panax

Similar thing happened when I returned to playing Rust after a long break. I had even just upgraded my HDD specifically to get Rust to load faster. Maybe 2 days after upgrading my HDD I get a VAC ban on it(my only VAC ban) for no apparent reason from their third party anti cheat software Easy Anti-Cheat (EAC). I tried to appeal to EAC but they won't give any info. I think what could have set it off was either 1) the hard drive upgrade 2) maybe my anti-virus since it once tried to sandbox it and run it virtualized or 3) EAC scanned my hard drive and found that I have unrelated source code/python scripts on it since I'm a dev.

w/e I'm done with it but I don't like having a VAC ban on my account for no reason :/

It won't be that everything in the car is connected on one bus. What is more likely is that you have a zonal ECU that controls a group of a few sensors and actuators. That zonal ECU will likely be connected to other parts of the vehicle through more traditional Ethernet. The 10BASE-T1S standard requires that it can support a minimum of 8 nodes on the bus although you can support more but you aren't going to be hooking up absolutely everything together on it.

>Would one single broken wire disable the entire car

Not in this case but try shorting the two CAN bus wires together in an older vehicle.

In 10BASE-T1S a device can fail but it won't impact the other nodes on the bus unless there is a physical failure in the wire at the connector. All the nodes are wired together on the same cable and see the same data. The device doesn't need to do anything for the other nodes to receive the data.

That's why in Villas Las Estrellas they require residents to have their appendix to be removed: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180810-villas-las-estre...

This reminds me of this

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1743037

It is snake oil crypto. It is not safe for cryptographic use. I didn't see them claim that it can be used for cryptographic use on OP's page but they do claim it is a CSPRNG in the header in their js implementation: https://www.grc.com/js/uheprng.js

>This is GRC's cryptographically strong PRNG (pseudo-random number generator)

Don't use it for security or crypto. A CSPRNG should not allow the internal state to be determined from observing the output. The hash function Mash() they use is not one-way and this break can reverse it. It does not provide prediction resistance or backtracking resistance.

It might seem that way but it is hard to say with certainty but there is also probably sampling bias or declinism in that you are more likely to hear about negative events while normal or positive events are filtered out. And like PragmaticPulp said it can take time for things to catch up but they often do and people often eventually get what was coming to them.

Sorry but what is to stop actual humans from signing bot generated or false content using their private keys? It also creates incentives to steal other keys. What will happen if your private keys get stolen and they start being abused by someone else?

This sounds overtly Orwellian mixed with a PKI disaster.

This is not a technical issue that can just be solved with crypto. See https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/tutorial/T2b_Signatur...

Both can be easily defeated. You can easily manipulate a reputation system one way or another with a botnet. And just because you can authenticate that a message was signed with a public key says nothing about the veracity of the content in the message.

Despite all of its shortcomings, Wikipedia has been a relatively successful model. It is decentralized with an army of volunteers that try to stick to reliable sources. It leverages the fact that honest participants greatly outnumber malicious ones.

While I don't disagree, the paper defines fake news in the context of the paper in section 1 :

"“Fake news” has become a term that is used to denote very different things: it is employed to discredit political opponents or the respectability of particular news outlets, and it is used colloquially to simply refer to untruths in any given context. However, the phenomenon that public institutions like the European Commission and the British Parliament are concerned about most plausibly entails at least three features:

1. Fake news contains false information.

2. Fake news is created with deceptive intent.

3. Fake news is presented as resembling traditional news items (even though it is not produced in accordance with editorial standards)."

and they list three examples of 'fake news' which are stories that are demonstrably false and created intentionally with the sole purpose to mislead.

"This paper argues that online fake news threatens democratic processes because it undermines citizens’ epistemic trust in each other. This in turn threatens to undermine the perceived legitimacy of democratic institutions as a whole."

"Major democratic institutions have correctly identified fake news as a threat to their values and processes. However, the danger posed by these online falsehoods does not primarily lie in their power to convince readers of the veracity of their factually incorrect content. Rather, the primary danger fake news poses to democratic values and institutions lies in the corrosive effect it has on trust among citizens and thus on citizens’ trust in their democracy."

