plaguepilled

Its not a fix, but whenever I have to travel I set up a "reading list" on my RSS feed. Between that and physical books, I tend to fill in the time.

Actually, in general I would like to see RSS (or even a more draconic, constrained form of RSS) be a relevant web standard for traditional information dense webpages.

Arxiv is open access prepublication, and doesn't remove the need for peer review to get into actual journals. If you apply for a grant and you say "I was published on Arxiv" you are not getting that grant.

Additionally, Arxiv won't kick you off their platform if you post a preprint there, and then you get published in Nature.

In other words, the reason it does not change the point is that Arxiv does not weaken the publication process for the actual journals the preprint will be submitted to. You still need peer review to get published and you are still incentivised to do just that.

You could argue 'preprints ARE publishing' but I'd need to be convinced of that point because I don't agree for the reasons stated above.

Doesn't change the point. Also doesn't refute the point.

I can't post on the official website (not a US citizen) but I have thought about this question a fair bit and have worked in security adjacent tech in a past life.

An important note: my suggestions would make many business models unviable. I see this as a win-win because I think that profiting on bad security is extremely unethical and should be illegal.

My requests are as follows:

1. It must be at least a 1-year jailable offence without bail to sell an IoT device that does not have the software and firmware 100% open source. This is the absolute minimum and allows end user auditing. Implementing anything else before this is meaningless.

2. The company must pledge to provide security updates for at least 5 years for any device they sell (if there is no sale, this should not apply).

3. For a security update to be valid in the eyes of the FCC, the update must be signed by an existing employee (accountability must be assigned).

4. If an IoT supplier wishes to aggregate data to sell to 3rd parties, this MUST be optional and it MUST be opt-in.

5. Vulnerability detection and registration must be handled by a 3rd party with a lodgement portal, and companies should have at most 1 month to patch it once the vulnerability has been lodged in the 3rd party portal. Failure to fix in time should accrue exponentiating fines.

Even in your framing (which I don't accept) it is a dark pattern because it constructs a bias of user behaviour that, statistically, will push users towards something that is both good for the company and not reflective of the user's goals. This IS a trick, because it relies on the user not knowing those incentives to be effective.

Proving other theorems, which may themselves either prove further theorems or lead to direct applications. That's how the questions of "what to prove" often materialise.

It really depends on what you mean by ease of use. It's about as hard as Gentoo to pick up, but it is the easiest one to maintain imo.

Looks wise, they're all the same (bar mint) since they all use stock GNOME and KDE.

Ecosystem, as in the specific tools available to make things a turnkey experience, I'd say NixOS takes care of you really well and is on par with arch and Debian.

All three of the above will vary with individual experience though.

If I were recommending a distro today, I would say one of the following:

- Linux Mint (Debian version)

- Debian

- NixOS

I'm no Casablanca, but this person does not seem to have the full picture.

"OK, but" does not always mean "put everything you just said to the side. Here is the REAL topic", it is quite literally adding stuff to consider to the discussion. And you can respond to it as such.

E.g. "yeah true there is more thought extended to it, but I think its a mixed message because its also kind of a waste. What do you think about that wastefulness anyhow?" Is completely normal and does what the article is implying, without it being TOO standoffish. You address what was said, then ask a specific question about your previous point(s). Its courteous but firm.

Obviously people who don't argue in good faith and try to talk over you won't let you get a piece in here, but that's a separate issue IMO, and those people aren't really worth the trouble.

While I agree that there is an excess of evidence available to jail SBF with ease - and he should be jailed without question - I am bit unsure about your VPN comment.

Specifically, if Sam uses a VPN after having communication restrictions put in place around what he can say, is that inherently suspicious to a court? I would have assumed it is insufficient on its own but could be presented as the means for breaking court order if shown with other supporting evidence.

I'm not a lawyer mind you, so this is just me trying to understand it for myself.

Not to be a grouch, but I'm sort of not surprised at this point.

The sheer volume that the big American units have been caught in over the last 5 or so years has really sobered me up on their supposedly high quality research standards.

