goodplay

If they can't manage to fix a severe security hole within 90 days, I'd say that they deserve to have their credibility destroyed.

I'm with GP on that we need more programs like project zero.

It's the other way around: you need to prove that what he says is merely feel-good baloney.

Otherwise, every person is insincere, including both yourself and I.

Side anecdote: While I haven't met and talked with the guy in person, I know a person who has. Her impressions of him was that he was an honest man who cared about his country.

Take what people say with a grain of salt unless there is reliable source that backs them up.

Just because you said that, it doesn't mean he doesn't believe in it. Support your claims with proof and don't let your biases take over reason.

Sure, just wire me 200k.

Whatever their justification, I wouldn't call it law at this point.

You're welcome.

I must stress that I do not blame developers for not catering for a language they do not speak, and I can't blame I company for not supporting a group of people if it doesn't make business sense.

I do, however, hold a grudge against a company that prevents me from fixing an issue in a product I payed for and own. More so when the fix is for a issue that renders the device useless and is incredibly easy to fix.

I used to be a big fan of prtmissive licenses until I bought a $700+ android phone a couple of years back and discovered that it did not "support" my native language (it could render the glyphs but system-wide support was not enabled).

Having extensive experience with unicode and how text is usually rendered, I knew exactly how to fix the issue; the fix was likely as simple as injecting an SO that hijacks a specific system library function. However, because the phone was locked down, I was unable to fix the problem myself. All important system apps including SMS and the browser displayed gibberish.

It was the most expensive brick I ever bought.

This experience taught me the true value of the GPL and why user freedom far outweighs the freedom of developers.

I designate a separate memory control group for the browser, and set both `memory.limit_in_bytes` and `memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes` to 1.5 GB. Then the browser is launched within that group.

The tools are the standard cgcreate and cgexec.

When the browser depletes all its memory allowance, I use killall to kill the tab processes leaving only the chrome running. I refresh the tab I want and carry on.

Might seem convoluted, but works extremely well in practice.

edit: It should be noted that I currently use chromium. I intend to switch to firefox as soon as I can port this workflow to it or otherwise achieve a similar result.

I use linux's control groups with very satisfactory results.

Only because they made the mistake of sharing their infrastructure (hence, their quirks) and got caught. I wouldn't call that oversight.

CAs should be required to announce ownership or large administration changes, and trust in said CAs should be revoked upon change unless/until they have been re-audited.

Then they shouldn't have grouped the orthogonal issues together in an all-or-nothing affair.

What I'm attempting to get across is that oligarchies by themselves aren't inherently any worse than other forms of rule. Corruption is what makes them and other forms bad.

Could you enable https?

That's corruption for you. No matter what form of power structure is employed, if you don't have good laws that are uniformly enforced, you'll get corruption, be the structure oligarchical or democratic.

The problem isn't that it's oligarchical, the problem is corruption. You don't need to look far to see that democracy and free markets aren't exactly free of corruption either.

Tying the two is nothing but a red herring.

People don't trust their hardware vendors because they're trustworthy, they trust them because they don't have any real choice.

If my preferred OEM offered me the choice between a locked-down opaque system, and an /equivalent/ system that is completely open and verifiable, I'd choose the second option every single time. I expect many would as well.

Yep. See the Airbus espionage debacle.

Similar in foundation, different in goals.

>An obstacle in the LIDAR is an obstacle, there's no common-sense or training needed for the car to know that.

>Worst-case scenario for a well-designed car in a situation it can't understand is to park itself and refuse to go on unassisted.

All these are false positives. What I object to are the costs of false negatives; A situation where the car mis-recognizes an abnormal situation as normal, and then proceeds to act on it's failed understanding.

The Tesla is a good example of this; the car failed to recognize the obstacle in front of it and acted accordingly (namely, crashing full speed into the object). Regardless of the underlying reason, a machine did not recognize it was in an unknown setting, and thus failed to react correctly. A human, on the other hand, notices, and will generally use what capabilities they possess to at least attempt to handle the situation safely.

I do acknowledge that self-driving cars will likely be statistically safer, but until these cars completely exceed the all the capabilities of human drivers, I refuse to trust them. Regardless of statistics.

A self-driven plane doesn't share the same challenges a self-driven car does. Furthermore, planes usually have at least one rigorously trained pilot to handle it should the computer fail or make incorrect discussions, and a relatively large response time window.

Apples and oranges.

Machines are much better than humans at detecting pedestrians, but only in situations they are specifically designed or trained for. If a machine finds itself in an unfamiliar or unknown settings (or if its sensors fail in a way not accounted for in the design), it will fail catastrophically. A human will not.

Hell, machines tend to fail even if the setting varies slightly from what they are designed for; just see the numerous ways self-driven machines failed recently for examples.

Machines must gain sensory and cognitive capabilities that exceed ours and a working comprehension of human values for me to trust them.

Firstly, I'm glad you and your family were not harmed.

I do not in any way mean for this to be offensive or disrespectful, but would you still welcome self-driving cars had this incident been caused by a malfunctioning self-driving car as apposed to a reckless driver?

My point is that self-driving cars lack the common sense that humans have. A human would immediately halt if they hear a child scream near their car, a car would continue moving along as if nothing is happening if it isn't designed or trained to detect screams.

Until machines gain sensory and cognitive capabilities that exceed ours, and a working comprehension of human values, I maintain my stance regarding this issue.

I am also human driver and I feel safer around "dumb" cars. I don't ever intend to ride a self driving car, and will do my best to avoid being near one.

Aside from being vulnerable to malicious actors, self-driving cars make "cold-hearted" mistakes that don't make sense; mistakes that humans would never make. Sure, the total number of mistakes they make will be lower than the equivalent number of accidents caused by humans. However, having human life lost to the type of mistakes self-driven cars make is, in my opinion, an unacceptable price to pay.

If I must loose my life to a car-related indecent, I want the it to be caused by a human, and not some quirk or edge-case in an algorithm or neural net.

If it's execution is similar to this project where hosting a page on your system is effortless (or at most a one-click affair), then it's definitely something I can get behind.

You'll get the benefit of insuring off-line availability as well as only hosting pages you care about. Win-win.

I believe youtube-dl is capable of downloading entire lists, but I don't know if the watch-later list behaves as a normal list. One way to find out.

I've used to employ a similar work flow to GP until a few years ago when video support finally got acceptable in web browsers. I still download talks rather than watch them on youtube or if I want to insure the future availability of the video.

If the current web works well for you then great, but it would be naive to think that it fits everyone's use case (Even more so to label what they need to do as "insane").

One good reason for me personally is to insure future availability. As I type this, there are a couple of videos in my watch-later playlist that have been replaced with "video removed".

> perhaps they should use software that is not dependant on Google

Isn't this what MicroG does?

If you're referring to the system as a whole, the only real alternative is ios, which is far worse in terms of user control over what the system does.

In an ideal world, I would be running some linux distribution on my phone and be finished with it. We don't live in an ideal world.

* What people want is to run apps on their phones. * Most apps now depend on google services because google actively promotes play services over base system services, and doesn't really invest in the later anymore. * Many people don't want to run google services on their phones (Me included). * MicroG solves this problem by replacing google services with equivalent services. * People can now run the apps they want.

This has nothing to do with entitlement or google. This is a way for people to run software on their phones without needlessly going through google.

I took too long to notice what was wrong, despite the subject of this post. Maybe punycode for ascii?