opello

Subtly normalizing the invasive data collection practice.

Or maybe not so subtly.

For me it failed to load (with the same console.log messages as above) in a multi-account container tab, and crashed Firefox in a Private Browsing window.

I miss the squad gameplay of Battlefield 2 too. It hasn't been replicated since, in my opinion, and subsequent Battlefield titles changed the classes and made the available loadout options too flexible to require specialized play.

But that redirect (intentionally or not) doesn't include the fragment part of the URL, so it might not have satisfied the other poster's intent.

Do it for the exposure! Artists of many stripes have had to combat that for ages.

Isn't the checkers level move to make 539 and call it a day? Sure, it's no longer about electors but ... checkers.

... and to think I thought I was being clever. I see this has been suggested already.

I always thought this was an implicit request to forgive obvious typos and autocorrect mistakes. Sent from a mobile device (iPhone, Samsung Galaxy, Blackberry, Windows Phone, etc.) with a tiny keyboard and in a setting in which proofreading may not be as rigorous as normal.

It seems like it would be most reasonable to consider porcelain vs. plumbing command details in deciding if something is logically distinct to Git. git-commit has --message and --trailer options, git-commit-tree has a --message option. I take that as trailer is a convenience option to provide a consistent way to append those details to the commit message. But that doesn't mean it's not part of the commit message, nor that the user shouldn't see it while reviewing the commit message.

I did dig into this a bit more the other day and learned that the "main RF can" is the cesium oscillator module. The history there was pretty interesting! The early ones I found were the Symmetricom Quantum SA.45s[1,2] which included a pretty entertaining thread here[3]. There were several levels of quality and function in the family of products which have been discontinued in favor of the MAC-SA55[4], and I wish I could find where I saw that recommendation... It's a rubidium, instead of cesium oscillator, not that I know enough about these things to concluded one should be better than the other but my impression was cesium was higher precision.

[1] https://www.gpsworld.com/wirelesstimingnewssymmetricom-offer...

[2] https://www.si.edu/object/symmetricom-chip-scale-atomic-cloc...

[3] https://febo.com/pipermail/time-nuts_lists.febo.com/2021-Jan...

[4] https://www.microchip.com/en-us/product/mac-sa55

I do get that, this era of automation is too responsive to not go public to provoke action. I think I might just be wistful of an era in which the alternate path might have made a difference. Sorry to pile on.

I realize you've been championing this idea in the thread, and I admire it because I also recognize the misdirected blame. Please understand I do not harbor "blame" for the researchers.

> Their job is to bring information to light, not to manage downstreams.

The researchers are also members of a community in which more harm than is necessary may be dealt by their actions. Nuance must exist in evaluating "reasonable" and "responsible" in the context of actions.

> Should a security researcher that identifies a vulnerability in electron.js need to identify _every_ possible project using electron.js to communicate with them the vulnerability exists? No. That's absurd.

But this is a false comparison, right? The scope of "Linux distributions" and "electron apps" are orders of magnitude different. If the reporter spot checked one or two of the most popular distributions to see if fixes had been adopted, that seems like an extra level of nice diligence before publicizing the details.

It doesn't seem "insane" as much as "not the most efficient path" as has already been well argued. But it also doesn't seem unreasonable to think in a project of the scope of the Linux kernel, with the potential impact of fairly effective(?) privilege escalation, some extra consideration is reasonable--certainly not "insane" at the very least?

It strikes me as strange that the article links to [1] which appears to be the same board, absent the "Viavi" logo on the main RF can, as the Microchip product you linked. I couldn't tell with a brief look if the Viavi product is offering something like software, configuration, tuning, etc. on top of GPS-2700 product.

The photo of the device on the article says "Jackson Labs" which seems to have been the previous name of "Viavi Solutions" and a review video [2] mentioned using Symmetricom atomic clock modules, which was acquired first by Microsemi (2013) and subsequently Microchip (2018)[3].

[1] https://www.viavisolutions.com/en-us/products/chip-scale-ato...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CogN630jUSs

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetricom

> I agree with the article, FastCGI is better than HTTP for these things.

If this is what you mean to identify as claiming FastCGI and HTTP are generally interchangeable, and are rising to correct, I'll also offer that "agree with the article" and "these things" narrow the context to "for reverse proxy communication" and do not suggest the broader meaning you've interpreted.

You didn't though. You may have intended to?

The article points out that HTTP and FastCGI are both options for reverse proxies to communicate to the downstream server. I didn't find a reference to them being interchangeable outside of that context. If there is or was one please quote it.

While not formally reviewing code like this, I read a lot of it for fun. When it's clear and understandable, it's more educational and enjoyable. If the PoC code can also serve as a means of communication, that seems like an extra win.

It seems like "jargon" fits the need for a way to label the more specific meaning intended, like "property from objected oriented programming jargon." I think programmers might differ without the more specific description on if OOP, or say, the abstract algebra meaning, of property would be intended, since both seem relevant to different contexts of programming.

I think it's a good introduction to quantization generally and specifically in how it applies to reducing LLMs. But I also think it should say something about LLMs or "AI" in the title (as even the article is tagged AI on the author's site) because despite that being an easy assumption to make given the zeitgeist, including the detail would be more clear.

I assume, at least for me, it's because I typed them in many, many more times.

Thanks, it wasn't out of doubt that I asked, but it seemed having a reference to point at would help resolve the contention. The Docker blog post covered a lot more detail, even about WSL2, which was really informative and I hadn't seen.

I wonder exactly how much work "container" is doing in that Microsoft blog post's description, because it doesn't seem like it's the same kind of environment as a runc or containerd container?

