HN user
50% of migrants can't find a job.
Our banks are publishing papers that for every 1% our population increases, home prices appreciate 3% above the target CPI of 2%; AFTER accounting for interest rates.
It's flat out a Ponzi Scheme. Our real wages are absolute CRAP.
Oh my goodness, I typed "My Butt", and then couldn't catch my breath laughing.
A+, that was a journey I wasn't prepared for =P
Did he say anywhere that he wasn't logging into them :)
Wow I'd never have known the line between day and night ever had a name, before you used that word! :)
This isn't really relevant to bring up in 2022. But this thread always brings a huge grin to my face.
I'm probably one of the few that really likes watching the "Steve Jobs" level of product quality, just blast across the internet at all expenses. Because it helps me feel better about what passes for quality in a lot of my day to day.
It brings me hope to see that level of passion over reliability. There's a time and place for that, but yeah, things happen.
(Unfortunately I have to flag this post for relevance, because 10-year old threads are not exactly meeting the quality for content we want on HN!)
I agree that your point on cloud gaming is probably valid for companies trying to maintain a rigid grip over software piracy when the companies still build things that can be stolen -- But I don't think it's strictly necessary for the development of anti-cheat systems.
In the next version of Windows, we're seeing a rapid acceleration in the amount of hardware/software fingerprinting and secure storage going on in home computing, with the introduction of the TPM 2.0 and UEFI requirements.
I am almost certain that Microsoft is progressing to be able to sell a completely hardware-protected memory address space to game developers, so that they no longer HAVE to worry about cheating. Because if everything from boot onwards is both signed and supports DRM, it's the perfect place to authenticate everything that happens afterwards.
This is interesting in that it will almost certainly lead to an explosion of DRM, DLC, and software sold via subscription models. And while this kind of thing will probably be initially well received by players hoping for decent anti-cheats, it will almost certainly lead to users forfeiting even more control to corporations over the final direction of the software programming.
(This kind of control may eat itself alive given enough time; we'll really only know after humanity has already gone that far!)
Negative associations have been highlighted by virtue of the darkness and unilluminated things in general being traditionally considered negative.
It really depends where you go. Contrary to popular belief, America is not the center of the universe...
Your argument associates Black = Bad = Black people. But as an example, they don't do this in Russia. Yes, they do associate Black = Bad to an extent, but black people do not come into the picture at all!
I'm fairly sure that when I say they're not racist towards black people, I say it for every Slavic country out there.
So it really does matter where you go when making that kind of claim about ethnically motivated interpretations behind words. We might need to go as far as to appreciate if/when the complete opposite of Black = Bad may be true.
This action on the whole though needs to be careful about whether it is doing anybody any favors, by trying to force the speaker's /intent/ about what was said, where none was necessarily had to begin with.
On the whole, you can't just change people by changing words. You have to show them a reason to WANT to change. The bigger the change, the more powerful reason you have to give them. Telling people what they /meant/ though, is not quite the same as trying to fix a racism problem.
I work in the auto industry in HMDs, and I think the last comment was somewhat on the right track, but perhaps missing bits of a larger issue at hand.
We can get the impression that Waze was built on a lot of technical debt by the amount of corners Google had to cut to even get it on screen -- how much it doesn't fit in their UI framework, and how poorly it runs when streamed to the HMD. Even Google Maps in satellite view runs terribly on the 90% of vehicles on the road that implement Android Auto. The underlying protocol used to convey that amount of data to the HMD runs like crap on most vehicles, and for better or worse the current protocol is pretty much frozen in time because most vehicles don't apply OTA updates yet. (Some manufacturers even charge labor for applying updates!)
The reason I'm picking on Waze specifically though is because HMD's have much stranger User <-> Interface considerations for what is safe, legal, and not crappy UI design. Add fire to fury, the performance is barely passable today.
Apps must have this, and so will Google if they are to be successful here. Whether Google even knows where they're going with a reliable HMD framework for using cookie-cutter UI components is largely unknown, but I don't think they're satisfied with the current API.
The ridiculous part is if you had once had location tracking on before, and had previously set your Home/Work address - Android Auto will still occasionally offer you directions to Home/Work spontaneously, despite Android Auto refusing to let you "Navigate Home/Work" when you attempt to do so on demand?
Hiring discrimination is not the same thing as advertising/outreach.
You are free to to apply to any company you want, and they are legally required to judge you on the basis of your skills (equality of opportunity). They are not legally required to hire you on the basis of any demographic you fall into (no equality of outcome).
