dambi0

Busybody seems an unfortunate name to me, I don’t think it’s a particularly positive label.

I think there’s also a category difference betweeen hunter / busybody and dancer. The first suggest search strategies the second the utility of thst search. How do we know that hunters and busybodies aren’t just failed dancers?

I’m going to pretend to avoid asking what is a mile and what is 250 and 500 :)

I could imagine ways we could interpret “500 miles” the same way as The Proclaimers i.e. as a noteworthy or arduous distance, under which that claim “it’s 500 miles from Dallas to Houston” isn’t contextually false.

More interesting is what knowing that things are not the case tells us about what we can know is the case. I don’t think it reveals much, but I’m not sure

What is Dallas? What is Houston? Which parts do we measure. are we talking about road distance? That something doesn't change during a conversation is not the same the thing as them never changing

Literate programming could be seen as one way to encourage a focus on theory building.

I think the article is trying to say more than that the development and ownership of projects is often underestimated. It’s attempting to explain why that is the case. Because the cost of theory building is misunderstood. I don’t think the lede has been buried at all.

Aiming for an environment where uniformed challenges to estimates are discouraged is an entirely different thing to forbidding any challenges to estimates.

Why are they idiots?

Because it’s an opinion. And how would you imagine you could even find a source to support that. What would the research look like?

Are you sure that always providing the best guess would make output deterministic? Isn’t the fundamental point of learning, whether done my machine or human, that our best gets better and is hence non-deterministic? Doesn’t what is best depend on context?

Isn’t this similar to saying the valves and vessels of a chemical processing system is the design and documentation of the overall process?

I know that it’s frequently reposted but Peter Naur’s Programming as Theory Building is always worth a reread.

The code doesn’t tell us why decisions were made, what constraints were considered or what things were ruled out

I think you are maybe looking for offense. If I say “I consider them a good friend” it doesn’t bring into question the strength of the friendship.

Sadly I lack expertise. Do you have any concrete examples? How does, say the Wiki entry on the topic compare to your expert opinion.

I’m not sure I understand the point about learning. But wouldn’t any job that is largely text based at increased risk? I don’t think software development will be anywhere the last occupation to be severely impacted by AI

That’s perhaps one aspect of it. But there are more or less intelligent ways of achieving the same goal. There’s also intelligence in determining whether a goal is itself intelligent or whether there is a more desirable outcome. Often things we thought were intelligent at the time prove to be less so given later events and vice versa.

To have graded categories of intelligence we would probably need a general consensus of what intelligence was first. This is almost certainly contextual and often the intelligence isn’t apparent immediately.

And if I do have the device? And I have guessed the PIN?

And sometimes they don’t :)

Which is why I was careful to say that it was a difference without distinction only in some scenarios. Namely offline attack to a physical device.

In this scenario, even with the attempt restrictions the attacker has a couple of chances of relatively easy guesses, before falling back to the password protection. If we consider shoulder surfing, it’s a lot easier to distinguish a four or six digit PIN than a password.

I aware the PIN doesn’t give actual access to credential and so doesn’t impact online attacks. But that isn’t the only scenario.

Incidentally how much work is “in general” doing when you talk about the access Io Microsoft services granted by the PIN + TPM? It isnt zero access is it.

In some scenarios that’s really a difference without distinction though.

If I have a key to my house attached to a chain so it can be used to open the door but not leave the property and then secure it in a lockbox. If someone steals the key to the lockbox they technically don’t have access to the house key but they can still rob my house

Are the costs for the loop based on phase one or do they also include the planned extensions of the system? How many different land owners were involved in this phase? How well does the loop integrate with existing public transport infrastructure?

I stand corrected on the directional nature.

By routing I mean that the choice of destinations for the first phase at least is less constrained than what would it’s possible with a high-speed rail project connecting existing cities. Leisure isn’t the best phrase I agree but for example there is a difference between the ridership of the San Francisco cable car versus the buses and light rail of the Muni. I am not saying that people do not commute on the cable car but I would expect the vast proportion of riders are not commuters. I’m but sure how else to phrase that.

By and large I don’t know that have any disagreement with ether the original comment or the reply. I agree completely that we have to be careful when comparing a high-speed rail project to the Las Vegas loop. Whatever your opinion of the former

The arguments about the relative costs of the Las Vegas tunnel versus the cost of the CA rail project are interesting. You mention that the bulk of the cost is actually in the stations, yet tell us the per mile cost. How many fully accessible stations integrated with existing transport infrastructure are to be built on the high-speed rail project? The Vegas tunnel is currently unidirectional isn’t it? That would be less useful for the high speed rail project. It’s a bit different to consider a largely pleasure route which can largely be routed anyway from a transport project which is much less restricted in where it can be routed. A rail project has additional costs and complexities like laying track and signalling. I’ll assume your argument is that these are unnecessary, we can just use existing autonomous cars to solve this. In which case might we be better comparing cost by passenger throughput rather than per mile.

What difference does it make?

On what grounds?

If the attacker has hacked your email then they could presumably do a reset flow on gitlab and reset the password and clear any evidence. The identity provider step is unnecessary. If we assume that linking the salesforce account to gitlab generates an email. Then unless the attacker has persistent access to the email account you’d know about it. If they have persistent access then the existence of the linked account doesn’t matter. They can just do password resets whenever. This does assume linking an account generates an email. MFA or forced authentication with existing account to link a new identity provider makes sense. But in terms of password reset a hacked email is pretty much the keys to the kingdom anyway.

I suppose the slight difference is that with the password reset flow you’d know that you couldn’t login. But nine times out of ten I’d imagine you’d just do your own password reset upon finding you couldn’t login.

Probably the same reason we write things like

SECONDS_IN_DAY = 60 * 60 * 24

The individual components have some meaning that loses clarity when we just write the result of the calculation

I agree in general but I do wonder how unusual using ‘all’ to assume existence is. For example “have you done all your homework?” What we are really asking is whether there is any homework that wasn’t done, not did you do any homework.

If you wanted a completely invisible system you could do it via audio. Speech to text and back again and use a two pairs of same model wireless headphone with say the left ear connected to a hidden device and the right ear to the interview machine.

Other than a bit of practice it would be completely undetectable visually. It’s extra nice that we encourage thinking out loud.

We should assume people are doing this. The solution is interviews that don’t require information that can be looked up or in-person interviews or permitting the use of AI.

If something appears completely insane isn’t that often a good sign that we might not have understood.

The comment you replied to was pointing out that it was possible to record from cable TV with DVRs and that they had a feature to detect commercials and either skip recording them or allow you skip them en masse during playback.

While I suppose you could describe cable as streaming it doesn’t really refute the point about the ability to skip adverts