age_bronze

I call bullshit. This crap can and will happen in unfortunate times such as opening a laptop for presentation, also note that shutting down a computer with lowish battery with update pending is a death sentence until you reach a charger, because you'll never make it past the stupid update.

Just when you need it the most and it has the lowest battery this crap will pop.

Minewhile some computers are stuck in update loop of failing to update, reverting, and retrying every god damn day again like anything will change. If you're too bad at ensuring updates work, dont force them down my throat the 100th time expecting something will change. I already accepted the fact your trash update will never work so can you please stop wasting my time?

Just like beginner developers who never sanitize their input, there are also people who never validate their inputs. Just like exploitation of programs, there are people who exploit the behavior of other people, giving them input when what they really want to do is to run their code (buy the product / believe in the psychic).

Just like educating beginning developers in the important of security, we should educate children to sanitize their inputs, validate things they are told, think critically, and realize the code that others are trying to run on them.

Talking about substitution like food is some thing that you just pick the 'best' possible at any moment and just eat that.

You don't want to eat the same thing over and over again, there are infinite number of recipes based on meat, and whatever that substitute is going to be, isn't going to replace everything else, it's going to be yet another option on the table in the best case scenario.

Also, take it from a jew in Israel, the saying "stolen water will sweeten" is very true. The fact some things are not "Kosher" here (say pigs, sea food) just make the people who oppose "Kosher" to want them even more.

If you think morale has anything to do with changing people's eating habits, you're so wrong.

Don't they? I feel like half the pictures are probably nearly identical to some picture in the training data and the other half are distorted mess...

I don't think they correctly realized the meaning of these blunders, most games are skilled-vs-skilled or amateur-vs-amateur, and for every blunder a skilled person makes there was a trap another skilled player placed. The way I see it, skilled players are more experienced at leading their opponents into exploitable complex conditions, whereas amateurs tend towards simpler board positions that are easier to reason about, and it is not uncommon for blunders to be missed by both sides.

Anyway I'm not sure they could control for the skill of the players in both sets, because their dataset is probably missing amateur-vs-skilled data, which probably renders most of their skill-based correlations incomplete, as we don't know if they correlate to the skill of the player making the mistake or their opponent.

I'm not the documenting type at all, but I do have a habit I developed of writing my current "state of mind" before the weekend, so that I'd remember where I left off at the start of the week. I usually remember my ideas during the day or so of thinking about them, it's usually during longer breaks that you forget about stuff. You never just "forget" stuff, it just goes "cold" in your memory and you're less likely to remember it when you need it. Find a way to remind yourself of stuff when you need it - notes are useless if you forget they exist.

Am I the only one here which hates smoking neighbors? Cigarettes, wood, I'd rather live next to a drummer than next to a smoker any day. I can't possibly stand the stench of smoke, and just now I moved apartment only because of smoking neighbors. If it were up to me, releasing any kind of smoke from your house should be illegal.

I find it way more disgusting and rude than just believing in religion. At least most people don't actively hurt other people's health by believing in religion. (and when they do, that's a line I can't accept).

Wonder how long until this code pops up in some CTF....

Funny when you hear this and then you hear all the complaints from people who think cryptocurrencies waste energy. It's almost as if there's always someone who will look at one half of the picture that is pessimistic for him.

What is curious is that it seems like there's a growing consensus with everyone with a real clue about it that this is a bubble, while the price keeps rising anyway.

We're already past the point where bitcoin could have any value as a currency, as the higher and higher transaction fees ensure the only remaining users are traders. I mean I can hardly see anyone using bitcoin today as anything but a store of value for speculative reasons. Any real users (which treat it as a currency) should have already left for cheaper currencies. It's going to fall, and fall hard, and it will be painful. When it will crash, it's going to take similar protocols (who can use the same setups / hardware / asics) down with it as miners try to reuse their hardware on more effective currency.

The question should be, what should happen so that it stabilizes. If Bitcoin and cryptocurrency marker were to stabilize, the competition between different cryptocurrencies should mean the trade off between their different features will be directly reflected in the cost to their user. The possible features are: - Transaction time (Bitcoin is relatively bad here) - Transaction fee (Bitcoin is also one of the worst options here) - Smart contacts / other integration features (Bitcoin is going nowhere here) - Anonymity (Bitcoin isn't in the best spot here, might have the advantage of being the most commonly used BUT this is a matter of momentum only). - Resistance to attacks from large groups of people (Bitcoin's biggest advantage, but again only a result of it's initial momentum, which might not hold forever).

Now you can also notice that all these features are composite. If you really want to pay for anonymity, you can tumble though the most anonymous currency. If you need smart contacts, go through eth. Resistance to nation state attack is a noble ideological concept, but has low demand, and a cheaper but weaker coin will be dominant in most scenarios.

You will also know a market is stabilized when there no incentives to create competition without innovating. There's nothing stopping you from creating yet another crypto coin, which will have better transaction fee and will still be as decent as others.

Anyway you can clearly tell the market is clueless when the talk isn't about which coins gives you the best features for the most cheap price, but instead about which coin rises the most (which is usually exactly the opposite).

I don't agree with all the "growth" and "fixed" categorization. Intelligence is fixed, that's pretty much a fact (see all research about IQ etc.). What isn't fixed is your state and knowledge in the process of solving a problem. It has nothing to do with intelligence.

This is the equivalent of talking about cars engines, and how some can get to higher speed than others, when in the end of the day you can probably reach your destination even with an old car engine, that can only drive and accelerate relatively slowly. It didn't magically improve/grow so you can reach your destination. You reach it because you kept the car moving.