If 60% of your workforce came from European universities, while 40% other universities -- are you required to advertise to them all equally? What if that 60% figure came about on its own, with no external influence on your part. Maybe they have more international renown for the skills your company just happens to desire? Would you spend the same advertising budget on both institutions?
Sometimes these things happen on their own, But pretending that the businesses doing outreach are 100% accountable for "SOLVING" every demographic composition is simply not vested in reality, especially when these things weren't necessarily broken in the first place.
Presuming bigotry can be in itself a form of intolerance -- we need to be careful!
You can even go the extra step and get them realistic noise-canceling ones for sleeping. They'll probably even thank you for it!
Selenium sets up the browser profile for you, so you can disable images, videos, css, javascript, embeds, all to your heart's content.
I've recently started using Selenium with the privoxy proxy, exactly because browser headless modes are still fairly new tech. They don't all necessarily support all the standard profile features (addons, settings, etc), or behave the same way. It's really neat seeing where they're going, but they sometimes need a bit of help MITM-ing traffic, so that's where a good filter comes in handy.
In the user-facing web world, 'slow' is kind of a relative term. Even with a barebone system, you're nearly always going faster than most servers will put out. I just take my chances bringing in bigger tools, because the personal cost of maintaining an under-equipped tool is usually a greater time-waster to keep up to date as your target site evolves, than the personal cost of waiting for variably-optimized background work to perform its duties.
Why would you switch from selenium to beautiful soup halfway through what you're trying to do, and force your program to re-request the same information from the web server? Selenium has access to the entire DOM, and the entire JavaScript session already loaded in a running web browser. It has way more power for data mining than beautiful soup does.
It looks like they're just trying to use selectors, but these directions seem to completely miss that functionality in Selenium's API. Just search the WebDriver documentation for 'find_element_by_':
https://selenium-python.readthedocs.io/api.html
I use Selenium for all my web crawling, exactly because I would rather have one crawler with all the backing support of a modern web browser, than corner myself into not having something as crucial as a JavaScript parser halfway through implementing a bot that's designed to hook what's basically an end-user interface sitting on top of all that.
The most obvious benefit of Selenium to me, is that by having all that, I can make my interactions with a web server look more like a user, and fly under the radar a little more. This tends to require less work on my part when I treat websites more like a whole package (though more RAM, yes!)
I don't think the video depicts any need for a new law.
Harassment already has laws. But I think what happened in the video was clearly a step up from that, and would fall under criminal assault.
Not sure what the woman in the video expects to get done by pushing for more change. Everybody at that restaurant stopped eating. A man in a white shirt grabs a chair to defend the woman. I counted at least 3-4 ready to jump in after him. All pedestrians stopped. There was more than enough evidence to perform a citizen's arrest (assuming that's legal in France?)
To me this is an indication that the current laws are working fine. They may not be heaven, but they are effective at curbing any immediate danger as best can be afforded without treading on other public freedoms (i.e. the freedom to express oneself!)
That sounds a lot more like what they should aim for: Formalizing algebra.
It's probably a far safer bet that algebra won't be changing very often, much less so than any graphics pipeline!
I think they would be wise to think a little beyond beginners though. Algebra does not have to be always complicated, but it definitely needs to be open-ended to extend its usefulness.
The standard has been burned by short-sightedness before.
I find fourth-wave feminist articles like this to be a complete sham, because they completely stop short of asking a far more constructive question:
'Why is this happening?'
Is there something unique about South Korea that motivates the use of spycams and sexually explicit non-consensual recordings? Imo that would be a far more useful place to start.
Lax laws/enforcement do not motivate people to do things. That is, unless we start from the assumption that all men are basically barbaric (Which I have to reject on face value alone), then there's no way to blame this on the legal system or the police.
Not far off from South Korea is a phenomenon in Japan called "grass-eating men": Men who give up on pursuing women and careers, and instead live online in subpar apartments and out of internet cafes to live out their lives. Perhaps there's something in common between what motivates that, and what we're seeing here?
How happy are men (as a class) in South Korea? How beneficial are their 'good' alternatives here?
As a dead animal carcass whos insides are torn out and spewed out along the side of the road, I wish I could use reddit for similar, yet somewhat more distant categories too ^.^
While I agree with the general thrust of this, and am perfectly fine with the consequences and outcomes that redpill might land you if you're showing responsibility and taking steps to flirt with someone to such length -- I genuinely loathe appealing to a stereotype of women that are interested in this, because the kind of person it appeals to, or the kind of relationship it generates doesn't get me anything I like when it works!
