HN user
I agree. As posted here, out of context, it sounds silly. But in context:
"For those in the bottom quintile, household income in inflation-adjusted dollars has dropped sharply, from $13,787 in 2000 to $11,651 in 2013. According to the Census Bureau, 64 million Americans currently live in the bottom quintile."
Seems like a perfectly reasonable statement.
I like the idea; it makes a lot of sense. In practice though, there are a LOT of times that it's much, much faster to communicate verbally. I feel like trying to really stick to this remote-first style might be more difficult/frustrating than it sounds.
My understanding from my research into OAUTH2 is that most of the vulnerabilities in it are only issues in a naive implementation. They can be made secure, but it's not easy and you have to know to do it in the first place.
Doesn't OpenID Connect address those issues? I know that's what Google is using now.
I tried out google glass last fall and this matches my experience of it. It really doesn't overlay info as part of your normal view, which for me removes the AR designation. It does place information in a place that doesn't require you to move your head or look down, which is I guess where the "heads up" description comes in...but it still requires you to divert your attention, like looking at a rear-view mirror in a car. Sure, you can still see things in front of you in your peripheral vision, but that still seems less integrated than I would associate with the term HUD.
If someone is completely terrified of even attempting a free throw, then there's no sense in worrying whether they sink the shot. Until that terror is overcome, the fact that they try at all is a success.
theaigames.com does this by running the game engine and bots as console apps and communicating by sending simple commands through their input and output streams. They generally provide some "starter bots" for a couple languages, in which the message parsing is already handled for you, but they accept bots in any language.
I'm more interested in how it works than to actually use it. I'm assuming it wouldn't be submitted here if it didn't work. Any details?
I saw a good TED talk[1] a while ago about this topic, and the speaker made the interesting point that people use the word happiness to mean different things. You can ask someone how happy they are feeling at a given moment, or you can ask them how happy they are with their life in general. And we evaluate those two feelings in very different ways.
He mentions at one point that studies about how people feel in the moment were very correlated with money, but only up to the point that they didn't need to worry about it anymore. After that, it had little bearing on their experiential happiness. But when asked how happy they were with their lives, the more money, the better, with no limit. Which seems to me more like pride in an achievement.
I wonder if the happiness that wasn't "your own" was because part of you was happy when you thought about where you were in life, but you were also aware it wasn't really improving your day-to-day experience. Kind of a cognitive dissonance between the two ways you were evaluating your happiness.
I don't know, you think that's even close?
[1] http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_exper...
Oh, got it. Didn't realize "in the browser" specifically meant javascript.
We've played this off and on at the office for the last couple years: http://www.quakelive.com
The whole point of their platform is that it's not controlled by any central authority and is resistant to censorship, control, breaches of privacy, etc. The fact that even some of the most horrific and undesirable content, that which people most adamantly wish to censor, CAN'T be censored, is a strong proof that their network works.
All they need to do to is say, "Censoring this is not possible", as they seem to be doing, and that promotes their software. They don't need to talk about, approve of, or even be aware of the horrific things that ISIS does. It's enough to know that people really, really don't like what they're posting.
On the other hand, by actively attempting to censor the content, as Diaspora also seems to be doing, they're also sending the message that they don't actually truly believe in openness as a value, deep down, even though they designed their software to provide it. That actually hurts them a bit in the long run, I think.
Weird. I wonder if this is primarily a problem in larger, more congested cities where people tend to drive more aggressively. I live in a smaller city where we've had these a very long time, and they don't seem to inspire the kind of behavior they're talking about here. But driving here is also significantly less aggressive than somewhere like, say, Chicago.
So, it's just a type of cheese? Is it special somehow? Or is it just really tasty cheese?
Yeah, at least in my part of the US, that's very true. The roads do curve a bit of course, but they're straight enough that you drive 55 - 80 mph (88 - 130 kph) for almost the whole trip. And a lot of the time, there are at least two lanes to pick from -- common courtesy is that slower cars stay in the right lane so that faster drivers can pass them.
I'm curious when we'll start seeing people dressing like this:
Because it looks so much cooler. And you never have to worry about bumpy roads or rocks or any of that ever again. You can go over water like it's nothing! It's something that seems amazing but not completely impossible.
When people romanticize this idea, they're never thinking about efficiency or practicality. Only how cool it seems.