I also wasn't quite sure how much detail to infer from the behavior of vmmemWSL or vmcompute.exe, because my casual understanding is that there's some adaptation layer that handles mapping Linux calls to Windows calls. It seems reasonable to allow for process mapping or accounting shenanigans for any number of good reasons.

Is there a way to visualize this on a running system or some documentation that describes it? I'm not familiar with the plumbing here but did try to find some documentation.

This was discussed in Advent of Computing episode 150 "Starting Windows Up"[1,2] and the timeline of a 1983 demo which showed overlapping windows and multitasking, but also highlighted the contrast to the DR4 build from late 1984 claiming to introduce a multi-tasking scheduler.

This isn't really new information to the Stack Exchange question and answers, but it's kind of fun coincidental coverage of the topic.

[1] https://adventofcomputing.libsyn.com/episode-150-starting-wi...

[2] https://podscripts.co/podcasts/advent-of-computing/episode-1...

In the above case, since this touches the local repo, wouldn't a .gitconfig include.path be a better option?

Just in case it's unclear, you'd then set an excludesFile in the included file to the path to a file like jj.gitignore that has a line like .jj in it.

I really liked the Motorola Droid family of slider keyboards, also horizontal. Made for a very handy, pocket ssh terminal.

Okay, but they're not like styropyro on YouTube here... presumably the DHS people are using the whatever government weapons contractor made device, which is going to come with more nuance, controls, targeting system, etc. than whatever someone might buy off the shelf or cobble together independently.

I think it might have actually been DOD people operating the system even, but there's conflicting reporting and I'm not sure. Either way it seems like there was at the very least some kind of coordination failure.

I may have foolishly accepted the premise of incompetence in posing my question. Basically it seemed to me like the complaint was untrained/experienced (incompetent) people were deciding/deploying the fancy laser munition. That seemed worth of rebuke. After some brief searching I'm less clear about who took what action.

It seemed more like giving police forces (or allowing them to buy) APCs, armored Humvees, etc. Less trained/experienced people using things made for a different use case, ultimately exposes the people to more risk. Instead of say coordinating with the DOD to deploy the system and personnel accepting requests or being the decision maker for "take action" after some level of expertise in the area of evaluating targets and whatever else need be considered has also contributed to the process.

I don't know how it does work, let alone have enough context to imagine how it should. While I do agree "things to deter drones are appropriate border defense tools," the rest of the details painted a picture that seemed less reasonable.

Really making you wonder why does DHS have direct access to this hardware?

Certainly. But you're missing the point. Feynman chose to tell the stories to Ralph Leighton who then recorded them in the "Surely" book which was published in 1985, well after Feynman's own perspective seems to have changed about the more offensive things he'd said.

By many other accounts he was a kind, caring, thoughtful person, but some of the selected stories in "Surely" paint a significantly different picture. To me it's unclear, not having studied the life of Richard Feynman, what parts are exaggerated. But it does seem clear that these stories were refined and selected for inclusion, and were therefore considered endearing or representative for the intention of the book. And in the time and culture in which it was published that seems like a bit of a miss at the very least.

> I do not think Feynman was celebrating his activity in the book.

The argument presented in the video about this is that these are the stories Feynman edited and reworked over time, and shared with his friend Ralph Leighton, who then recorded them in the "Surely You're Joking" book.

The video also describes a change in his behavior later in life. In 1974, responding to a letter asking to reprint "What is Science?"[1] from 1966, he comments that "some of the remarks about the female mind might not be taken in the light spirit they were meant"[2]. This is cited in the video as Feynman becoming more progressive between 1966 and 1974. The "Surely" book is published in 1985, and yet still includes the misogynistic stories. The video's complaint is that there should be some contextualization about views changing, like was given in Feynman's reply in 1974, but there being none it comes across as an implicit endorsement. I don't recall from the video if Feynman reviewed or edited the "Surely" book, which leaves it as Ralph Leighton's perspective more than Feynman's.

It seems a legitimate criticism that this book held up as an example of a good role model in physics doesn't try to avoid perpetuating bad stereotypes. It's probably egregious to say the mere inclusion of the stories celebrates their actions. But it's equally egregious to fail to even try to address the bad behavior, especially when it's held out as a positive example.

[1] https://feynman.com/science/what-is-science/

[2] https://archive.org/details/perfectly-reasonable-deviations-...

> misogynistic behaviors were cultural at the time, I agree they're abhorrent but people are embedded in their culture. The same is said of Hitchcock, (as an example) and his behaviour was unacceptable by todays standards. We've come some way from that but still a way to go.

The video actually addresses this very point in the first few minutes:

> the second component of the Feynman lifestyle that the Feynman bro has to follow, you know as told in this book, is that women are inherently inferior to you and if you want to be the smartest big boy physicist in the room you need to make sure they know that I think people are sometimes shocked to hear this like that that exists in this book especially because as I said if you were a precocious teenager interested in physics people shoved this book at you they just put it into your hands like oh you want to be a physicist here's the coolest physicist ever

> I feel like it's at this point in the video when like Mr. Cultural Relativism is going to show up in the comments and be like how dare you judge people from the past on their actions that's not fair things were different back then women liked when men lied to them and pretended to be an undergrad so that-- it was fine back then it was fine and I just, no, actually this book was published 40 years ago which is just not that long ago Richard Feynman should have known that women were people 40 years ago like absolutely not it's not "how things were back then" what's wrong with you people, no, it's inappropriate then it's inappropriate now

Later the actual author, Ralph Leighton, of "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" is mentioned so perhaps the responsibility for what was included is his more than Feynman's. I think the criticism stands that the degree of sexism effectively celebrated by inclusion was certainly less culturally accepted in 1985 when the book was published than when the events occurred, and that's the point of raising the issue of why was it judged as good and proper to include this marginalizing anecdotes when his actual contributions to physics and teaching were worthy of celebration.