grive

> Unless the automation creates free trucks for all to use

This is indeed pretty much the basis for these questions to arise. Not free of course, but such marginal cost that ownership would not mean much.

When instead of 50 cars / trucks, you only need 15 and their cost is shared among the local community, with the price of buying one / maintainance very low due to automation, it will make sense to have this kind of system.

Doesn't mean ownership would disappear, simply that for most people it would be more convenient / cheaper to use this system, and as such most people would choose to do so.

> But still, this is only problematic if you "trust" an access point.

Which is the case for the vast majority of wifi users.

It is completely irrelevant how any of us here consider their access point. The problem is that the masses could be subject to these attacks and allows propagating malwares and botnets.

> For the same reason you can't look over to your neighbor's driveway and say, since he doesn't use his truck all day while he's at work, why can't I drive it ?

Now.

This sense of ownership will be far more diluted once the truck is entirely automated and only needs ressources to run, while the knowledge that it could be far more efficiently allocated to be used by you at this time is made clear by our connected environment.

Then the same question will arise for your neighbor's truck: "why do we need to reserve ownership of these goods for the benefit of a limited portion of society?"

Starting from the fruit of labor, whole industries, to the minutiaes such as these. A connected world means that such micro-optimization would become possible.

So don't dismiss this on the basis that right now, this is not how we operate.

This attack is a MitM. The attacker is able to act as the access point and receive the victim's traffic, unencrypted.

He is also able to modify this traffic and serve compromised pages.

The attacker needs to have a stronger signal than the legitimate access point. So he has to stand pretty close to the victim, physically.

> Seriosly, is this really a problem at all?

Yes. I write Python and C everyday. I am highly proficient in both. I would quickly withdraw from a project that mixes both in the same code base.

I'd also be slightly alarmed to see someone claiming to be able to distinguish proper engineers and not being aware of the issue with multi-language projects :-) .

My issue with multi-language project is that you introduce a lot of overhead to the process surrounding the code. The code-review / static analysis, build and test all requires an additional toolchain and associated best practices. It is already an issue with single-language projects to do this right, it quickly becomes a nightmare when you introduce an additional language.

And that's without even considering the need of FFI integration or likewise, with possibly (preferably) framework to handle the generation of the interfaces, and thus the introduction of another dependency, a possible sub-par codebase with the associated bugs, and potentially very subtle bugs due to your objects not playing nice with the intermediate representation.

I did it with a C++ / Java interface, never again. I would never greenlight such a project.

This has nothing to do with the proficiency or the willingness to learn of your engineers.

Sure, I think I see the reasoning behind: reduce the time to market for embedded products.

But I'm mostly wondering the actualy benefit of choosing mJS instead of micropython to do so. It seems that both are capable of handling this problem, however mJS seems aiming at a compromise between JS and C, and my opinion on this is that it will introduce huge overheads on any projects. This mostly stems from my being wary of multi-language projects.

The process involved in embedded platforms seems heavy enough as it is, no need to blur the lines further.

> Prototyping and Scripting Engine

> Micropython Moving to production (C/C++) or factoring out critical pieces to C/C++ is not trivial

VS.

> mJS - JavaScript engine for prototyping and C/C++ for production

I don't know much about it, but from the surface it seems that the problem is exactly the same? What is the benefit of prototyping in JS instead of Python? In the end, either you refactor everything purely in C, or you use both in your production system.

I see mJS does FFI to interface with other C routines. Why introduce a second language to your project? This seems like a huge overhead for no benefit (you're still expected to write C at some point). The language is only a subset of JS, so "not JS", so no ecosystem and new assumptions you have to redefine before getting serious with it?

Is it just me who thinks it's a bad idea? Would someone be able to explain the advantage of going in this direction?

I guess you could read those:

https://tuleap.ring.cx/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/ring/index.php...

"Being your own boss" actually means having as many bosses as you have clients.

> Someone with in-demand skills and a good reputation

The easiest possible situation is not sufficient to judge the proposition. You also have to examine the worst and see if that's at all acceptable, then try to move the cursor back up until you are able to see if on average the proposition is viable. But of course the most capable people will be able to survive.

> Why is it a _bad_ thing that society is the one bearing the cost, instead of an arbitrary purchaser of their labor?

Because taxpayers are then paying for companies like Walmart to increase their profits. They are able to reduce their labor expanses because "someone" will pick up their slack.

The government should help you when you don't have a job, so that you can have time for education, your kids, or plain healthcare if needed. But if you are active and working, if you spend your day working for someone (either in an office in a 9 to 5, or as a "giggers" chasing the next one during your day), then you should be able to sustain yourself without additional help from the government.

Because then employers will expect the gov to step in. They will drive their wages lower, and all the competition will do the same. And when the government is picking up the rest of the bill for everyone in the market, where the fuck should taxes come from?

Finally

> instead of an arbitrary purchaser of their labor?

