decisiveness

Nice work, and great mood lightening sound :)

Maybe it would be more accurate to detect when the siren light behind the goal goes off if it's always viewable on screen.

This is a cool idea, but the light show going off erroneously in my own home for the opposing team would be disheartening to any die hard fan. Any chance of this happening, let alone once every 4 games, would be unacceptable. And the pain of knowing I rigged it up myself would make it that much worse. I applaud OP for the wherewithal it must've taken to see this project through to the end.

> Today many students want everything "spelled out". They seem to be continually looking for "defects" in problems, but not with the purpose of furthering their understanding by coping with ambiguity, but to provide an excuse for not even thinking further about the problem.

But shouldn't the burden be put on the educator to provide problem scenarios for understanding that aren't unrealistic? It just seems common sense to develop an uninterested attitude toward things that start out trying to prove by understanding a thing that could never happen.

The problem with "Tell me about a time when ..." questions is that they more so test the strength of self-righteous memory than offer a clear picture of valuable job skills. These questions assume the interviewee has a vivid set of occurrences of which they can commend themselves. A good candidate who frequently leads, salvages, solves problems better than the rest probably doesn't store a list of these occurrences as special times they were able to do good work, they think of them as the norm, and may have trouble praising themselves in detail. In fact, I'd be more weary of the candidates that have a go to story to answer these questions as it may mean it's the type of thing that doesn't happen regularly.

>Or maybe the issue is that what lots of people want out of HN isn't the same kind of environment in which the actions of Torvalds to which you are obliquely referring occur.

The actions of Torvalds, though brash, are respected not because of his accomplishments, but because his assertions are usually quite valid. Many of us can learn from not discarding useful counterpoints simply because of how colorfully or insultingly they are delivered.

The problem is that "shallow cynicism", "gratuitous negativity", and "all forms of meanness" are vague distinctions all subject to interpretation.

Guidelines like this should have specific examples to aid in their definitions so we can criticize or agree with them. What could be considered "mean" to someone emotional/thin skinned, might be interpreted as helpful criticism to someone not so sensitive.

Sometimes it's really hard to say something respectfully negative (oxymoron), and even harder for it to be interpreted as respectful. I, for one, appreciate when people talk trash to me (especially when I'm wrong). It's an awakening I sometimes don't get from a less firm/colorful counterargument.

Often, it doesn't register that I need a household item replaced until it's gone. In this case, going to the store would fulfill my needs immediately whereas ordering from amazon could cause me to wait two days for a roll of toilet paper.

Why not charge the listener per song play and pay the artist 70% of each play?

I understand the concept of creating something exceedingly more generally intelligent than its creator, I'm simply suggesting it's not possible. Many people assume that it is, and we'll have to agree to disagree. But even if I'm wrong and it does become possible, think about how unlikely it would be for a human to accidentally accomplish this.

Also, if AI is to be smarter than humans, it will know it could potentially be wrong about anything. Armed with that knowledge, how much smarter can it really be?

"There is no reason, unless you believe in magic, to think AI can't be as smart as humans."

AI can be as smart or smarter than most humans in many ways, but I think it's a very real possibility that its development path won't render the human mind useless. They key difference between AI and humans is AI has the power to iterate and learn from its mistakes much faster than humans without fatigue. The methods of which it learns are created by humans. To assume the creation of AI with "a positive feedback loop that goes nobody knows how far" without humans first understanding how seems more of a belief in magic to me.

"I don't think, and a lot of smart people don't think, this is true."

When it comes to predictions, smart people can be wrong. I could be wrong or they could be wrong, and they may be smarter than me, but I'm smart enough to know this is true.

I'm doubtful of the prediction that humans will eventually become useless or superfluous. Common jobs today that only humans can do will undoubtedly be accomplished by machines in the future, but that doesn't mean humans will become obsolete.

As long as the universe and time exist as we know it humans will never be perfect. And just like humans, AI will always have bugs, as its root creator will always be a flawed human. Whether there are unintended consequences of those bugs is another story. But since a human can never create AI to create AI better than a human, AI can never render the human mind obsolete.

Any AI not created with bad intentions will mostly be created to serve, defend, or improve our way of life and survival. These things work to support our purpose not destroy it.

But as Harari says (before he starts predicting), "it's impossible to have any good prediction for the coming decades."