"online fake news threatens democratic values and processes by playing a crucial role in reducing the perceived legitimacy of democratic institutions. This decrease in perceived legitimacy is the outcome of the primary effect that fake news has on citizens: even if its content is not believed, fake news can be a major cause of a loss of citizens’ epistemic trust in each other’s political views and judgment. Such a loss of trust in each other is problematic for democratic institutions since these rely for their acceptance and functioning on citizens seeing them as morally justified. Critiques of fake news often focus on citizens’ loss of trust in their mainstream media. While this is indeed part of the problem, I will argue that the main threat of fake news pertains to the loss of epistemic trust citizens have in each other. Fake news is thus a moral problem insofar as we think of democracies as a morally special, or at least a particularly valuable, form of government. This paper is significant because unlike most discussions of fake news that assume that citizens are likely to accept these falsehoods as true it takes seriously the empirical studies that assert that most people do not believe the content of fake news and explains why we should nonetheless consider fake news a morally significant problem."

You are correct in that it is more survivable than most believe especially if you have a plan beforehand and know how to act. Yes within certain distances there may be essentially no hope but most people will not fall into this category and your chances are decent especially if you can quickly get to proper shelter and stay there the first few days.

I agree that in your scenario the subway (or some underground shelter) is the best place to be. One thing though in your subway example you neglect the effects of blast. Even if you are not within the fireball radius, the blast shockwave will still affect you if you are in the subway. The blast shockwave will still travel through the air and into the subway. A blast pressure greater than 5 psi can cause significant if not fatal injuries including ruptured internal organs, blood vessels, etc. and you can see that this radius will extend somewhat further out than the fireball. Also expect that a major target like NYC there will be multiple warheads detonated around the city for greater coverage.

If you manage to survive the initial blast and radiation then the great challenge becomes producing enough food through a nuclear winter, but this too is technically possible although will be difficult without a lot of cooperation globally.

And even though you have a reasonable chance of surviving the initial blast and radiation, the best most effective measure is still to prevent it from happening in the first place.

Also try a multi day hike through the wilderness to reset your circadian rhythm. This combines heavy levels of exercise, no phone access, and you wake up/sleep with sunrise/sunset.

To maintain your circadian rhythm during normal times, try to wake up and go to sleep at the same time every day and eat only during three meals per day at the same time each day, avoid caffeine later in the day and also follow the advice of others here. Keep the room you are going to sleep in very dark and quiet. Don't go to bed until you are ready to fall asleep - don't use tv/phone/computer in bed.

Sceptre still makes dumb TVs, try checking those first.

This one only costs $370, cheaper than comparable 'smart' TVs https://www.walmart.com/ip/Sceptre-55-Class-4K-UHD-LED-TV-HD...

After not having a TV for more than a decade I recently got a Sceptre 55'' 4k based on that thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24668015 and it is all I would ask for in a TV. It is only a TV with no bullshit and was very reasonably priced. The one I have also has absolutely no wireless and I can guarantee that it is air gapped.

Maybe, maybe not. There is always the potential. I think the chances are slim but the risk is high -- even with very low probability the potential consequences are enormous resulting in a significant risk. With the risk of a world war the greatest risk comes the risk of nuclear war. Especially over the past two years I have grown more wary about the risk of war between so called superpowers and the risk of nuclear war in particular. Humanity needs to learn to transcend violent conflict if we are to progress. We need to work towards the elimination of nuclear weapons globally, although there isn't a lot we can do at the individual level on that. Fortunately since WWII the world has become less violent overall and things have generally improved in a positive direction.

I disagree that everything seems pointless. If anything there is much more at stake and actions are even more important.

Lately I have been reading papers from ALLFED[1-2]. They have found quite a few alternative ways we could produce food during a sun blocking crisis and they would be enough to feed more than 8 billion people if needed through a severe nuclear winter, even if we lost all of our current agriculture. But they have also found that only few would survive if we only try to survive on stored food.