That is to say, unless I feel like being more plastic than a Ken barbie doll, and less significant in identity, emotion, and purpose than the next 5,000 Ken models off the factory line, then I don't see how I couldn't possibly feel any more alone after applying redpill?
What I found after taking redpill and succeeding by their standards, I didn't find myself in any way happier or more at peace with myself, or happier in the company of anyone that is attracted to that. Maybe it has just been highly successful at producing traumatic experiences, which does help me grow. But there has been nothing redpill or the women it has been able to match me with that has been able to counter the type of gutless, "take-take", or just purely sexual tension-oriented relationships it seems to encourage men to get involved with! Those are highly destructive experiences if you're not careful.
My peace of mind is worth so much more than that.
I can respect redpill, because I understand what it's for. But I don't enjoy the people it connects me with. I think it boils down to a lack of a proper examination of personal happiness in redpill's promise at large, and i don't think they contend with that subject nearly as much as they should! (Though I can understand why the women like it, because it encourages men to not care about what they need to grow as a person, while essentially demeaning them to the point of being uncompensated and emotionally-deprived and ego-devalued sex servants =P)
Metro's branding was a failure of imagination and a failure to properly capture and convey intent. There are many other options out there:
| "Touch UI" | "Mobile UI" | "Everywhere UI" | "Fisher-Price UI" |
... or my personal favorite...
| "Mega-Bloks" |
I think Microsoft is trying to fill in a meaningful, yet tentative part of the pie. It wouldn't be right for them to put forward the full cost of every cloud company's potential losses.
At the same time it raises the stakes by begging the question for other cloud providers to fill in by asking "why isn't this higher?" So in that light, the number they've chosen may have served its purpose quite well, by encouraging others to think about what another massive 0-day CPU security flaw might cost them.
This is where hardware signing comes into play.
I followed a few links to Abseil:
Consisting of the foundational C++ and Python code at Google, Abseil includes libraries that will grow to underpin other Google-backed open source projects like gRPC, Protobuf and TensorFlow.
This library already seems like it is suffering from scope-creep. Tensorflow, gRPC, and Protobuf are hardly related to improving the C++ standard. Why are these even in the same library at all?
machines are not submerged in an environment that effects them, giving them no merit to be intelligent about anything
You're alluding to the problem of having to 'raise' a super-intelligence with a vested interest in the continuity of its physical existence. I think I agree with where you're going with that.
Our understanding of 'self' or 'self preservation' likely comes from a long history of suffering, pain, and failure brought on by trials at understanding the self from evolution's attempts at imbuing the information for longevity into cognition. Mother nature has had years of exponential growth with an inconceivable number of branches attempting to understand the 'self', that lead to failure, all necessary because the idea of 'self preservation' or 'grounding one's sense of ego into a concept of physical sensory data' is very obscure to precisely define, let along to define such that it can be TESTED between generations.
Based on how much of a headstart evolution has on that refining process, and how bad humans are at implementing that or even exposing sensory information about that that plug directly into concepts that necessarily affect an artificial's sense of self, I'm willing to bet that we are completely ill-equipped to grow any real intelligence that's truly grounded in the real world, until it can make all the same failed attempts at living longer or evolving + testing those attempts, with that exact same directional goal of 'self-preservation' which humans have.
Self-preservation is really the only thing you can evolve to, to guide a physical evolution. I'm not aware of any other physical goals that could lead to the same human-like intelligence or human-like neural models.
Most creatures seem to hit the exact same point. An agent-based survival of the fittest with generational physical trials that punish poor understandings of the self's physical manifestation, trying to optimize for its longevity.
Anything that doesn't hit that kind of model is strictly not aware of the manifestation of its ego, as we know it (e.g. plants, bacteria, etc), and I don't think the physical sense of self can evolve into grounded concepts without allowing for generational failure on the understanding of self, due to incorrect concepts of 'physical self' between competing generations.
TL;DR - The concept of physical self is an evolved trait only if there is a goal tied to it, it cannot arrive without the concept of 'self existence' being threatened or when not allowed to fail.
Agree 100% that this test sounds like asking someone to prove a negative in order to force action at their expense.
The retailer in this case is Google, and their entire business model rides on being able to ship an information product worldwide - that is, their index.
How is it Google's responsibility to no longer aggregate their index, since they are now expected to deviate from the information generated from the expressions of others' statements, upon which its index was originally based? Is a quotation no longer an acceptable device to publish or derive information, in Canada?
Unless Google is committing a crime by repeating what was said, or pointing to someone who said something, then why is it legally permissible for Canada to order Google to do anything at all here?
Even if Google is citing someone who did something illegally in their index, is it a crime for Google to quote what was said, and to publish the fact that persons said something -- nationally, let alone internationally?