I don't get why regulation is needed. The whole thing is by definition very high risk investment, and I think it'd be silly for any "scam-victim" to claim he didn't know he's entering a high risk, and also high chance of scam, deal.

In the end of the day, why is it the government's job to protect idiot people's money? And that's coming from the country where gambling is legal? The whole thing is based upon get-out-of-our-way-government exactly because of these ridiculous regulations.

If someone got money to waste, and decided to bet on some ICO horse, I wish him luck. If he doesn't have money to waste, it doesn't stop him from gambling on a real horse (which is still legal, and yet has 0 meaning whatsoever), so why are we so bothered about him gambling on this new virtual horse?

Sure, arrest those ICOs that are actually 100% clear scam because they left misleading expectations which they never had an intent of fulfilling.

The main issue is fraud detection. Having many different bills would confuse people, and you'd have hard time explaining which part of the bill you need to check and which part you don't. You're going to have the equivalent of fake download buttons.

This will be abused by trolls more than used by the "good guys". It's just a matter of time before some trolls decide to use this feature to create more lies about elections, hitler, holocaust, immigrants, and every conspiracy theory out there. You're going to search "who did 9/11" and have false websites trying to "fact check" the top pages (which at least today seem to be sane).

Just a comment on the gameplay, the characters are moving way too fast for the size of the screen, the whole game is just too unstable and random.

There was no RFC for localhost yet?! That's pretty surprising... That this RFC have any practical meaning? People didn't actually register localhost. domain, did they? Is there an actual line of code that this should change? Are they just trying to promote writing localhost instead of 127.0.0.1?

Registration forms should be standardized. I want to have my "real" details, and my "fake" details ready to be entered into websites that want yet another registration. Why does every single website implement their own registration form with exactly the same details?! Why does every single web site re-implement the registration page slightly differently?! Ideally, I'd enter the registration page, the browser would list the things they want to know, I'd pick either my details or another set of fake details (for spammy websites or others u don't really care about), one click and registration complete.

The finite states argument feels kind of wrong. You're usually interested in the general behavior for n people, and the number of states is exponential in n, which means that you need time exponential in n to repeat yourself. What you're seeing here is the early behavior of the system. Your arguments is a bit like saying every computer is actually a finite state machine, because of the finite memory it's going to repeat itself eventually. The argument is fundamentally flawed because you inflated one part of the question (time of running the question) while keeping the more significant part (number of particiants) fixed.

I tend to think of overengineering of a team member as the mistake of the team leader, unless you're really hiring a solo developer then you'd better pick an experienced one.

If you communicate your priorities properly, you put real emphasis on not creating unneeded code, people aren't stupid, they wouldn't do that. Most projects don't live in vacuum, and the difference between overengineered solution and a good solution depends on outside requirements, and that's the job of the team member to keep it on track.

Are there actually experienced developers who still overengineer? I always thought of that as something that happens from the lack of experience. Straight from university developers, or people who never worked with a team before tend to do that, but I can't see how you will hold off this attitude after a bit of experience. And unless you're letting an inexperienced developer lead your team I can't see the problem. As long as the team leader eventually communicates and pushes an overengineer in the right direction (make it work > make it simple > make it generic), is this really a problem?

I would've expected at least an example assembly code reproducing the bug? How was it not discovered before, but only with the OCaml compiler? They say "unexpected behavior", does this mean that code compiled with this can give incorrect results? Can this have any security implication? How much code was compiled with similar patterns? Can the problem reproduced with any JIT compiler? We need to know what can cause this, maybe compiled and working code already contains such patterns waiting to be abused...

I'm very surprised. I was sure -fstack-check was on by default. The fact that it isn't secure without it is known for years. Windows compilers have had that check for years. The bug isn't in any executables, gcc and all other compilers should have -fstack-check on by default, with optional disable. I'm even more suprised that people who are supposed to know what they are doing don't compile with it.

The real issue on putting backdoors, the way I see it, is that once you gave one government an access, you've already set a precedence and you can now be compelled by other governments to do the same.

Giving other governments backdoors would actually hurt the original country more than the backdoor could ever help it.

Segmenting the software according to which government is given backdoor will freeze the whole industry, and you would still have the unsolvable problem of imported protocols with different countries backdoors.

If the problem was only "good guys"-"bad guys" it would be solvable, but there are no good guys. There are so many countries, and each of them trust only themselves.

Also, when you don't fight the real issue, which is that we shouldn't want backdoors in the first place, all those agencies can offer their backdoor to the decision makers (maybe it even happened with DUAL_EC - who knows? maybe already happening as we speak), and when all decision makers hear is "impossible" and "impossible", but never "don't do that", they will silently agree and you wouldn't know a damn thing about it.

This propaganda about good guys backdoors being impossible again. This is cryptographic bullshit of the highest degree. We've had the DUAL_EC scandal, for once, as an example of NSA backdoor which as far as was proved, only the NSA could crack. And with the fact that the NSA had so many bad leaks, yet still everyone except the NSA can't crack it, proved that backdoors are not only possible, but were going on behind our backs.

Don't get me wrong - I'm completely against backdoors. But when you shift the argument into "we won't do it because it's impossible", you're already agreeing that it should be done, while your argument won't hold because it is in fact possible.

There's three kinds of people: 1. Non-technical people (theresea may) that want backdoors are don't care about whether it's possible or not. 2. Technical users, with a vague general knowledge of cryptography, and the imprinted thumb rule of "backdoors are bad" 3. People with actual knowledge in cryptography which had already been doing research about why it is possible for years. Just a teaser: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptography

Of course, the real issue would be the scale and the distribution of access to the backdoor to various agencies.