Labor has a cost. If you are unable to purchase it, then don't. But don't expect others to pay for the labor you would have liked to purchase. This is like saying that just because I'm the arbitrary purchaser of a tuna sandwich, I should get help to pay for it. This is beyond insane.

> The notion that this is "subsidizing" purchasers of their labor is Orwellian bullshit.

This is pretty ironic that you accuse me of using newspeak, while you expect the state to become the sole responsible party to support basic amenities for its citizen. Because the latter is pretty orwellian, and thus your accusation itself goes in line with the concept of newspeak. Anyway.

> Giggers don't really need employers or employees, since gigs can be performed in an ad-hoc p2p fashion.

That's only mudding the waters. Work is performed to the benefit of someone. Someone is giving orders / specs and gives money for it.

The point of the gig economy is to avoid naming it a employer / employee relationship, by dividing it until it isn't meaningful anymore.

But that's only to hide the concept and allow to profit from a new relationship where you don't have to provide benefits / baseline standard of working for the people effectively being employed (that you can reduce to "spending their time on your problem").

> Also I don't see why you would want taxpayers to subsidize giggers.

That's precisely the opposite of what I am saying. The gig economy fucking up the labor market will force any humane society to step up and provide for those lacking access to basic things in life: help to pay the rent in the months where work is scarce, food stamps, etc.. And that's not even going into the lack of stability, forbidding any access to long term investment (a car, a house), which in our time and age should be accessible to anyone.

You have employers benefitting from a new relationship where they do not need to provide it for their employees because the relationship has been destroyed. This forces others to pick-up their failures. I don't want to live in a society where people are starving, with or without a job but even moreso if they are active and working.

I am against the gig economy, because this is a way for employers to avoid taking their responsibilities, meaning that taxpayers are left to foot the bill. If not, we go a few centuries back with extreme poverty, shantytowns and slavery-in-all-but-name. I do not want that, and I do not want to pay to increase the profit of others.

> The gig economy is a very efficient way to allocate humans in a precarious environment.

If you remove the bullshit-coating, you're left naked with the sad reality.

And as human are not capable of living without shelters and in fear for their future, they become dependent on society to pick-up your failure to provide a proper environment to your employees. You've essentially subsidized your business by deporting the negative externalities of "living wage" and "humane work environment" to the tax-payers.

And those new-age capitalists then lecture us on personal responsibility.

> Easier to start an ISP

The law of physics will gently back off and new ISPs will be able to install infrastructure on top of the existing one?

Existing ISPs have a de facto monopoly, because there isn't unlimited space to install backbones. Given that it is impossible to change that and have a free market, the next best thing is to regulate their market and forbid them from distorting the one built on top of it.

> cheaper services for the end consumers

Don't be naive: consumers will pay the same price for a shit-tier internet, those who can afford it will pay a premium for "regular" internet.

How do you start a content company when competing against the subsidiaries of the tube owners then? They essentially have prime access to their internal market, and you will have to pay upfront to have a public.

Why would they demand only the giants to pay? They have zero interest fostering competition against their own products.

Experience takes time. More or less, depending on several factors (willingness to learn and improve, complexity of the subject, ...). But by definition, if you gain experience, you just got older than before.

You cannot magically learn everything out of sheer willpower.

Additionally, a few things are impossible to learn without time: the "Judgement" section in the article. You can certainly theoretically understand the meaning of it, but to experience it and have a deep, intimate understanding of it you have to go through the process of writing something and supporting it.

So it's not a matter of correlation / causation, it's a matter of the two concepts being two sides of the same coin.

The use of Orthodox C++ is more interesting than yet another game engine I think.

This speaks about language design and communities, approach to development practices.

I would, if I could have a few things:

* A good integration to the rest of my IDE. I need to save a chain of email as .mbox to `git am` them afterward. I have this workflow with mutt, I don't know which graphical email client would allow me to streamline this.

* In the same vein, I need to be able to use only my keyboard. I tried a little using a web client with vimperator. But the gmail interface wasn't really easy to use, I prefer using mutt properly configured.

* I also like writing my emails using VI. Having those keybindings is a proper crutch, but it's not there for text editing.

* Finally, it allows me to have a transient workspace. I can SSH on my main machine from wherever, do a `tmux attach`, and I have absolutely everything available: access to my emails, but also integration to my other tools for email analysis / processing.

This all stems from workflow derived from ancient practices, that's true. When I was starting in the industry I mostly used graphical tools. More and more however, I tend to rely on purely TUI tools. I have a few things that I can simply not give up anymore (grep, find, sed, awk, as well as full access to git).

I only use the web for accessing articles or content aggregator like Hacker News, as well as streaming music to block the open space. Ah, yes, patchwork remains web-based, I haven't really used pwclient. When I have time I will look into this.

Images are opened like any image on your system: by using an image viewer.

For non-text formats, I only deal with HTML. For them, I pipe the mail through a terminal-based browser before reading it. All of this is done automatically, literally a one-line configuration in the proper file, a thing that is explained at length in most mutt guides.

