jimmydorry

People are spending more than 70% more on memory because that's all that is available. Everything seems to indicate that people will pay a lot more.

This outage started a lot longer than 13mins ago. At least now I have an excuse to leave the office and have a long coffee break.

It's been posted multiple times of the last few months as they were removed from wikipedia and cloudflare. [1] [2] [3]

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46843805

2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47092006

3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47474255

And wikipedia runs off a tiny tiny fraction of what they raise. Almost all of the good on wikipedia comes in-spite of the organisation that owns it. Without the community pouring hundreds of thousands of hours into the project (unpaid) a year, wikipedia would be dead immediately. And if there was ever a time in its life that the project needed good leadership and innovative thinking, it would be now when AI is seriously threatening its survival. If people stop going to the site and instead go to the chat bots that scrape the site, there will be less and less incentive for the power users to continue maintaining wikipedia.

Canada effectively requires leaving and re-entering. It can take multiple months for an online visa to get processed, meanwhile leaving and reentering takes hours.

You're being naieve if you don't think SNI will be fully deprecated in the future when a standard is settled on and reaches wide-adoption.

Scare prompt fatigue is real. If you're constantly blasting users with "XXX wants to do Y" which sounds scary, you're training them to just accept without thinking.

Mozilla has frequently made questionable choices with its ad tie-ins and promotions. Mr. Robot ads, anyone? Unlike Chrome, Mozilla has also embedded full on data-collection schemes (Cliqz which tracked typing and browsing to test monetisation strategies).

Security upgrades are never opt-in, and for good reason. The status quo would remain in-secure. Every encryption suite upgrade, SSL software version, DNS versions, etc. maintained backwards compatibility for a window then closed it... just like we have seen here with manifest v2 -> v3.

"Please stop looking at all network requests, especially when you don't need to."

doesn't result in action... while:

"You can no longer look at all network requests" requires extension makers to update to the new paradigm.

A valid claim. The unfettered access to. etc.

If you've run a site with CORS reporting enabled, you'd see that a significant fraction of your userbase have malware extensions running (prior to manifest v3). I was absolutely shocked when I looked at the logs a decade ago, and I bet the problem is far worse these days with the proliferation of malware buyouts of legit extensions.

Google has no shortage of options for serving up ads that can't be blocked by normal ad blockers across all their properties (youtube, search, etc.). They in-line the ads these days! And if they really cared about the fraction of a fraction of a percent of people that even install any kind of adblocker, they could make the served ad content un-blockable by serving it the exact same as the content.

>How do you secure against the system vendor (in this case the browser) limiting what the consumer/user can or can't do (alone or with the help of third parties) with the product after acquiring it though?

If you don't like what a browser is doing, then move to another one? You're acting like you have spent a tonne of money on buying Chrome. Even if that was the case, it's not a clear case of an anti-user behaviour. There is a good reason to deprecate the webRequest API, and we'll see more browsers move towards that in the future (Safari has had declarative blocking for many years now, I believe).

>preventing modifications (and thus also repairs) is anti-competitive

There is nothing stopping someone from forking a manifest v2 version and maintaining it. I'd argue this can't be compared to any company actually doing anti-competitive things (e.g. tractor company, printers, ice cream machine companies, etc.)

>An adblocker, by its nature, needs to access *

Well that's what is in contention. Does everything claiming to be an adblocker really need access to *? Is Adblocker5++ (totally not malware) entitled to as much access as uBlock Origin? You can declare upfront all the URLs you don't want accessed (which on top of security gives a substantial performance boost), and who's to say someone won't figure out a better way of working within these constraints?

I think a big step forward, towards a better security model, was overall a good thing, even if it meant that a good extension no longer had unfettered access to everything your browser saw. I don't think this change is ridiculous at all. And I don't want them to stop here either! v4 should close more of the avenues that malicious extensions are abusing! Extensions should declare everything up-front, so it's easy see if abuse is occuring.

So you're saying that because Google didn't completely up-end the security model and break almost every extension in the one-go, we should have no-progress towards a more secure extension model?

uBlock Origin via declarative blocks is almost as powerful as the original. While I would trust gorhill with almost unfettered control over my browser, I don't trust EVERY extension owner (no do I trust uBlock Origin in perpetuity).

The average Joe wouldn't know where to begin in setting that up. That solution is far from solving the problem.

If you don't have the capability to train these models, then there's almost no chance of you having enough GPU power to run inference at a large scale on these models (assuming the weights for such a model are ever released or leaked in the future). And that's ignoring the fact that you won't have cultivated a sector that can continue to learn about and improve on said models.

It's not the price of power that matters, it's the heat produced. Every extra W consumed is an extra W of heat that needs to be handled, and for consoles that tend to be chucked into confined spaces, that's an issue.

