advisedwang

The kids where I tutored say "I searched it up"

These are full shipping labels

Fault tolerance is expensive, even when it's a single box. This kind of hardware is the wrong tool for the job because most use cases can tolerate some downtime and it's not worth paying 10x cost to get a few nines you don't need.

That's also possible, and that's fine.

But it's not good if a blocklist admin adds somebody who, say, said that admin's music taste was bad. Likely none of the people downstream of that blocklist will realize that happened or that their blocklist is being misused.

That's basically what they do on mastodon. It sounds like it's a pretty bad system. With a natural, community scoped entity (channel) there is a way more responsive path to moderation.

Given that this system already uses DNS for namespacing of user identifiers (via instances), it seems like it could use DNS for namespacing of channels too

I get the impression that every attempt to make block lists ends up getting used to target people an admin of the block list doesn't like. I think the root of it is that the admins consuming the blocklist don't want to have to spend time on moderation and are remote from communities where the blocklist is happening. Also the scope of the blocklist is the instance. Compare that to community internal moderation (e.g. channel mods), where someone close to the community is invested in the health of the community and the scope of the block is the relevant community.

> No channel modes and no channel operators, which is a decision rather than a gap: a global channel is owned by nobody, so there is nobody to be an operator of it. Blocking is per person and per instance instead

That's completely unworkable. Lets say I create #some_minority, and people from many different servers join. Some shithead comes and starts screaming slurs at us. Now the admin for every server must block that person. Multiply that by every channel, and every admin is responsible for moderating the entire ecosystem. The only way they can do this is with shared blocklists, which have been a nightmare on mastodon.

I suspect the author having the authority to execute people on a whim may have contributed somewhat

Federal law [1] and at least one state [2] provide routes for appeal to real courts.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/9/16

[2] https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.06.050

> A full-flow staged combustion engine is very complex, and prior to the Raptor only two had been built, neither of which successfully flew on a rocket.

Isn't the Space shuttle main engine / SLS engine a full-flow staged combustion engine?

Maybe it has a short TTL? So it would catch a group of people that all bought fake IDs from the same place.

They say it's "designed for" 11 9s, not guaranteed.

That depends on the data. If this is EBS or single-AZ S3, then from Amazon's perspective this was correct. Backup responsibly (for any data that does need to be backed up) lives with the customer, and Amazon has no way of knowing about that. EBS data data is unrecoverable, and that's what's reported.

Now if this was multi-AZ S3 or whatever then this would be significant.

The article does not tell us what products were impacted.

Exactly. So this shouldn't be possible.

This is the inevitable result of having hundreds of thousands of cameras all collecting data and searchable from one point. Even if every search required a warrant, this would still be abused with cops lying on affidavits etc.

We don't need this system, we don't need to tolerate having this vector for abuse lying around.

Amazon certainly has standing for how YOU access amazon, even if it was in a regular browser.

Yes, although the DoJ policy change reflecting still says civil liability might exist if a cease-and-desist is ignored: https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/doj-acknowledges-limits-to-...

In cases like these, companies often try to go after the upstream project, not just operators. The law gives them lots of tools for this: the CFAA has a conspiracy provision; The DMCA has a provision against making software for circumventing copyright; Trademark law might make the name nitter or xcancel illegal; and finally even if the claims are weak the litigation itself is an enormous burden

I would be surprised if agents have access to their own weights.

This is one area where I thinks self-report is probably fairly accurate. The study also cites some metastudies of other research that shows the same correlation (I don't have access to see if those are based on self-reports)

But what hardware was the verification vs agents on? Because you are likely comparing verification on a single beefy machine (say XX TFLOPS total) to agents running on a substantial inference cluster (say XXXX TFLOPS). So you're 1 order of magnitude might actually be 2-4 orders of magnitude.

That was the chemical weapons block, not the bioweapons block!

There aren't many situations where biological weapons are useful to nation states, especially ones with global economic and military footprint like the US, because it isn't selective enough about who it targets.

Challenge: come up with categories for the boxes such that every item has exactly one box that is correct for it.

I've got "USB", "AV" and "Networking & PC Accessories", which obviously has enormous overlap, but equally divides the cables I have pretty nicely.

I'm struggling to think of a use for the money that doesn't result in becoming dependent on the money and thus less self-sufficient long term. What did you have in mind with this comment?

You are assuming Apple is applying the same rigor to themselves as app developers. They are not.

Yes, that's unaffected

I bet you there's a lot of people on HN that

1. want their email on their own domain (for professionalism and portability)

2. Want to use Gmail (it is actually a pretty nice service to use)

3. Don't want to use Google Workspace (either because of how cobbled google features are on workspace, because they don't want to migrate google accounts, or because of it's cost)

Google just killed the ability to meet those three requirements. There's lots of people facing either a) showing the world a gmail.com address, b) switching to a different mail solution or c) paying for workspace and accepting it's flaws. It's totally fair for people to be mad about that.

If the "new" infrastructure doesn't support a common and reasonable use case, then perhaps it needs more work.

That is basically just saying "the gmail app can be a smtp/imap client for a 3rd party mail provider". It's not really using gmail as when the gmail app is operating in this mode there's a tone of gmail features you don't get.