dodobirdlord

Laws tend to be written pretty broadly, with the understanding that when you encounter a law that seems like it could be construed in a ridiculous way, it’s the ridiculous construal that is silly and not the law. Judges and juries exist to ensure that silly stuff doesn’t happen, rather than trying to write laws so that they hold up to the most adversarial possible reading.

Is writing a book about being a bank robber going to pass muster as a threat to public morals? Probably no. Is setting up a free cigarette dispenser outside of an elementary school? Probably yes.

Places like Apple run their supply chains to ground. Literally in some cases, as they track sourcing of component materials back to the mines they are dug out of.

The chain of thought is quite straightforward. Functionally nobody wants an intermediary-free channel because there are adversarial entities on the other end.

Panicking is fairly important for ergonomics and safety. If panicking wasn’t available and execution had to proceed in all situations, recovering from a situation like memory corruption where invariants have been violated would require a lot of error handling anywhere an invariant is checked. This is exactly the sort of large amounts of error handling for situations that will almost certainly never arise than you are concerned about.

This was more or less true until everyone and their dog started running agents in a 24/7 busyloop as a bit.

The signature scheme used by bitcoin is far from the best encryption we have today, and more resistant to being updated than most more important things. So it’s an interesting novelty.

If you don’t also drop wallets with compromised signatures at some point after introducing secure signatures (effectively editing the ledger) they will be up for grabs.

Absent a functional ledger rewrite I expect there would be some window where miners with access to CRQCs switch their focus over to exclusively mining blocks of transactions transferring coins from insecure wallets to secure wallets under their own control. Is there actually interest in living in the world where the first person with both a CRQC and a mining farm gets to claim all of the stranded bitcoins for themselves?

Doesn’t this effectively still destroy all legacy wallets? Once the throttling limit goes into effect, it will be impossible for holders of legacy wallets to transfer their bitcoin without paying ~1 bitcoin per bitcoin they want to move. Doesn’t this amount to the same thing as abolishing all legacy wallets plus increasing the mining reward with extra steps?

In the absolute disaster scenario where the ecosystem is taken by surprise by an adversary with a CRQC, regulated custodians could form a consortium to reconstitute a new quantum-resistant version of bitcoin, pooling their ownership ledgers from before the disaster to reinitialize the blockchain and consigning to oblivion all coins not held in custody.

Does anyone happen to know if it is settled law in the United States that transferring bitcoins using a cracked key is a criminal act? It’s not immediately obvious to me that it would be covered by the CFAA.

What risk are you envisioning in #1?

Prosecutors don't have to "prove" things, they have to convince a jury. If your defense seems implausible a jury probably won't buy it.

Mass in the universe appears to be (very) roughly uniformly distributed, so even if there are large bodies of antimatter far away in the universe there would have to be a transition boundary somewhere between here and there where the universe goes from being mostly matter to being mostly antimatter. The universe is big and stuff would sometimes cross this boundary and get annihilated, and if this happened it would be the brightest thing in the sky, briefly outshining entire galaxies. We’ve been watching the sky for a while now and have never observed a bright visual event with the spectral signature of a matter/antimatter annihilation, so we assume there is not such a transition boundary, and by extension that the universe is made up of mostly matter out to the edge of the observable universe.

I suppose they could also put the points on the car and impound it after it accrues enough points to have a drivers license suspended. Hard to drive if you don’t have a car.

Assuming we’re talking about RFC 2119, it’s important not to collapse the distinction between SHOULD and MAY, which is there for a reason. MAY elements are legitimately optional, SHOULD elements are there for a reason and are disregarded at one’s own risk.

> SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

To validly disregard a SHOULD, you need to (a) fully understand the implications, and (b) accept them.

Any time someone disregards a SHOULD and then complains about the result, they are necessarily in the wrong. Either they didn’t fully understand the implications, or they don’t actually accept them.

Google probably did parse these messages as well-formed before inspecting them and deciding to drop them based on the lack of this field. The RFC imposes no mandatory obligation to deliver messages just because they are well-formed.

Amazon’s hiring bar has historically been very low, with a philosophy that if it doesn’t work out you can always just fire the person later. A similar philosophy exists for staffing up teams for speculative projects. If it doesn’t work out you can just axe the whole division after a couple of years. Periodic large layoffs are a natural consequence of operating like this.

There are relatively few cases of true synonyms in English (or any language). There are subtle differences in meaning, register, etc that are recognized by native speakers.

The codec can be triggered to run automatically by adversarial input. The irrelevance of the format is itself irrelevant when ffmpeg has it on by default.

I think you misread the original post. It is about overregulation fostering the spread of PE operated hospitals. Not about overregulation causing PE operated hospitals to have worse outcomes.

How does this relate to the original post? The original post posits that overregulation contributes to the dysfunction of the US healthcare system. The next response calls for specifics. The comment you responded to provides a specific regulation that may be contributing.

You respond questioning how that could explain why PE operated hospitals have worse outcomes. I agree, this doesn’t seem to have an explanatory power for why PE operated hospitals have worse outcomes, but how does that relate?

Only if you myopically assume all drugs have equal abuse potential, addiction potential, and negative consequences of abuse. The US federal drug schedule is a clown show.

Health insurance prior authorization policy, approved medication lists, and network pharmacy policies complicate maintaining continuous access during the DEA-imposed artificial shortage by complicating transferring prescriptions to pharmacies that have supply available and transferring prescriptions to substantially-equivalent drugs sold by different manufacturers.

People are fairly attached to causality.

If the variables are word-sized, sure. But what if they are larger? Now a race condition between one thread writing and another thread reading or writing a variable is a memory safety issue.

The literal meaning is incoherent nonsense because the sperm and egg were both alive before conception.

The comment you replied to was discussing the president’s authority to shut down agencies. (And lack thereof.)

It was consolidated into the Department of State as part of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 as an agency with an administrator and responsibility for administrating the distribution of aid under certain preexisting laws. So it is straightforwardly outside of the authority of the president to disband the agency, as Congress has provided that it shall exist. And it is likewise outside of the authority of the president to reduce it to an inactive status, as it has certain Congressionally-established responsibilities that it must perform.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title22/cha...

It’s not the ATCs job to get the plane down at the primary airport, on the pilot’s preferred schedule, in accordance with the airline’s policy of using ILS for landing at SFO at night. Any two would be a satisfactory outcome, and it sounds like the pilot could in fact have picked any two (well, it sounds like Lufthansa policy prohibited just getting in the VFR queue). Nobody was ever in danger and the worst case scenario was that the plane lands at Oakland, which was always a possibility from the moment they took off. If landing at Oakland is such a disaster Lufthansa could have canceled the flight once it became clear that they were running 3 hours late, had missed their originally planned slot, and would be landing at night.

If the pilot declared an emergency the ATC would make room for them, whatever the inconvenience to the airport and the other planes on approach. But after the fact there would be an investigation, and the pilot would be at fault if they falsely declared an emergency or deliberately caused an emergency by flying around in circles until they had to land just because they didn’t want to divert.

If the pilot’s being serious, he’ll declare an emergency and then the ATC will take him seriously. Otherwise he can continue to hold or he can divert to Oakland. There’s not much point in arguing about it over the radio, so I can see why the ATC ended the conversation.