flumpcakes

"Scanned" faces in this instance isn't unique people.

500,000 individual checks could have been for the same person. While that is extremely unlikely, it's also unlikely they scanned 500,000 unique people.

Britain has become extremely soft on crime. For some people it's still not soft enough.

Perhaps not many criminals use train stations during the day, for example, people probably deliver drugs by bike or car so they don't walk around a busy place stinking of weed.

How many known criminals have biometrics of them in the first place?

Of the criminals that do have identifiable biometrics, do they operate in that area?

We also don't know the false negative rate. Perhaps it's very high in order to keep the false positive rate as low as possible.

These are things pulled out of thin air that could easily explain why 500,000 face scans (not people) provided no arrests/identifications.

The biggest reason probably being as you said... it was clearly marked. Honestly I would be shocked if they found a criminal dumb enough to walk past it, but not dumb enough to have yet to be caught.

I don't think there's a limit to the animosity people feel (rightly or wrongly - what's "correct" has no bearing on people's feelings) and we will end up in a place where previously unthinkable force or actions are now permissible due to nasty politics. The US is getting a small taste of that now.

I don't think it takes much imagination to connect the dots... it wasn't that long ago in European history where people were systematically eradicated by the millions.

Hot take: I think immigration and multiculturalism is going to be the the biggest and the defining issue of this century. The history books will have "AI" and climate change in the margins as 'exacerbating factors'. We've started to see it in the US, and we're beginning to see the start to it in the EU. Japan--rightly or wrongly--might be averting a future disaster here. Japan is lucky in that they are still a very homogeneous society, and also unlucky in that they are ahead of the curve in population decline. I think the western world is in for a bad time over the next 50 years.

Is this just the old 'Government is stupid' or 'EU is too bureaucratic' trope, or did you have a particular point?

> passkeys require using a manager as well, so there isn't much point.

No they don't. I use hardware passkeys for all my important accounts. It's extremely easy.

Yes. I use hardware based passkeys and absolutely love them. I think it was a giant mistake having them 'software' based. It some ways it kind of defeats the entire purpose...

I use passkeys, hardware ones, and I am very happy with it.

I don't understand why people dislike passkeys, they are the most secure system we could possibly do and I am also very happy that the major companies are accepting them.

It seems to me that people would prefer to be insecure and use something that is familiar and easy to understand, than be secure and have to do something different.

Because it's about the journey and not just the artefact. If you're not thinking of something that's useful and preparing snippets to share every day you are not practising it. Having to come up with something stretches your imagination and critical thinking skills. What's true for the writer is true for the reader - if you just shared a simple repository with tricks, exceedingly few are going to read that, and the ones who do will forget it. Daily practise is important.

The EU is big enough to house multiple regions for multiple cloud providers, all in the same jurisdiction (so they can actually be used within data sovereignty requirements). Not true for most of the other places in Asia/UK/South America/etc.

No - and usually the reason is so they cannot be targeted.

Regions are really the scale of disaster isolation only in extreme cases - such as global catastrophe (meteor strike taking out a city) or in this case, when actively targeted in war. I don't really see the same thing happening to a US or European region.

Death-frightening scion capable of seeing beyond the illusionary world before our eyes John Carmack?

You have a very nuanced take that I broadly agree with. I would add that they were probably targeted for political reasons, it's not like the current administration is going out of their way to tackle right wing "terrorism".

Is it truly anyone, or only anyone that politically aligns with them?

I don't understand your comment - the social norms I refer to are paying tax, sending your children to school, integrating with the local community, living in areas/accommodation that is legal/not transitory. It can be argued how many of those are valid criticisms, but that is what generally refer to.

I think DHH's comments are pretty mild given the subject. However, I think it is how he frames his comments that cause offensive - lumping a (potentially) problematic (arguably) ethnic group of people in with animal control...

I think DHH's opinion is a very common sentiment in Europe. "Gypsies" are a very European thing. I wonder if there's anything similar in the US? For context for US readers; they generally exist outside of the usual social norms, and have a pretty bad reputation because of it.

This is not a defence of DHH, just providing context to his comments.

