HN user

satellite2

1,242 karma
Posts6
Comments442
View on HN

You have a great build up for an argument but why this conclusion?

At some point who should be doing ethics? Lawyers? Computer scientists? (I'm not asking ironically, who really is well placed to make population level and extremely though questions like balancing the protection of the few against a global important health interest/gain?)

With the change to only five days of being publicly traded requirements, incentivising market makers to keep a high valuation becomes very cheap.

After five days the index funds have to buy at the last price making it final.

In other words even if the vast majority of the market believes it's worth much less, they can force a high price and force basically everyone to hold it via retirement funds.

Alternatively:

  enclave, err := secret.GetEnclave()
  // err contains whether the platform doesn't support it
  enclave.Do(f)

Of course. But what if the holding lives in a country that don't enforce this (or is too weak to). Then all the subsidiaries are really sovereign from the host country perspective.

It seems the solution is ages old. Don't have the holding incorporated in an empire...

I'm not sure about this.

If the job market is representative of this then we can see that as both sides uses it and are getting better it's becoming an arms race. Looking for a job two years ago using ChatGPT was the perfect timing but not any more. The current situation is more applications per position and thus longer decision time. The end result is that the duration of unemployment is getting longer.

I'm afraid the current situation, which as described in the article is favorable to customers, is not going to last and might even reverse.

Your meta-analysis is one degree too high. You were going to have the long tail anyway. It just shows there was an interest for the deviant.

Yes but the other interesting bit which is not clearly addressed is that increasing the garbage in to 100% does not result in absolute garbage out. So visibly there is still something to learn there.

there's a built-in assumption that no commercial entity would _want_ to use it under GPLv3 terms.

We also have a fairly strict no GPL dependency at work which I find surprising. Especially for a software like this one that you only use, never ship nor modify I don't understand the risks this license poses. It's like we went from a reasonable "be careful around it" to a "don't touch it with a 10 foot pole". And it's leaving me wondering if there is a more concerted effort to demonize this license

At least if you don't encrypt and those are jpeg it doesn't matter. I lost two discs at once with theWD debacle a few years back and couldn't recover anything as I encrypted the disk. Another drive that got bad, I easily recovered 90% of the files using foremost.

So no encryption on the local backup for me, only the emails dump by encrypting the zip that contains them. It's not perfect but that's the compromise I (think I) have to make. (The remote one is encrypted though)