Loudness might be subjective, but if we're trying to compare builds, they should at least be in the same ballpark.

Looking at this article, they seem to only care about one dimension of this product: cost. It would have been far more interesting if they explored: cost, performance, size, heat (by proxy of power consumption), and loudness.

If you're tech savvy enough to monitor your equipment, you're probably smart enough not to install "free VPNs" or "free stream pirate apps" to get pwned in the first place. You probably changed your router's default password and kept its firmware up to date, and don't give your TV internet access, right? That's more than Mom has done.

Right, this is orthagonal to the discussion though. While the IPs and bandwidth might be free, managing the malware botnet and trying to keep a low profile so as to not attract attention of authorities, makes it a risky market to cater to.

Those rates are still cheaper than some datacentres charge in parts of the world.

Yes, the status quo right now is merely bandwidth... but if there was money to be made in providing a small amount of compute for the sake of solving the next gen captcha's, you can bet offerings will expand to meet it.

It's impossible to prove a negative. They could all be running secondary scrapers using malware proxies... but what we do have is plenty of evidence of them using fixed IP pools with appropriate user agents. I don't see any Chinese user agents... so two guesses who may be driving the bulk of these AI scraper requests via residential proxies.

These options are up to 10 times bigger than the SteamMachine, approach almost twice the power draw, and are up to 2.8 times louder than the SteamMachine. They aren't even close to comparable... so why exactly are they making this apples to oranges comparison? No one is assembling a PC to put under their TV, and even if they are, ignoring the obvious form factor, heat and loudness issues... they'll most likely still want to install SteamOS for a "console-like" experience, which is still a win for Valve...

First option:

* 35 litre case (~10 times bigger than the SteamMachine) * ~250W power draw (vs. ~185W SteamMachine) * 32-36 dBA (vs. ~23 dBA SteamMachine)

Second option:

* 35 litre case (~10 times bigger than the SteamMachine) * ~285W power draw (vs. ~185W SteamMachine) * 32-36 dBA (vs. ~23 dBA SteamMachine)

Third option:

* 19.2 litre case (~5.5 times bigger than the SteamMachine) * ~295W power draw (vs. ~185W SteamMachine) * 34-38 dBA (vs. ~23 dBA SteamMachine)

Fourth option:

* 19.2 litre case (~5.5 times bigger than the SteamMachine) * ~275W power draw (vs. ~185W SteamMachine) * 32-35 dBA (vs. ~23 dBA SteamMachine)

PoW barely affects the "residential proxies" aka. malware botfarms. The IPs are free for them and siphoning additional system resources for PoW doesn't matter at all for them. PoW only affects the large centralised scraping by the AI providers, which are not operating behind "residential proxies".

All it takes is a populist with a good message to make a political group. All functional Western nations have voting mechanisms that allow for radical government change, if there is enough public support for it. It might take a decade to fully manifest, but if we're entering an age of such extreme, then I would expect people to eventually vote for such change.

Indexes rebalance frequently. The "correct weight" today, won't be the correct weight in a year.

They succesfully did away with 2nd hand markets and the concept of "owning" anything. So yes, I would imagine DRM would continue to exist without piracy.

>of the 50 most dangerous cities in the world I think ~48 are in North and South America

Why have you bundled South America with North America? Of the top 50, I see 4 from the US. Compared to about 40 (eye balling it) from South America.

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

If cheaters were capped to mimicking good players, that's already an incredible win over the status quo. The players that are walling (as an example), are playing with more information than they should and this should always be detectable with enough observation, especially in terms of them displaying super-human reaction times and being pre-positioned to their advantage... so I'm not quite as pessimistic as you are about this not having good returns.

I'm sure there's a reason why they don't, but I wonder why games don't try implementing honey pots, like rendering a fake player behind a wall and automatically banning if a player's crosshair snaps onto them, etc.

Looking at someone cheating in a replay, it's pretty obvious the majority of the time. To me, this signals that this could be a problem that can be solved by a combination of analytics to filter out statisticaly outliers + AI. This is something Valve dabbled with before (and since) the boom in AI [0], dubbed as VACNET and VAC-LIVE. Kernel access becoming the norm is not something we should be cheering for imo.

>"taken an administrative role"

Not GP, but no... a pension is not similar to an administrative role.

That's one method, but consider what happens when someone deposits a million dollars at a bank. This million dollars can be lent out to another person as a mortgage, and guess where that person accepts that money? That's right, a bank. That same 1 million dollars could be lent out to 10 different people, expanding the supply of money many times over. The only limit to this are the capitalisation ratios legislated and enforced by government (the bank must retain some % of total outstanding liabilities as capital it can move immediately). There are a few other ways I understand (and probably many more I dont) that the monetary supply can be expanded via, but that is the simplest one to conceptualise.