I thought it was very obvious throughout the video what was happening...

Rust has compile time checks to enforce some safety. In comparison Fil-C is a lot more memory safe, it's more comparable to being a software implementation of CHERI.

Unfortunately it comes with downsides: runtime performance, runtime enforcement, granular safety (the safety is around allocations).

It also comes with huge upsides: you can run C/C++ with little to no code changes. Imagine compiling nginx and the associated system libraries with Fil-C, the performance hit is probably acceptable and now the web server is memory safe.

Rust probably provides enough memory safety (even if it is not complete safety) in most circumstances though.

I think you are concentrating on 'free' too much here.

It's not about giving away resources, it's about serving the user.

1. No, a kiosk shouldn't be hooked up to some crime database, it should function exactly as expected in situ.

2. A self-service checkout machine shouldn't 'give away' free stuff, it should however let you pay and leave.

3. An ATM should give the user money from their account - without added charge for the convienance.

I think 2 and 3 are bad examples because they actually already exist in the way that Andrew is saying things should exist. If they didn't (for example, they played a 30 second advert before you could checkout) then people would never have started using them.

Software/SaaS/startups are much more inclined to use dark patterns and attempt to bleed the users dry (either their cash or their attention) - established conveniences like self checkout and ATMs on the whole just do their job - the general public would NOT accept it any other way. It's a shame the general public don't share the same sentiment when it comes to more glamorous technology.

I think it was trying to find a moral standard that wasn't being set by established places. I think it was showing a level of self-reflection (going through a process of finding your set of principals after leaving an established faith translates very well into questioning the morality of how established software operates).

I did find a few things adventuring into the off topic in the video. Considering all the drama lately and certain opinions that always come out with threads on this person, I was thinking "oh no, people aren't going to like this" while watching, despite broadly agreeing with the substance of the message.

There are no 'unsafe' blocks in Fil-C. I think you trying to conflate 'unsafe blocks' with the fact that there might be compiler errors which might break 'safety'? Which is equally true in any system including Rust.

I think you should watch the linked presentation, it will show how it is "safer" than rust. Unfortunately there are performance implications, but fil-c seems fast enough to go into production for many workloads and surprisingly needs very little code changes to existing C/C++ projects which is a huge benefit.

I can't believe these comments - passkeys are pretty easy to understand and most platforms allow you to add multiple. Not enough for truly one-passkey-per-device, but if you use a password manager that syncs passkeys, or hardware passkeys it's fine - it's easy, quick, and more secure than any password can ever be (mitm resistant).

I think the confusion with passkeys comes from that fact that everyone wants to own you so you have to be mindful if this passkey is being stored on the OS, the browser, sync'd between devices through google or apple, etc.

US politics is cooked. I wonder if polymarket will start taking bets on mid-terms being canceled.

That video is embarrassing. Theo clearly doesn't know what he is talking about at points, and is having a massive crash out for really no reason.

I agree with your sentiment completely. I think there's nuance that a lot of people don't bother with because of tribalism but your take is the one I most align with in this instance. Children do need protecting, I grew up with the Internet and it made me partly who I am today, but I also recognise it is completely different now. Gore/shock/NSFL websites being linked between friends as pranks are no longer a thing (thankfully), but we have replaced that with garden walls (Facebook, Reddit, YT, etc.) that are much more insidious and have mechanised the harm to children and young people to an unbelievable scale.

It doesn't need to expose something as new to point out a causal link?

Someone saying that work-life balance means all work and no life, and then producing substandard quality at said work seems worth pointing out.

A trillion dollar company vibe-porting a vibe-coded low quality product for clout/advertisement seems worth a call-out.

> Nothing was ever said about the addictive design of mainstream TV - because then the rulers controlled the message being streamed into the brains of the population.

More outlandish conspiracy theories on hackernews...

You are in fact wrong - see the myriad of rules advertising, especially what can be advertised on children's TV.

What messages are not being allowed to be 'streamed into the brains of the population' exactly? Are you suggesting, for example, that claims made by the US president should not be shown on TV? Are you suggesting that these are not then analysed and scrutinised by people on TV?