It's possible to take legitimate issue with something, then act silly about it. People are free to their opinions but not necessarily to (as an extreme example) write their opinions on the wall with their excrement. Regardless of any veracity behind the opinion, some decorum is expected in its expression. (I guess unless one is explicitly doing away with decorum but that's when violence takes its place.)
I assume they are referring to an incident where their captcha page was updated to perform web requests from the client machine to a particular blog because the author had been trying to uncover their identity. You can search "archive.today ddos" for reporting on it.
Those people did not lose their individual rights; they are still free to donate using their money. Corporations are not people even if they are made up of people.
The people making up the corporation can all vote as individuals and the corporation itself has no vote. This is no different.
I didn't say it happened, I asked why you think it matters that the bribe wasn't given by someone involved in the case.
It is possible that a bribe was given by someone who is not party to the case and the comment I replied to was explaining that someone who is not party to the case was not giving a bribe, by virtue of the fact they weren't party to the case. I was hoping you could explain your perspective in the context I described but it seems I stumped you, hence the distraction about froyo and no substance in the reply.
I don't know how you get from that to "he's framing AI as some new and fascinating form of consciousness".
Of course you're entitled to your perspective but it seems wrong to say OP ignored what they quoted. They just had an interpretation of it that's different from yours.
For what it's worth, I also see that in Olah's words, largely because it's AI hype from someone who would be a fool not to be an AI hype man. I can't really imagine what else he could be implying. Especially using the word "mysterious", yes, it appears to be an attempt at raising AI above the application of statistics we know it to be; there's little mystery in how it works, and all that's at runtime.