drtillberg

That doesn't work. Now and always an independent investigator of truth will be a lone voice in a wilderness targeted by all warring dogmatic factions. Witness NYT seeking to draw HN to the fray with Saturday's piece about SSC.

Unfortunately, sophisticated threat actors are still very hard to defend against in aviation like in software.

Maybe the NYT is jealous that Scott is so obviously a better and more thoughtful writer?

This. Slippery slope to denying credit based on a consumer's decision to avoid using Facebook or to search using DuckDuckGo.

Eh, not sure how the word "Russian" ended up in that comment. It was an American design before it was a Russian one.[1] Plus, there was an added feature in some American plans I've read about (but can't immediately locate) of long-term loitering over adversarial territory and discharge of radioactive material.

What would it matter if it were hypersonic?

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto

WSB is a game ppl lose simply by playing, IMO. When I read these stories I think of Jesse Livermore-- arguably the greatest trader of all times -- who went bankrupt 3 times on the way (including the end)[1]. The only way to win is not to play.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Lauriston_Livermore

Strange the study might have used a placebo group of people infected with parasites. I guess they needed to test if their process actually was effective in generating hookworm infections?

So when does censorship of or manipulating user ratings make an app store responsible to its users for failing to prevent harm to them (or wasted time) from bad apps, mismanaged services, scams and frauds? Ppl see the 4 stars, download the app, wire RH a part of their nest egg, RH predictably fails to honor commitments in ways explained by the deleted app reviews, and RH damages app users. At what point is Google responsible for that mess? Never?

At first read it sounded like cold temps below 40C were problematic, but then the author recommends keeping the SSDs at temps below 40C. So then, if you leave the SSD powered off in an environment above 40C (104F), what then?

The extent to which my browser configuration breaks the websites on your list is my yardstick for success.

Perhaps there is a new profile.

> Remember that some people thought that government borrowing ... facilitated by quantitative easing (Fed bond-buying) ... was going to lead to substantial inflation. But it didn’t.

Every time someone says "but where's the inflation" I sigh. Look at literally any financial asset, SP500, stocks, real estate, even bond values (the inverse of interest rates). There is your inflation.

Maybe we like asset inflation, maybe we don't, but that's where it is. When the author claimed to be unable to find it, I stopped reading.

>The real satoshi is probably Paul Le Roux, and currently in federal prison.

That conjecture makes a huge amount of sense based on circumstantial factors but most importantly, business purpose. The gentleman you identified was (when BTC was released) running an international unconventional business with money-logistics issues. As we see now, BTC's primary use case is facilitating international financial logistics for criminal transactions-- the use case for BTC always stayed close to home! Assuming the conjecture is correct BTC performs exactly the real-world role it was designed to perform.

As for the paper, let me get this straight-- the group that publishes the software that establishes what BTC is now has taken the position that whoever Satoshi is or was can claim copyright and take down core BTC IP no matter how licensed?! Yeah, that can't be very reassuring to a multi-million dollar industry based on IP collected and distributed by Bitcoin Core, i.e., the entire bitcoin ecosystem.

>Trees are crucial to our long-term survival, as they absorb and store the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global heating.

I stopped reading when I encountered this statement. In fact, the connection between trees in the desert and carbon dioxide absorbtion is tenuous.[1]

[1]. https://medium.com/the-philipendium/trees-and-carbon-dioxide...

I wouldn't count on military commanders employing "human nuance" within 30 seconds of receiving a direct presidential order. On the contrary, it's pretty amazing that with 2, 3, 4 or more nations on a nuclear hair trigger for multiple decades that the systems of deterrence and avoidance have so far been successful.

Riversflow, the reference to the replenishment of the "tree of liberty" is unhelpful. It's cliche and generates far more heat than light.

The real reason it can be dangerous to ban speech connected with "terrorism" is the quoted term is so poorly defined as to potentially be almost anything abrasive and unpopular. I haven't seen any cohesive explanation of how the occupation of the Capitol January 6 was terroristic in nature, and yet the event broadly is being criticized as such, exemplifying why high-stakes laws against ill-defined things could have a chilling effect far broader than just those things we all agree should not occur. Is the line when protesters are unlawfully in a location? Like the middle of a street? When they advocate for things that are not currently lawful, e.g., changes in law? When they are agitated, animated and frighten their neighbors?

Civilized (and sometimes boorish) people today go to the Internet to communicate. That's what we're doing right now.

Maybe if you (or I) were banned from HN, no big deal, find some other corner of the Internet to shout from. FB and Twitter are the modern public fora however, they have through moats or whatever business tactics, made other fora far less significant, and in terms of discussion space they are a very big deal. You might be correctly repeating legal principles as they appear in last year's hornbook, however, the books will eventually change.

If Cloudflare and Google together delisted and deplatformed anyone repeating any words of the President or major conservative leaders -- that would undermine a core tenet of our democratic society. That would be an obvious affront to first principles. I'm not sure FB and Twitter are greatly removed from that hypothetical.

There was no "network effect" deterring me from dropping the NYT. These social media platforms, and the internet in general-- which are entirely "private"-- are the new public square.

