missingrib

She's being insanely callous, as is fashionable to do on this website for some reason.

You may or may not be correct, so it would be fine. Many companies have awful interviewing practices.

I'm not sure you're accurately describing a suburb.

>I think hardly anyone would say that

On the contrary, I think it would be very popular to say that someone who directly caused the crash out of negligence should be required to give blood to save the victim.

You're referring to a version of the violinist argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion#The_viol...

Your version is actually pretty similar to a normal pregnancy (the woman brought about the pregnancy through her actions and now has to decide whether its morally okay to stop the babies' use of her body).

I think it's very hard to justify abortion along these lines and might be easier just to try to show that the fetus is non-human and doesn't have rights.

I'm not sure why it's so hard for some people to understand. He has great guests and asks really interesting questions for the most part.

Sure, he can get a bit philosophical, but to be honest the podcast wouldn't have grown to where it is now just on the guests alone.

>but costs creativity as a downside

Can you expand on this part? Never heard of this before.

To be honest I don't know if a lot of vegans would like to even argue that the diet is healthier. Most vegans I've met would argue that its morally important to eat vegan even if its less healthy than eating meat. YMMV though.

I don't think salt is bad for you.

I cannot imagine having this opinion

I don't really see the issue with people writing their passwords down on sticky notes.

What type of evidence could they have found?

From what I remember about that case, he was one of 8 people who were on the network at the time, but the authorities told him he was the only one, leading to his quick confession. Meaning that if he had stuck to his guns and denied it there wouldn't have been a good way to prove he was the one who did it.

cryptopals is a good way to learn about practical crypto exploits

People could pay for a service where firefighters would come and put out a potential fire at their house.

Oops, missed the first sentence. Are you referring to the virgin/chad meme?

I think you're probably right with your second paragraph.

Why does HN have the weirdest pseudo-incel takes masquerading as genuine science or something?

I don't think any of this is true.

What foundation?

I think poor people understand the math behind the chances of winning the lottery.

>If a course of action where you do some amount of harm to mitigate a larger amount of harm would clearly result in a worse world, then you are NOT actually summing up all the resulting negative utility in your so-called-utilitarian calculations.

This is kind of missing the point. Even if it were to result in a "better world", the intuition is that it is still wrong to murder the innocent man to save 5, just prima facie. This is a problem for the utilitarian.

Their best response might be to just bite the bullet, but it significantly weakens their argument overall.

How are these false? Framing an innocent person causes less overall harm than allowing a riot to happen. Killing a healthy man causes less overall harm than letting 5 men die, etc.

If you think killing the healthy man is wrong, you probably don't agree with utilitarianism.

Not sure how.

It does if his living a healthy life depends on hospitals not being 100% full of unvaccinated people being treated for a completely preventable illness.

Wouldn't it be encrypted HTTPS traffic?

I wonder why he thinks there are no rational arguments in favor of Platonism. I think there have been a lot of convincing ones over the last few thousand years.

HN users are extremely contrarian.

Is this satire going over my head?

>So these photos exist on Apple servers but what they're proposing, if I understand it correctly, is that that data will no longer be protected on their servers. That is, human review will be required in some cases. By definition that means the data can be decrypted. Of course it'll be by (or intended to be by) authorized individuals using a secured, audited system.

Apple has always had the decryption keys for encrypted photos stored in iCloud, so this isn't new. They never claimed that your photos were end-to-end encrypted. I'm not sure how this is a "backdoor" unless you think there's a risk of either something like AES getting broken or Apple storing the keys in a way that's insecure, both of which seem unlikely to me.

>Also, what controls exist on those who have to review the material? What if it's a nude photo of an adult celebrity? How confident are we that someone can't take a snap of that on their own phone and sell it or distribute it online? It doesn't have to be a celebrity either of course.

I'm equally interested in the review process. But while perceptual hash collisions are possible, it seems unlikely that multiple random nude photos on the same device would almost exactly match known CSAM content, which is the threshold for Apple reviewing the content.

Can you expand a bit on the "deep emotional healing techniques", or point me in the right direction to read more on the topic?

I think being able to pass a FAANG level coding interview with 3 months prep is a better indicator of their intelligence than one coworker's opinion, which could be clouded with biases.

>ex-colleague of mine who is not specially bright studied 3 months how to "crack the coding interview" and got a job at Google.

Sounds bright to me.