Another excellent resource for planning for the initial few moments/weeks of a nuclear war has been [3] which provides practical instructions for rapid construction of expedient fallout shelters.

Understanding these I at least have a feasible and actionable plan, and better understanding of what would be involved if worst case scenarios were to happen. It is a lot less hopeless than most believe, although still terrible.

I suggest reading through these and you can find things you can do at the individual level. Also consider supporting ALLFED as their work has potential to be highly impactful if such a scenario is ever realized.

[1] https://allfed.info [2] https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/david-denkenberger-s... [3] https://www.oism.org/nwss/

Erosion of top soil is a more significant problem than fertilizer. With respect to fertilizers and inorganic phosphate supply, it seems that these are not really necessary(they might actually be detrimental) as long as you provide the right soil microbiome for the crops which can outperform synthetic fertilization[1-2] (though I am very new to this and is outside my field and I am unsure of the validity of their claims).

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO2nGHq40Xc [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErMHR6Mc4Bk

The author also published a book on this: https://www.amazon.com/Feeding-Everyone-Matter-What-Catastro... Also available https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128044476/feeding-eve... And gave a talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiiKC8Osxw8

I think nuclear energy is mostly orthogonal to nuclear weapons. We should pursue more nuclear energy and seek to eliminate nuclear weapons.

While it is difficult/impossible to accurately quantify the probability of war, and that the ground truth is far more complex than these simple models, there still has been a long list of historical incidents in which the outcome was decided by sometimes random and even independent factors outside of anyone's control and makes the gambler's ruin argument compelling:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accid...

This seems to be an attitude more prevalent in the US, to simply assume that it the outcome of this is too horrible and that there is no point in trying. It is actually quite possible to survive and your chances can be greatly improved especially with a little planning and if you read this:

https://www.oism.org/nwss/

While the spectre of nuclear conflict should not hold us back from use of nuclear power generation, there is plenty of real evidence here that we have been extremely lucky so far.

There have been many times where we have come very close to global nuclear war and it had been adverted by chance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls

Also take a look at past 'broken arrow' events: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accid...

One day we are going to roll a critical failure.

Yes the problem is detection and enforcement and not clear how to achieve this. It is imperative that we someday overcome this though as the risk of accidental escalation at any point in time is significant and is bound to happen some day. Everyone must come to the recognition that possession of nuclear weapons is an aggression against everyone given their widespread impact and it is in everyone's self interest to not allow for their existence. I'm also not sure how easy it would be to keep large quantities of weapons completely hidden. There is also the issue of incorrect or false accusations of possession of the weapons to allow for aggression against an entity, it hasn't even been very long since the last time this happened either.

He died? Dump it.

So they claim that somehow by sticking a bunch of plastic stakes into the ground they create " a natural “particle accelerator” " of positrons that transmute the radioactive isotopes into safe particles? Sure... This whole thing reads like some crank selling snake oil.

A customer put a blanket ban on goto because they decided to require MISRA 15.1 and want(need) to be compliant as well as having their own interpretation of MISRA. They also put a blanket ban on multiple returns (15.5).

While it is true MISRA does not intend a blanket ban on these (and a blanket ban is contrary to the rationale for these rules), it often leads to a blanket ban and when these two in particular happen together it leads to awful code. I've seen this from multiple customers in different industries.

Here is an example with RAII and goto: https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/c/MEM12-C.+Consi...

Btw that is a Cert C recommendation to use goto for RAII!

Take a look at the Linux kernel sometime, goto is everywhere there too https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.10/process/coding-style.h...

And yet we were recently forced to change a lot of code which did use goto in a constrained way(for error handling only), because someone decided to make 15.1 required instead of advisory and take 15.1 too literally (they also made 15.5 no multiple returns required as well) and some of the results were worse than if someone had used goto in an unconstrained way.

When you are forced to follow stupid rules like having only one exit point in a function then goto can be used a lot in place of that, but what are we supposed to do if you are not allowed to both use goto or have multiple returns in a function (in C) ?