HN user
Or attribute-based credentials. Basically, you're challenged and get a one-time, challenger-specific credential for exactly the requested attribute(s) from a credential provider. Eg. government (municipality, province, national) can become a credential provider.
Errr... that word implies some type of non-deterministic effect. Like using a randomizer without specifying the seed (ie. sampling from a distribution). I mean, stuff like NFAs (non-deterministic finite automata) isn't magic.
A lot of these "security bugs" are not really "security bugs" in the first place. Denial of service ...
Ackshually...
Security is typically(*) classified as CIA: Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability. Denial of Service is an attack against Availability... so yeah, that kind of is inherently a security bug.
You're going to need a bigger boat.
That was my takeaway as well. The weird thing is: since it's someone else doing the initial publication, their omission of copyright credits is costing the artist their copyright. That's... unexpected. I don't know how things worked back then in book art, but if the artist wasn't contracted as work-for-hire, protecting their copyright ought to become the burden of those who actually made the art public. I don't know if this argument was put forth in appeals, but ruling+motivation on this point from the appeals committees are absent from the story.
Sounds like you could accidentally make someone else's art public domain by forgetting to include them on the copyright page...
edit well, perhaps that's part of the reason the copyright laws were updated.
I can see that working in a 1-v-1 game, but how does that work in a last-one-standing game? Each game would have 1 winner and N-1 players who lost.
My point was that there is no test (or classifier) that can always guarantee that one definition of fairness by itself, irrespective of the base rate. If the classifier acts the same independent of base rate, there are always base rates (ie occurrence rates in the rates population) for which the classifier will fail the given definition.
That illustrates that the given definition cannot hold universally, irrespective of what classifier you dream up. Unless your classifier is not independent from the base rate - that is, a classifier that gets more lenient if there's more fraud in the group. That seems undesirable when considering fairness as a goal.
The thing is: I'm not looking for an unremarkable painting. I sincerely am not interested in one. So spending my money that way would be counterproductive.
Related: if you feel this style of painting is so unremarkable, why are you advocating for others to support knock-offs? To use an analogy: I have zero interest in buying a Louis Vuitton handbag - but my interest in buying one of the far cheaper knockoffs you can get at touristy places from shady peddlers is a lot lower than that.
Perhaps, but unless one of them is Walt Disney, I've never heard of them - therefore their fame does not impact my valuation of their work. I can see myself spend 50 bucks on a (to me) unknown piece of art because it is pretty. Spending more would require an additional connection - fame of artist, depicts something dear to me, seems like a good investment, etc. etc... only being pretty isn't enough.
No, because he painted something that I find pleasant to look at and consider it worth money. The price is higher because of the artist's fame, that much is true - but that is always the case with art.
I mean, you're basically arguing about taste... Bob Ross was a lot more famous than most other artists, not in the least because many people liked what he produced.
Bob Ross was known in my country (in Europe) due to his show at the time. Not quite universally, but probably closer to a household name than any other living painter was at the time. Dunno how it was in other countries in Europe, but still. The man was relatively well known for paintings, paintings that were regarded well by the general audience (experts: dunno).
So while maybe he couldn't be selling his paintings for 1000s to the decently-off, there clearly was ample demand. If he truly wanted to make a boatload, he easily could have.
Related: the treasure trove could easily be sold 1 painting at a time. Just don't make it regular - not once a year, but sometimes 2 in 2 months, and then 5 years nothing. That really wouldn't spurs the value that much, if at all.
2. Two people who are identical except for their nationality face the same probability of a false positive.
That seems to fall afoul of the Base Rate Fallacy. Eg, consider 2 groups of 10,000 people and testing on A vs B. First group has 9,999 A and 1 B, second has 1 A and 9,999 B. Unless you make your test blatantly ineffective, you're going to have different false positive rates -- irrespectiveof the test's performance.
Where I currently live, terminally ill nearing their end often fall in a pattern of eating and drinking less and less, to the point of having nothing (not even water). This process of dying takes 1-2 weeks(!). Longer if some liquid is still imbibed.
This is a common ending of a terminally ill process and apparently seen as humane. Though I think if anyone treated their dog like that, we'd report them for animal abuse.
I don't have good answers to most questions surrounding this topic. But I'd like to get to a point where people are treated as humanely as their pets in their final period. And I can't even tell you the current practice isn't, just that it does not at all feel that way to me.
Well, to be frank, we currently have such a ship, but we're doing quite a lot to disrupt its capability of sustaining human life.
Of course, even if we stopped doing that, we'd need to figure out how to visit another place if our ship is passing close by. That also seems to pose a problem: both Voyagers are barely out of the exhaust fumes of our ship's motor, and getting so far took ~40 years.
We're already on that starship. Our engine is about 8 lightminutes away. All we need is to figure out how to steer this thing - and how to not wreck it while en route.
Hear, hear!
A ToC slide should typically be avoided -- especially if you only show it once.
Advice I heard but don't know the source of: audiences tend to have a "stack" of about 7 items, possibly less. Only put stuff on the stack you are going to use.
A linear story fits well with this advice. A ToC breaks linearity and tries to push all of its items onto the stack, without any payoff. Within 2 slides, the audience has forgotten your ToC slide, since there's no point to keeping it on the stack. Best case, there's some minor payoff -- but almost never worth the cost of saturating the stack. Most often, it is an unnecessary crutch. So unless it is mandatory (could be for students), just make your presentation's narrative flow logically instead.
Not a native speaker, but I've heard the term "sacrificial pawn" being used in such cases in movies and series.
Most of the processes surrounding and supporting science are not robust against a dedicated adversary seeking to exploit the system. This is nothing new - Newton ordered and then wrote the anonymous report commissioned by (iirc) the Royal Society to decide who invented calculus, him or Leibniz.