Twitter, Facebook, et al just excluded leading conservative voices from the public square.

Let me simplify it.

The bitcoin ecosystem is a cesspool of ransomware payoffs, international money laundering and speculation. Eliminate 2 of those use cases via financial surveillance and I will be happily surprised if the 3d survives, or if any similarly robust marketplace springs up from the ashes. Because the bitcoin ecosystem is such a mess, it's not worth saving, in my opinion. It's a feature, not a bug, and it gives all alt-moneys a bad reputation.

I don't like dragnet-style financial surveillance, in general. If it bothers you when applied to bitcoin for philosophical reasons, it should bother you more when applied to other alt-moneys with less nefarious uses.

The main real-world uses for bitcoin are (1) evasion of currency controls and (2) facilitation of extortion and fraud. That's all illegal, btw. The surprise is FinCEN didn't act until now to align its surveillance of bitcoin with the rest of the financial world. I also would speculate that the short action timeline and comment period have a typically cynical purpose to deploy one of a grab-bag of regulatory actions at precisely the moment the price of bitcoin has again caused a stir.

Bitcoin isn't worth fighting for here, sorry EFF, but it is a useful canary warning about the current state of low financial freedom and privacy (by historical standards) and surprising degrees of unofficial suppression of viable alt-moneys. I would be happily surprised if the FinCEN reg forced unlawful use cases out of the bitcoin ecosystem leaving a vibrant, healthy marketplace....

I read the earlier comment as making aggressive, common-sense inteferences from 'facts' sprinkled through the original posting-- FB ended direct engagement with shared.com a long time ago, the shared.com ads were placed through 3d party contractors (maybe this is less exceptional than it sounds) and the OP says the reason he's sure FB was ok with the whole thing was shared.com's transparency about its business model ... which sounds like an admission it's low quality, that FB initiated communications about quality in the past, and that the OP was aware the shared.com content had implications for FB business standards. Those might be incorrect inferences, but they seem fair from the OP's marketing release.

An alternate hypothesis is that most of the spend referenced by OP is ancient and relevant only for old-time sake. Again. OP didn't say that exactly, but it's a fair thing to question based on how the OP wrote the posting and selected the relevant time period.

It's never the original problem, it's always the cover-up. Seems like an interesting project for an ambitious Assistant U.S. Attorney.

It's just super interesting that the granular record is persistent and can be replayed years later. Pretty non-obvious to me, and something I usually pay attention to!

Storing keystrokes used to make a document reminds of a comparison between personal data and toxic asbestos.

Storing and indexing keystrokes is unique, and it might even be useful, yes. However, this does not at all seem safe to store without user knowledge for every document created. What could possibly go wrong....

Local TV News managed to interview a neighbor from directly across the street where the explosion occurred[1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iag6cTWpgq8

Upon seeing the reports of the location of this specific real-world incident I researched to try to find an article I know exists describing how indestructible those windowless telecommunications hub buildings are. Isn't there an article somewhere describing how they're hardened against unconventional military attack? Visually the Nashville structure seemed very very well reinforced.

As for the NSA angle, this location was not on the list published by the Intercept in 2018.[1]

[1] https://theintercept.com/2018/06/25/att-internet-nsa-spy-hub...

Not clear who actually owns the equity outright. If its the OP, based on what's written and nothing more it sounds like a racket the non-technical founders are running. I personally would identify the laziest path for you to exercise your rights to extinguish the entire venture, ideally with counsel, and then tell the other people what you've decided to do, let them name their price.

If things roll your way, maybe you resurrect the business later buying its assets out of bankruptcy. Either way, think lazy; this looks like a scam for your time; the more you put into it at any price, the worse off you are.

It's hard to tell from the article where to draw the line between the Raytheons of the world and NSO Group. Is business only allowed to sell dumb weapons to government?

Looks like international trade in zero-days already is treated as potential weapons[1]. Is the point that Facebook et al object to being primary targets of hostile international actors? Using the same logic, though, if I'm feeling insecure about foreign air power do I sue JSC Sukhoi Company?

[1] https://www.justsecurity.org/5703/export-control-arrangement...

To me a defining characteristic of 1930s Nazism was a perceived mortal struggle against Communists that excused or justified egregiously unethical and immoral means.

In the modern U.S. that has some similarity to the highly polarized debate the last decade along party lines.

This however? It's mortal political enemies coming together to elbow-bump over ... pork-barrel end-of-term politics. That, from a realist perspective, is America. It's not great, but it's not 1930s Nazism either.

It's a spectrum and you already know you're somewhere on that spectrum or nearby. IMHO, you have all the information a professional could reasonably supply.

I tell my own ASD child, it's such a broad spectrum of otherwise loosely-associated characteristics that whatever diagnostic standards are deployed by professionals almost certainly will be reassessed as erroneous in my child's lifetime, which means all authoritative guidance you can receive now on the subject is 'wrong'. ASD is a bucket of 'different'. Those doing the judging can't even be consistent in expressing how ASDers are 'different'. That is all.