Telnet wouldn't help if they forgot the password and it wasn't hard-coded as a back door. Also, the support tech wouldn't be able to access it remotely unless some of the things I mentioned in the original comment were true.

Wouldn't it be easier to just say, "hold down the reset button on the back for 30 seconds"?

True, hardware backdoors have been around forever. The difference here is a BIOS backdoor password has a somewhat legitimate reason. You can't just hit a reset button on your PC if you forget the BIOS credentials the way you can on your router.

Also, a router being programmed like this exposes every device routed through it, whereas a BIOS backdoor only gives you access to the single device to which you have physical access. My surprise comes from the gall of the manufacturers as they should be fully aware of these implications.

It baffles me that any router manufacturer would have the nerve to hard-code login credentials into their routers.

But to be clear, for this to be pulled off remotely, the router must first either disable its firewall or a DNS rebind attack or some other vulnerability must be possible. In the case of a rebind, a victim must also first visit an attacker's server. What would be even more concerning is if any of the routers hard coded with these login credentials are also vulnerable to a rebind or something else by default. Many manufacturers patched the rebind vulnerability back in 2010.

> The book "Gravity" is a medical techno-thriller about a doctor in space fighting a disease outbreak on a space station.

Remember that sometime between 1999 and 2002[1], Gerritsen wrote and submitted a third act re-write including "scenes of satellite debris destroying ISS and the lone surviving female astronaut adrift in her spacesuit." (core suspense of Cuaron's script).

[1]http://www.tessgerritsen.com/gravity-2014/

If bash is the shell (assuming recursive search is required), maybe it would be even faster to just do:

    shopt -s globstar
    mawk '/Result/ {
        game++
        split($0, a, "-")
        res = substr(a[1], length(a[1]), 1)
        if(res == 1)
            white++
        if(res == 0)
            black++
        if(res == 2)
            draw++
    } END {
        print game, white, black, draw
    }' **/*.pgn

?

This is probably the most concise introduction to awk I've read.

For more extensions[0] and advanced features like arrays of arrays and array sorting, there's also gawk. And for larger files there's performance driven mawk which can drastically increase processing speed[1].

[0]https://www.gnu.org/software/gawk/manual/html_node/Extension...

[1]http://brenocon.com/blog/2009/09/dont-mawk-awk-the-fastest-a...

Cool guide, makes me want to learn more about BSD and pf. I've been doing this but with a Linux VPS, iptables and EasyRSA3[0][1].

[0]https://github.com/OpenVPN/easy-rsa

[1]https://community.openvpn.net/openvpn/wiki/EasyRSA3-OpenVPN-....

> Centralizing in a password manager centralizes the burden.

So does using a single email account for everything.

Yup, but the one takeaway I get from these court documents is the FBI needs someone to make some bone headed mistakes in order to bring them to justice.

The problem with voice recognition software that doesn't require a physical action like pressing a button (Siri) is that they do a terrible job at distinguishing between when your actually trying to talk to it and when you or audio/video say(s) something in conversation to someone else/playback that might sound like the command keyword.

I feel like this information might make some deviously smart individuals think they can get away with it by not screwing up where Benthall did.

To be more clear, I suggest that Strictly by Rating require a minimum number of user reviews counted, and excludes movies with RT Audience reviews still in a "Want to See" status.

This is a really good idea, and a useful app.

Only suggestion: Number of ratings/reviews should hold more weight in the sorting algorithm.

e.g. Hollywood Buddha (2003) shouldn't be the RT Audience Rating second highest ranked film all time.

His recovery email address attached to the account must've also been hacked if he had two-factor on, as google always starts the recovery process from that email.

This should definitely be linked on his Wikipedia page, ironically making it appear above the search result of which he's trying to rid himself.

But with AdBlock you can whitelist pages which you want to support, and block all the ads for videos from those which whom you don't care whether or not they stop producing original content.

It's the ads I watch for a video I regret having clicked on that cause me to block everything first, whitelist later.

So with a paid no-ad subscription, it would mean I'm indirectly supporting the videos I've seen which I don't feel deserve my support.

I seem to be missing something. You knew it was happening when you got the first bill, but let it continue for another half month before shutting it down?

The whole point of TCP's design is to make delivery reliable, and in order on stressed/lossy networks.

These test reveal exactly what you'd expect, as they are run between servers under prime networking conditions.