Basically, science is quite vulnerable to malicious exploiters. Part of this is because society isn't funding science anywhere near sufficiently to do a priori in-depth checks. You claim you got data on hundreds of measurable thingies in a certain way (from surveying people to scanning the web to whatever)? If it's not blatantly obviously a lie, it'll probably be accepted. Which is inevitable: at one point, you're going to have to accept the data as genuine. If there's no obvious red flags, you'd only waste time on further checking data - you'd need to do a real deep dive (expensive time-wise) to come up with circumstantial evidence that may still be explainable in a benign manner. For scientists, it is almost always more profitable to spend such time investments on furthering their own scientific efforts.
So yes, there are various ways in which someone willing, dedicated and sufficiently skilled can "Nigerian-Prince" the scientific process. Thankfully, the skill to do so typically requires intimate knowledge of the scientific process and how to conduct research -- this cheating is not easily accessible to outside bullshitters (yet).
Oof, that's a huge 'just' in many cases.
Alternatively, you could add charging infrastructure in more places. Eg, partially have trolley-like lines on the route to "top up". This could make sense on dedicated buslanes, especially when multiple lines use that stretch (eg near central stop).
Around here, houses appreciate in value. Quite significantly, actually. A house can gain 100k in value in just a few years.
If you bought it, you're paying off the old price. If you're renting, rent increases every year to keep more or less in line with the accruing value. So while renters and buyers may both start out paying (eg) 20% of their income on housing, for buyers, this will typically go down (due to inflation --> higher wages), while for renters, it will stay the same and might even increase.
You're right about considering opportunity costs, but around here, it just turns out far, far worse for renters.
Interestingly, YouTube also lends itself for this sort of thing for movies. You can watch scenes from movies and get the gist, while only spending ~30min on a movie. It's a great way to watch mediocre movies - they're not so horrible (1), and you do get the entertainment value without being exposed to the shlocky-est parts.
(1) Eg, if you skip the beach scene, Terminator Dark Fate is... palatable! But yeah, the reasons for mediocrity typically still shine through a bit.
As mentioned by thread starter, you can also sell to some national security agency. That way, you're doing your patriotic duty and making a buck. So Google has an incentive to at least beat those offerings.
[...] During the war, the U.S. mobilized over 4.7 million military personnel and suffered the loss of over 116,000 soldiers. [...]
From Wikipedia, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_in_World_War_I
Quite a few negative feelings towards Nintendo of America (NOA) in the comments. A lot of "evil Goliath" style comments.
I think they probably did the right thing. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure NOA has to defend its registration. "But this is for a small supermarket" you might argue. And in this case, you'd be right. But how can NOA tell the difference between a genuinely different registration, or someone trying to hijack their brand and putting up a fake website in hopes of lulling them into not objecting?
Answer: they could try all sorts of steps, including flying to Costa Rica to check the local situation. Of course, they could still be played, and an attacker could suddenly be legally allowed to use their trademark.
Or they could use exactly this process, which is meant to ensure that the registration is only awarded if it is sufficiently distinct. Which is what they did. I won't hate something or someone for using procedures as intended.
In addition, your experience and this statement aren't mutually exclusive. As for evidence: political developments in the EU and America(s), including the US, as well as policy changes by some of the wealthiest, claiming-to-be-freedom-loving platform owners on earth, should provide enough hints not to dismiss this claim outright.
Maybe, but in an online forum where many people use input with autocorrect, it might simply be the autocorrect.
(Yes it happened to this message as well, but too egregious to leave as an example).
I wonder how will this affect private institutions and private publications?
A government agency trying to enforce censorship in scientific publications outside its sphere of influence... I have to admit, that was not the first thing I wondered about.
So I think if the US gave out good secondary benefits, a green card and good pay for experienced candidates, the lead time would be far shorter.
Sure, you'd need to train such foreign candidates in US regulations, but that ought to be a far shorter route. And I'm sure the US could afford to get half of the ATCs from $FOREIGN_COUNTRY with such a proposition. (For countries where a desire to live in the US is common, that is).
While that is totally not done wrt that foreign country: 1. Money+employment conditions could alleviate the problem significantly; 2. something flamebaity.
The counter to incorrect information is facts - not trying to hide it.
I'm sorry, but that's a load of baloney on par with "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear".
Second of all: it's obviously false. There are loads of examples - contemporary as well as older - where people actively peddled "incorrect information" to line their own pockets at the expense of the money/health/wellbeing of others. Having the facts does not repair the damage, nor does it prevent future harm.
But, firstly and more importantly, this framing suggests we should allow for misinformation. We absolutely shouldn't. The public debate isn't resilient to malicious actors. That's what makes misinformation so dangerous and what makes this slogan so hollow. It assumes good faith on all parties. There isn't, so stop advocating for solutions that require that.
In more detail: the public debate is meant for an actual exchange of ideas, thereby enlightening the participants. Anyone who is not interested in that, shouldn't participate. In particular, misinformation should be barred from the public debate. - and those spreading it held to account.
Whether it is knowingly claiming that lead is harmless, that smoking has no negative effects on your health, or anything vaguely political of the last dozen or so years: if you're unaware, it's not your fault yet, but you'll need to stop being ignorant. If you're aware that the information you're spreading is wrong: shame on you! You should be barred from participating in (that line of the) public debate.
Are you saying that a right-turn can be green simultaneous with the pedestrian's crossing light being green?
Because where I'm from, traffic lights are not allowed to be set up like that. No simultaneous green for crossing traffic flows, unless otherwise indicated (eg, an extra warning light+sign under the turn's traffic light flashing when it's green and off otherwise).