jmholla

Sure, not system-wide in rote. It opens with "based at least partially on content of the interactive software application". It's not a far leap from that to screen and audio monitoring. Luckily we don't need to make that leap; the rest of the patent makes explicit demonstration of those capabilities:

* "contextual cues from or based on the interactive software application" [0035]

* "OPTIONALLY in communication with an event detection module" (emphasis mine) [0035]

* "In some embodiments the content management system can receive user inputs from a user interacting with the interactive software application to interpret the content of the interactive software application" [0053]

* Regarding inputs to the event detection systems (which are expressly say don't need to run locally): "video information, audio information, game state data, or other information provided by or from the interactive software application" [0065]

* "FIG. 10 is an embodiment of a frame of video information received from the interactive software application that may be used for identifying events within the user's gameplay." [0073] (Note the patent does not limit itself to video games, just interactive software applications; this is just an example in that context.) [0073]

* "In some embodiments, the video information include user input information." [0092]

And, the design explicitly allows remote processing of this information:

* "The content management system may be stored and/or executed remotely to the client device" [0033]

* "the event detection module may be local to or remote from the content management system." [0036]

You're right, it doesn't include the whole screen and systems audio. Just the parts in the application. But Microsoft just adds this functionality to all software, and then there's no effective difference.

And that is extremely likely to me. And feasible. The patent doesn't say this has to be embedded in applications. Microsoft can implement this on any application. And Microsoft is well beyond the benefit of the doubt when it comes to privacy concerns.