It sounds like this defense was screwed up on two fronts:
1) Where does Canadian law allow anyone to remove or suppress what was recorded in a non-binding quote containing what was previously observed to have been published by others, in a civil trial?
2) Freedom of speech, as a form of detailing quotes in the aggregate, in any other country in the world is not compatible with the idea of removing recorded quotes from the aggregate product of what was internationally found in a survey. That is the precedent. What was and will be found on the internet from the standpoint of other countries Internet connections, does not change just because Canada doesn't like it.
Pursuing #2 seems be the best option since the courts completely breezed over #1. The need to stick to the fundamentals that their product has never actually guaranteed correctness or truth, nationally or internationally. The Google product guarantees an aggregation of quotes. The product attempts to arrive at correctness or truth by algorithmic-ally deriving meaning from the aggregate, not the other way around.
... Google (the product) does not derive the aggregate by manually specifying exceptions one after the other whenever John Doe catches someone lying on the internet. To do so on an international scale would forcefully change Google (the product), not in compliance with any Canadian law (afaik), and not in compliance with any international precedent.
It would be akin to suing a newspaper to have information forcefully removed, in all countries of the world, even though it was published with valid quotes and perfect reporting. If Google (the product) wanted to do this in a way that was respectful of the nature of the request, that it is based on a quote, it would be better to think of the court's decision as being a qualifier on the nature of the information -- "This website may be untrustworthy. (Legal Information: ...). But this request cannot be compelled internationally, because it is not Google's responsibility to ascertain correctness of the contents of a quote. For something that was internationally said of the quote, Google can internationally do with that information whatever they please.
The fact that the Google product is an aggregation of quotes, I think, has escaped the courts. And that may be what they are accidentally glossing over when trying to compel Google to change those quotes, internationally, in a civil trial.
So their answer is corruption/fascism?
I need to play devil's advocate here -- and hoping everyone will stop and think about this in a more practical way for a minute. This has less to do with VR/AR, and more to do with pre-existing overlap:
o What if Tesla is interested in improving sensory accuracy for its self-driving vehicle program?
o What if Tesla is interested in Hololens' pixel greying on transparent surfaces?
This seems like the most viable use of this kind of tech in a car. In an extreme case I could see something like head/eye tracking on the windshield, though that isn't in any way guaranteed or even necessarily practically useful.
Improving external sensor accuracy, or even pixel shading on transparent surfaces, however, is probably a FAR bigger overlap between Hololens and Telsa, than anything for augmented reality. Hololens has immense requirements for sensory precision and pixel blacking, and I could see why Tesla would look to an industry expert to carry over any useful architectural guidance for that.
Can I give. Money. To have that?
-The internet.
This is a horrific idea.
What we need is zero-tolerance for this kind of quality and architecture, from high to low. Security software CAN be understandable. You just have to focus on perfecting the expression and interactions.
Think high-level APIs where you can't screw up, because the constituents are so easy, trivial, and understood, that writing correct implementation becomes both Child's Play, and Natural.
There's nothing inherently difficult about making logic easy to interact with -- most of it just means breaking down more complex elements into grade-school principles.
(In doing so, you remove the need to look at suicidal Garbage!)
Don't jump to conclusions yet -- I'm still reading this analysis.
https://pay.reddit.com/r/crypto/comments/26px1i/truecrypt_sh...
> who are more interested in finding a relationship than in making a "B-roll".
^^ THIS. There must be some pretty lonely guys out there. I can only hope the more genuine ones learned their lesson after it ended.
Best example: The poor fellow who left early to work for Yahoo at 8:00 am. He may have only understood the ethics that he had bought into after it ended.
Women who try and make anything off this crap are selfish to the point of degrading those around them. They're really horrible people to be around, let alone to sleep with -- because they're too self-absorbed with the money and free ride to factor in the precedent they're setting for the kind of interaction that's socially acceptable around potential mates.
DO WE REALLY want a society where people who work hard, are forced to compete financially to have an attractive mate fly in, do B-rolls, get high, and to demonstrate what a cold and mechanical interaction they actually want?
Women: How would you like it if this was the kind of world you had to live in to find affection from a man? Pay $1,000 to have him come in and show you that your money, work, and desire for affection is just as worthless as anyone else's.
Because THAT is what your actions convey.
I think I'm with my grandparents on this one: These women need to learn to treat others exactly how they expect to be treated. Otherwise nobody can be their friend, foe, or lover.
Because when we start pretending that relationships and affection can be bought -- we won't be buying real affection.