HN user
But why would a business want to have it's internal communications be on a platform like signal? none of the privacy features feel relevant to work related communications, if anything I think a company needs the ability to see all communications on platforms it uses for audit ability, collaboration, etc
Forgive my ignorance, but what is the advantage of decentralization and cryptographically signed events in the context of a work chat/ coordination tool? Could a company not accomplish the same goal self hosting something like zulip?
Would they have published this study if the correlation was inverted, or would that have been rejected as spurrious bc it goes against our priors?
FWIW they are generally not allowed at majors / world championships / Olympics, just at invite meets where the goal is to promote a fast time
Partially. They're called rabbits[1] (or pacers) whose official role is to run a specific pace, who help encourage a fast race overall rather than a slow buildup with a fast kick.
hm but "fine" as in probably won't die?
my question was more whether the hardware would need extra redundancy or shielding in order to not have unacceptably high error rates
Isn't the problem also that because of radiation, processors in space either need to have larger feature sizes OR additional shielding / redundancy? Seems like a pretty high price to pay for slightly cheaper energy...
Has anyone received any proactive communication about this? I didn't see the email until about 9 hours after it was sent out, yet I still needed to seek out information as to a) whether this was real or phishing and b) whether the amount was correct.
Seems totally irresponsible not to send an immediate follow up email to make customers aware.
Because journalists and their employers view tech as a competitor for ad dollars and threat to their professions.
I think the real question is, if the big tech companies are so all knowing and all powerful, with so much control over media and messaging, then why is their PR so bad?
Mortgage rates have gone up 8% just since February.
Yeah there were no shootings before the internet
For one, compliance is compliance. For another, "You only need them if you're using them for something like tracking." yeah, sites want to track user behavior and the eu said if you want to do that you gotta have a banner. How is that "malicious"? Seems like the eu got exactly what they wanted?
You know he was talking about taxes...
Brendan Carr seems more interested in settling political scores
Afaik two party consent rules don't apply in public settings
This is an interesting configuration of justices
Observation: it is legal to listen to a conversation happening in public, and it is not typically legal to record it.
That doesn't seem accurate. Do you have an example of a law that prohibits filming on public property? Isn't the legality the whole premise of what those weirdo "first amendment auditors" on YouTube do?
Tbh it feels quite performative, giving an air of rigor to the what often feels like post hoc reasoning and selective application of precidence and case law...
I did[1], and would be curious if anyone is familiar with the underlying study. How did they attempt to control for other factors? (I assume that they did, and am interested to know how)
Also do you have to get a sunburn for sun damage to increase the risk of skin cancers? My understanding was accumulated sun exposure was the issue.
[1] Lindqvist tracked the sunbathing habits of nearly 30,000 women in Sweden over 20 years. Originally, he was studying blood clots, which he found occurred less frequently in women who spent more time in the sun—and less frequently during the summer... decided to look at overall mortality rates, and the results were shocking. Over the 20 years of the study, sun avoiders were twice as likely to die as sun worshippers.
It's frustrating to see the NYT frame this as an AI vs everyone else story, pitting incumbent renters against newcomers, while landlords literally extract rent.
I agree with the sentiment, however I think the erosion of the honor system is inevitable given the rising cost of college. Somewhere in the last 20 years college became a luxury good, and with it a natural sense of entitlement from their customers.
Couple that with increased awareness that classroom instruction (delivered by tenured research facility who seem annoyed at the idea of teaching) often has little relevance to workplace skills, I think kids have correctly surmised that the smart thing to do is say fuck the code and focus on checking boxes.
Agree, same can be said of exercise.
I think people consciously or unconsciously consider being overweight a moral failing and so are quick to point out the flaws.
The former isnt something an individual can change on their own
I think if you have to resort to making stuff up to convince people this is important, then maybe this isn't as important as you think?
I think public perception is have already had numerous leaks (Equifax, yahoo, etc) without any real negative effects, so these warnings come off as alarmist.
It's a hard argument to win because a) its impossible to concretely attribute scams to a data leak and b) most people think they would be immune to scammers. Meanwhile, it's easy to point to the problems this would fix.
You’re not happy about it, but you hand over a photo of your passport and hope it doesn’t come back to haunt you.
I think for this argument to carry weight with voters, privacy advocates need to be much more specific about what "coming back to haunt you" looks like. They do a little bit of it later on[1], but I think most people do a rough cost benefit in their head and decide that the small benefit outweighs the small risk (to them).
[1] "And that creates a lot of risks for data breaches, overly broad data collection and retention, censorial legal demands for collected data, corporate and governmental malfeasance, pressure to self-censor, and perhaps blatant First Amendment violations. Every new layer and every new mandate brings more potential for risk. As we’ve unfortunately seen many times over the years, people including high-level government officials will maliciously seek to root out the identities of their critics, so the more layers of anonymity we can preserve in online speech, the better."
they've found their market, such as it is, but it's smaller, more competitive etc., than is needed for hypergrowth... so the company thrashes about trying to figure what else to do while trying to keep its business running
In a lot of cases I think it's even worse than that-- VCs advise their portcos to keep swinging for the fences, even if it means pivoting away from their modestly successful niche, since a single and a strikeout are effectively the same to them.
Of course the VC investment model is high risk. That's kinda the point. It's a bet on IPO or (valuable) acquisition. Most companies end up as neither.
Cynically, I wonder how much of the insane (even in the moment) valuations were driven by VC firms trying to commit capital so they could collect management fees?
My impression is a lot of these companies raised mega rounds right before interest rates went up, and are now able to tread water by cutting headcount enough that their revenue + interest can sustain them. To what end? Who knows...