Video phone calls are the same thing. As someone else pointed out here, the idea of it seems really cool and amazing. But we've had that ability now for years, and it turns out: it's actually less convenient and efficient than just sending a simple little text message. So it doesn't get used a lot.
I interpreted it as the latter, and I actually really like it. Since this whole thing started, there's been a lot of debate about whether he's a patriot or a traitor. Without even reading the article, I think that headline is the clearest, boldest statement the NYT could make about where they fall on that question.
Ironically, after seeing the trailer, that poster, and even the comment above with the spoiler alert, your comment right here is the thing that just made me think, "Ohhh, the kids in the movie are fighting a war WITHOUT EVEN REALIZING IT?"
So, you know, whatever, but yeah I think it's a spoiler.
Even the phrase "you were lied to" is bound to make some people defensive. People generally feel embarrassed when they've been conned or deceived, like it's a personal failing on their own part, and that statement is just bluntly calling them out for being a fool.
It's pretty tricky to point these things out without offending anyone.
That's a fair point. Personally, though, I see biometric data collection as an inevitable, uncontrollable future, so I figure the solution to it is going to have to be a social one. Why spend all my time being afraid of people collecting it? It's how they use it that I care about.
I suppose it would be similar to the existing scenario: the person already playing a game or watching TV gets pissed off at the person changing the channel or pausing their game. I can totally see this with kids and their siblings, but is this really a common issue between spouses? Not that I have tons of faith in people, but I would really imagine most adults were above that.
I think you're right that it's more complicated than just assuming every hour of your life is worth whatever your day job pays you per hour. The point in the article was that what you do in your non-work time still has an affect on your work, and that's where the opportunity cost comes in. If mowing the lawn is stressing you out, then you're going to perform worse at your job and potentially impact your career in the long term. Or if you could instead be researching or practicing something that would make you a little bit better at your job, then you're missing out on potential future earnings as well.
Of course, the question then is how do you value that time? I don't think there's any objective answer to that, but it's probably more than zero.
EDIT: Of course, I just re-read your comment and see this is basically what you just said. I'll admit I got distracted and misunderstood your point the first time I read it.
I've seen a few that looked a lot like this actually. For example:
http://www.amazon.com/ROBOTIC-3-Channel-Flying-Ball-Helicopt...
The main difference in the research here just seems to be the separation between the outer ball and the stabilized machinery inside it.
Test your geiger counter, it sounds like. I think that's about it.
Weird. Why is there a three year limit anyway? If the guy is standing in front of you and it's pretty clear he's not dead, why insist that he's dead?
I think it would be the opposite effect actually. Sleeping less, according to the article, seems to increase inflammatory and immune system responses, which are what cause allergies. So sleeping more, presumably, may decrease a person's allergic reactions.
Of course, this whole article is based on a really small sample size...I would take it more as a suggestion than a solid scientific result.
You're basically correct about his principles, but I feel like your post makes it sound like Schneier's just trying to save money and doesn't care about the actual lives involved.
I think an important point is that it is literally impossible to prevent all crime. Not only is it impossible, but as you try harder and harder to prevent it, you get diminishing returns and an increase in false positives (which we also want to avoid). So yeah, there has to be a tradeoff. If you can't ever get the number of deaths down to zero, then you have to decide, how low is close enough and how much are you willing to sacrifice to get there?
Right now, we're sacrificing a crap ton, and it's really not clear that it's gaining us all that much.
I'm not convinced the the problem you're concerned about actually exists. I just donated to two people, and one of my criteria for deciding who (since it was mostly arbitrary) was "who looks like they need it most?" At least in my mind, the less 'photogenic' they are, the more they seem like they could use some help.
As an American in a relatively small Midwestern city, I think that's pretty much it.
I'm interested in what happens elsewhere in the world, but it feels impossibly far away, and ultimately it doesn't affect me here (at least not directly). Whenever I've checked, a roundtrip ticket anywhere out of the country has cost about $2000 and it takes a full day to get there. Then you're jet lagged. So, short vacations are out of the question. But it also takes me a full year of work to earn just 2 weeks vacation time, assuming I don't use any for special occasions. I didn't even bother getting a passport until two years ago, and I still haven't used it.
So yeah, even if an American desperately wants to travel somewhere out of the country, it's expensive and vacation time is scarce. So most never will. And at that point, knowing a list of English cities is purely trivia.
Interesting. At first glance, this feels wrong, but thinking about it more, the only significant issue I really have with it is that it seems strange for the DEA to be allowed to issue its own warrants.