wool_gather

What does this mean? Runtime is the only time that Python's existing type system has an effect.

It doesn't really affect your point, but the term was "enhanced", not "extended". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniq...

That comes with its own tradeoffs: increased compile time and more effort needed to create error messages that are helpful to the user.

> QAnon is just more fun.

Citation desperately needed!

You might find this take on QAnon from a game designer's perspective interesting:

https://medium.com/curiouserinstitute/a-game-designers-analy...

It uses many of the same gaming mechanisms and rewards [as ARGs and LARPing].

When players arrive at the “correct” answers they are showered with adoration, respect, and social credit.

... the breadcrumbs [from Q] are not facts, they are [...] Puzzles and clues for the “investigators” to uncover. [...] solving puzzles is extremely rewarding from a biochemical standpoint and the thoughts we gain from them are special to us.

It seems to me that higher visibility is all but guaranteed to lead to an increase in belief. Simple exposure is one thing: most people aren't going to concoct new conspiracy theories on their own, but they may decide to go in for them when they see them.

Social persuasion/cohesion is another: we're all influenced by the views of the people around us (like it or not). When you see half a dozen people in one of your peer groups talking about $WEIRD_THING, you're naturally inclined to give it some time, and maybe some credence.

I don't disagree about the deep problems with regulating it, though.

Is it possible that this is just because it's a beta and the flag will be back for the release? There doesn't seem to be anything indicating one way or the other.

That's possible; I don't remember the exact dates, just that it was at the "I really need to buy tickets" timeframe for the end of Feb.

The U.S. has NPR and PBS, but, to put it politely, they have variable amounts of trust depending on one's position on the political spectrum. They also indeed have government officials "breathing down their neck" at least in a budgetary sense.

It was on my radar in mid January; I know this clearly because it made me choose not to buy plane tickets for a big family celebration scheduled for the end of February.

I didn't say it shouldn't be posted; just a warning to be prepared for what you're going to see.

Yes. In many cases, the only "winning" move is to say what you have to say and then step back.

You can't usually "win" the argument, just your own time.

Hey, spoiler alert for people regarding that link -- there's some very strong, graphically violent language. Don't click if you're not in a good head space at the moment.

There's a similar organization in Eugene, OR called CAHOOTS: https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/2020-07-06/eugen...

Disregarding the hyperbole, rural areas have their own set of problems that seem outrageous in turn to city dwellers. It's easy to scorn the speck in your neighbor's eye; removing one's own is more constructive.

I will never understand why pure statements of fact get downvoted on this site.

At the time I looked, 4 hours ago now, this was correct.

Full text was:

These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!

(By searching portions you should be able to confirm that this is accurate -- please let me know if I mistyped.

This is the link; it's probably cached somewhere, too https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13469549709107077...)

Good question; I just looked at OAN and there is nothing, just an earlier article about Trump's speech and one from early this morning "Citizens Gather in Washington, D.C..."

new hires start as a T3

This makes me curious about what T1 and T2 would mean.

Illuminatus! is deliberately a send-up of the kind of stuff that Dan Brown writes, though. He's sincerely trying to make thrillers; Wilson and Shea were (partly) making fun of authors like him.

This may be fine, but do note that you're inserting an extra layer that you have to trust compared to inspecting the source that you know is on your local disk.

Should they choose to, nothing stops the site you've linked from masking malicious tidbits in code you request.

You're right, but it's not even really an "attitude", and it's not necessarily malicious or even stemming from a power relationship.

It's just a fundamental cognitive blind spot that humans have about assuming that what's obvious to ourselves is obvious to everyone else. Every one of us who's jumped into a question about something they're working on and had the other person say "I don't understand the context" has done this.

The opposite is what makes great teachers, authors, and other communicators great: they recognize what the other person doesn't understand.

Sure, but the people who are disinformed aren't the target here anyways: they don't believe anything needs to be "fixed" in the first place.

Not a nit at all; the parent comment has the cart completely in front of the horse. Humans use vision (primarily) to drive because it's the only sense we have that's even close to being sufficient.

There are certainly other senses (lidar, ultrasound, radio signals) that robots could avail themselves of that would be helpful even in conditions where vision also worked.

There's an opportunity for them to communicate better with pedestrians than the average human driver. Drivers tend to assume that their intent to stop or not to stop is obvious and don't bother with a clear signal like flashing their lights or waving visibly.

From the pedestrian's perspective, it can be hard to see the driver at all (small movements of the hand can be invisible in sun glare; direction of gaze likewise), and also hard to tell what they're doing. Just because they're slowing somewhat as they approach doesn't mean they see you or intend to stop.

Which aspects of bcrypt are you referring to by "things like bcrypt"?

Ah, I see, I didn't realize there was that much structure to the payload. Thanks!

Also the book "Gambling Scams" by Darwin Ortiz.

As I recall, the techniques generally involve not making normal "fair" free-tumbling rolls, but constraining the die movements somehow. Things like tossing them into a corner or making one of the pair spin flat, around only a vertical axis.

I'm supportive of the co-op idea, but my bet would be that the drivers don't matter nearly as much as users. So unless it can compete on a UX level with the convenience and branding of the VC-backed options it's not going to succeed.

How does it know that any given decryption is valid? A heuristic like "this is mostly ASCII"?

This is not sour grapes; sour grapes is trying to get something, failing, and then pretending you didn't actually want it in the first place.

It's from one of the "Aesop's Fables". A fox sees a bunch of grapes hanging a ways over his head. He spends a while jumping and trying his best to reach them, then gives up and stalks away muttering "they're obviously sour".