> We will focus on in-kernel solutions for now. Indeed, user-space tools have a fundamental limitation: if they need to re-inject packets onto the network, they must again pay the expensive cost of crossing the kernel barrier

This is glossing a little quickly over user-space solutions.

If you are handling packets at the rate of which you thus need to put a kernel bypass in place, then there is chance that you can't afford the kernel to handle them on their way back onto the network.

The obvious solution is to kernel bypass this transmit side as well. All user-space tools offer this.

There are some control packets that will need to get back to the kernel, but those do not require that kind of speed.

Identity is very tightly related to political views.

Moreover, LGBTQ pride is definitely political, even in Western democracies (see contentions about gay marriage).

LGBT activism is definitely marked on the left political spectrum in the USA. Christians values will inherently push toward traditionalism, so social conservatism.

It is the same in many European countries.

> 'intelligence' is simply the recapitulation of stuff people have already talked about and done

Your definition of intelligence is simply knowledge. That's a shaky foundation to build any sensible reasoning.

You make efforts not to call "American ingenuity" as intelligence. No, this ingenuity (which has nothing specificaly american about it) is just intelligence.

The actual application of 'prejudice' to the unknown is simply ideological rambling. American exceptionalism will never stop to astound me in its vacuity. Note that European are, or at least were equally guilty of it. But americans are only starting to know what it is to be an old society. To have entrenched interests furthering inequalities and hindering innovation (divide between the golden people from california and the inner-country pop). The new age of protectionism is there and America is on its forefront.

> Is it no surprise then that Americans have eschewed blind worship of an elite priesthood?

"Is it no surprise that humans applied very human behaviors to employ conceptual shortcuts in trying times?"

You reek of arrogance. This is pretty ironic, considering that the subtext of your comment is itself a critic of a supposed european smugness.

If you are dependent on the linux ecosystem, it seems counter-productive to awkwardly force your workflow on another one.

Suggesting linux as a viable desktop is not equivalent to predicting that $CURRENT_YEAR is the year of the linux desktop. You being dismissive of the idea on this ground is illogical.

No package management on Windows? Even if they somehow managed to do an app-store, that wouldn't be tailored for developers.

And why would this plugin help cookieless fingerprinting? This is just another baseless statement.

The explicit purpose of this plugin is to make the signal disappear within the noise. Explain what "considerable amount of one's own privacy and browsing habits" this plugin exposes, or stop spreading FUD because you are ideologically opposed to it.

That's not fair at all.

People are deeply attached to their pets, once those are actually born and part of the family.

Here the vets just need to stop working with breeders. Those are not emotionally attached to their pets, and they are the one considering making specific adults mate for some specific genetic material.

Stopping this market has nothing to do with telling some family that they should just give up on their dog. It's far sooner than that, before the animal is even born, that a change has to be made.

The general gist is interesting in order to captive the intended audience of sceptics, and the clickbait title is effective in that way.

Still, though, a clickbait title.

Furthermore, the usual consensus I hear is that we will need to change our practices drastically, we cannot let the "conventional" farming on life support indefinitely and we cannot let it destroy our sustenance. Organic farming is however still far from being enough to make us live.

The road is probably a reasonable mix of the two, which is actively researched.

> The limit of freedom of speech is real and can block you. Even when you run a startup that has nothing to do with local politics or anything controversial.

Give a specific example or avoid baseless accusation.

No, sorry it was somewhat tongue in cheek. It's just that within the simulation, the way a single unit obeys a central planner (not at all, partially, entirely) is defined by the rules of the simulation, so the rules of the world.

So asking if that rule, that authority of the AI over the units is similar to human law, is I think a bit beside the point. It's more akin to the law of physics. It's simply the fabric of that reality.

Of course, you could then create a simulation that would try to recreate the same kind of domination as within a human society, but that would be only one kind of simulation, one kind of system, with specific parameters. It would not give much about the very essence of the system itself, only of it within constraints.

Well, the quorum could be organized in any matter of way. Expected a consensus for a decision would be akin to anarchy indeed, however there could always be some kind of recursive hierarchy, with another sub-committee of higher authority that would make other units diverge. (Parties within an assembly, with deputies having to follow their party lines). This quorum could also be tied to following the interest of the masses outside or lose substantial advantages, thus tying their own selfishness to the common good.

It could be anarchy. It could be anything else.

The AI could simply do whatever its specialization is. It could be trying to direct the single-units or to disorganize them and try to keep some level of entropy. Maybe its own benefit would be a generalized state of chaos. Whatever.

The system itself could be considered the legal framework. The relationship between any supervisor and its units could be the metaphor for any subservient relationship in the real world, going from managed teams to parenting to politics to social dynamics between friends. It does not mean anything as long as the specifics of the system itself are not defined to permit the dynamics to be correctly mapped on some real-world dynamics.

Obeying the law? Are you obeying the law of gravity? Is it from your own will that you agree to stay on the ground?