The difference here is that git objects don't change. When you do a `git gc`, you do get new objects at new inodes, but they don't get written to the existing ones. Try this out and you'll see local git clones do indeed create hardlinks:

``` cd $(mktemp -d) git init test ( cd test; touch README.md; git add README.md; git commit -m "Test"; ) git clone test/.git test_clone find test_clone/.git/objects test/.git/objects -type f -printf "%i\t%p\n" | sort ```

You'll see the same inodes used in both clones.

I do use this, but when I'm collaborating with others, especially a lot of people, I still duplicate it across projects. It pays to be defensive and you can't always get everyone on board with this strategy. Being defensive within your repository prevents issues before they happen.

Colorado has a similar carve-out. I can't comment on Brazil, though.

The write by your shell through the redirect won't get those elevated privileges. You need to use something like tee:

    echo "127.0.0.1    www.reddit.com" | sudo tee -a /etc/hosts

That's a bit difference that Boris's claim that they don't charge for this as a "principle".

From the opposite angle, there's apparently evidence that the RAM companies themselves are price fixing: https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/samsung-sk-hynix-...

Twitter is nothing like it used to be.

Woah! That feels like a huge oversight and like it bypasses standard commit logic. The man pages do say `git history` is experimental. Sounds worth a bug report.

Fun fact: you don't even need the `-n`. `git log -1` does the same thing, for any number.

    -<number>, -n <number>, --max-count=<number>
        Limit the output to <number> commits.

I don't think that logic works. In your vein, if I say " If it gets hotter, I'll want it to be colder" that would imply that if it gets colder I'll want it to be hotter. That doesn't necessarily have to be the case thought.

If they made a profit and I want them to pay more than the base fine doesn't mean if they made a loss I want them to pay less than the base fine.

I think the rest of your come t stands though. There is difficulty I proving profit and Hollywood accounting can probably change those numbers.

Yea. A lot of them grew wise to this and just hung up on you. Some had no way to get through the tree to a real person. Or, the real person couldn't do anything (e.g., Public Storage).

Don Quixote feels like a bad analogy. These are real dragons. Just, more difficult to fight against.

I've been thinking of setting up a simple server that publishes the public keys at a known endpoints. You point an A record for one of your subdomains at the machine and it can provision a TLS cert. Then you can be reasonably confident your connection hasn't been MitM (assuming your trust your cert provider) when you query for those public keys.

The one presented in the article has fewer moving parts though. I'm also curious what ideas are bouncing around your head if you're willing to share.

Safari isn't based on Chromium.

Ostracization has worked before. And ostracization can lead to decreased sales, which they will definitely notice. If engaging with people to talk about privacy implications involves sacrificing your privacy, I feel that it is reasonable approach.

It's like if I had to be punched by someone to talk to them about why them punching people all the time wasn't alright, then I'd find it very reasonable to just not associate with that person.

I think you're outlining a relationship with people who actually want to actively engage in these concerns in a responsible manner, and these platforms have definitely demonstrated the opposite and a willingness to use that engagement to inflict the very behavior you want to moderate.

You're aware of the privacy implications but think people talking about avoiding people who use them are proposing dumb arguments? I don't follow your logic.

Or device battery life was shorter because we hadn't developed better battery technology or better power management

You talk about the misaligned incentives of replaceable batteries but fail to point out the incentive built-in batteries: need to replace a battery, buy a whole new device.

You should actually read the text of the bill. It basically tells anyone who asks what your birthday is. It places no limitations on how your age should be verified, or how requesters can use your information. And if you think this is where this kind of de-anonymization will stop, I have a bridge to sell you.

So this bill creates a commission to ensure that the information cannot be stolen or breached from operating systems, but says nothing about how the applications querying this information must protect or leverage it. I basically requires that any application get to know a user's birthday, as long as it's "necessary". What a fucking joke! I'm so sick and tired of this bullshit.

Direct link to the bill: https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/parents-decide-act-os-age-ver...

Edit: Oh, and the commission gets to make up the rules on how ages should be verified. So, prepare for a whole other level of PII leakage that isn't even captured by the text of the bill.

When I was going to register it with Porkbun, it showed this warning:

> This TLD has very strict verifiable contact requirements. You MUST use verifiable contact information or your domain may be suspended and / or deleted without warning by the registry and without refund. The registry is also extremely difficult to contact and communicate with, it's possible that you will be asked to rectify your unverifiable contact info and do so but then they will ignore you. Yes, it is pure insanity and bad enough that we took the time to add this very special warning.

> This TLD does not allow WHOIS privacy but generally redacts your personal information. This means that your personal contact information will be sent to the registry but it should not be made public. Please note that some registries will make your contact information public if you are registering as a company, organization, or something other than an individual person.

I made this as a set it and forget it site, so I didn't want to deal with any hassle that might come up. Have you registered .in domains and experienced anything like this?

I've made it through about the first ten parts of section 2. Some additional feedback I've put together:

* Sometimes explanations are overly lacking, other times they get repetitive. This feels like it needs to be accompanied by a course to fully deliver value. For instance, we're kind of thrown into truth gates without having really gone over them. And understanding how to combine NMOS and PMOS gates could use a better intro. Once I knew the answers, I got my brain to reset to my VLSI course from college, but I think a better primer could've accomplished that. In other places, I feel like we get more refreshers on some components than others.

* The routing algorithm needs to be better. I get a lot of staircase wires and straight up overlaps.

* Right clicking should clear attempted connections.

* There should be away to delete components you've placed. Maybe I just couldn't figure it out.

* I think icons should be included on the components pane. I kept clicking NOR when I wanted NOT and a better visual cue would have helped.

* It feels like difficulty is all over the place. Perhaps this is corrected with better explanations, but creating the NAND gates and NOR gates were much more difficult compared to AND and OR. Perhaps actually having us construct those gates without NOT would change the difficulty curve.

* The success overlay shows up too fast. Especially on levels that are just a demonstration (like the NMOS and PMOS Again levels) you don't get to to see everything the level is trying to demonstrate before the level announces that you have succeeded.

* In the intros, when there are new components, their description pops in. Instead, it should just advance like a slide. It's very jarring.

* Also, it's unclear that those aren't part of the intro. Maybe instead of popping them up, flash the little information icon next to them.

* What you call a capacitor I believe is actually a combination of a transistor and a capacitor. I think people will be hard pressed to find documentation on a capacitor with an enable switch. But, then you use this same capacitor to form a 1T1C cell. I'm rather confused.

* Many times when I finished a level, the circuit would switch to a prior level's solution.

* Some components have the same letters for every terminal (e.g. half-adders), meaning you need to scroll over the terminals to know what they do.

* Some levels have many test cases, and there's now way to see them all.

* Level 2.3 talks about us having registers, but we never covered those. In fact, I think we're still a ways away since we need to get from switches to flip-flops then to registers.

There isn't much order to this. Just what I recorded while working through it. Overall it's pretty good, I just think polish would got quite a ways.

Thank you for sharing this! I'm really excited to get to the more GPU specific parts. I basically did this for CPUs in college and I'm excited to see what preconception and missing conceptions I have for GPUs.

The continue buttons in intro break for me all the time on Firefox. I can't actually finish most of them.

I think Hacker News auto-title editing has caught this one. It's actually "Your Code is Worthless". It dives into how lines of code has become a productivity metric once again, what actual metrics should be used, and how AI is not holding up to those.

For those looking at this, this role is only in Mexico.

    Location: Colorado
    Remote: Yes
    Willing to relocate: No
    Technologies: CI/CD (GitLab, Jenkins), IaC (Terraform/OpenTofu, Ansible, SaltStack), Cloud Infrastructure (AWS, DigitalOcean, Azure), Containerization (Docker/Podman, Kubernetes), Observability (Grafana, ELK), Systems & Networking (Linux, Systemd, Nginx, Networking Architecture), Languages (Python, Bash, Nix, Go, and more)
    Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kBuqYtQsNDTpq6_UBO9gY589mqyeq2_G/view
    Email: joshua <dot> m <dot> holland <at> gmail <dot> com

Hi. My name is Josh and I have spent over twelve years of my fourteen year career in DevOps and automation.

In my early career, I maintained legacy build and delivery systems while transitioning organizations to modern tooling. At my most recent role, I built those same systems and production infrastructure from the ground up, while simultaneously finding and filling unidentified organizational gaps: legal compliance, IT, and customer support.

My experience spans IC work, legacy system ownership, and greenfield development, in close collaboration with both technical and non-technical stakeholders. I am ready to lead teams and grow the engineers within them.

If you're looking for a technical leader to head up your DevOps/SRE/Infrastructure/Platform team, or to shape engineering at the organizational level, I have the experience and the tenacity to get it done.

You do your due diligence beforehand and realize this is a bad use of your money.

FYI, in your reproduction, both of the conditionals are the same. But you are right, the initial implementation was `!=`

    while [[ $SECONDS != $1 ]]; do

became

    while [[ $SECONDS -lt $1 ]]; do

Didn't Brother start pulling this same stuff? I recall hearing something along those lines and blocking mine from talking to the Internet.

A slippery slope is only a fallacy if there is no demonstrated history of it existing. I think we're all aware that that is not the case for surveillance laws.