That's not to say they're uniformly bad - just that they don't have an untouchable track record like they imply.

It's arguably obvious to those with relevant training, so perhaps he didn't realise justification was needed.

You're being downvoted for not liking Quanta, but if your original point was that Quanta is not a good reporter, you're right.

They frequently make subtle but impactful misinterpretations, or more outrageous redirections, such as the Quantum Gravity fiasco from earlier this year. To excuse that is to participate in Gell Man amnesia, in my view.

It is certainly not as robust as MacOS or Windows protections, but I have been told it does provide a block to certain malware targeting the boot (though it is imperfect as you have pointed out).

In my case, I am not expecting total security. I just want access to be extremely inconvenient for opportunistic attackers.

That makes much more sense, thanks.

Still a bit confusing that its not on by default, but also much more trustable.

Here's the bit that confuses me: no secure boot.

QubesOS does a lot of good things, but Secure Boot is sort of a nonnegotiable for a lot of security profiles because its one of the few ways you protect boot.

I'd be interested to hear from someone more in the know why they haven't implemented it yet.

LinkedIn is an exceptional negative filter and will forever appreciate that about it.

If a company willingly self-identifies itself with things like blockchain, AI, or even just feel-good word salads, I know not to apply there.

My problem with AI is that I just don't think it does the advertised task well. It really annoys me that the tech space in my area is increasingly 'embracing' AI* instead of things like Nix, Rust, Haskell, which are doing really cool things in the broader tech sphere.

*On that note: the phrase 'embracing AI' sounds so slimy. Why do I need to hug the robot?

Taking accountability for your solution does not require a physical presence. This is not relevant.

Edit: I worded that a bit poorly. The point I wanted to convey was that the physical location isn't what determines accountability.

I think the applicability of using maths symbols in a program is highly domain dependent. It'd be reasonable to use it for a physics simulation. You probably should not use it for a banking application.

I would argue humanity can plenty handle truth-ambivalent sources (what is state sponsored media after all?). However, AI sucks on an aesthetic level, and its a real shame that we now have to just put up with it.

This is the unfortunate truth about 2FA. While it significantly improves security, it is significantly less ergonomic than passwords (which are already sucky). It is also a problem when phones are, for whatever reason, not ideal for the work environment.

I love NixOS, but I am looking to move my workstation to Guix.

The reason is that, it seems NixOS do not sign their packages. I've checked the messaging platforms, and while there seems to be a consensus that its not needed, I'm at present unconvinced (especially since Guix, to my knowledge, do require signing).

On its own I'd actually be OK with looking past this, but the lack of documentation on mandatory access control, secure boot, and general sandbox consideration, makes me concerned on multiple fronts. Which is a shame, because like I said, NixOS is a delight to use.

At one stage in life I had this problem regularly. It was very stressful.

It dawned on me that I was feeling like my own value was bring questioned when I was criticised. The material reality of whether I was actually being criticised fairly or if I even believed it was reasonable to be criticised didn't even factor in. In short, I was having an ego panic.

The fix was unfortunately just a lot of patient introspection. Why do I feel a certain way? Why is one thing my first response instead of something else? Do I like that I do that? Those were the REAL issues. Being contradicted just highlighted it.

Best of luck overcoming your troubles. I am sure you will succeed if you are diligent.

I am not following your point unfortunately. Could you elaborate further?

I would love a "dumb" search that strips out EVERYTHING except the results and their summaries. No AI. No images. Nothin'.

At present I just filter it out with ublock, but I wish I didn't have to, y'know?

Thats a misrepresentation.

Something is legal if the society has decided it to be. That is distinct from merely being popular. I am arguing that the consensus opinion is very strongly in support of making publicly funded research also accessible to said public.

As a result, the question of whether such an action is "good" or "right" isn't really sufficient. Because the point isn't popularity, the point is that citizens can change their laws.

I agree, theft is, devoid of any context, immoral.

However, I consider the privatisation of publically funded research to be (currently) legal theft.

Edit: I realise this was an indirect response to your comment, so I would also like to add that a meta-point I want to make is that we came to almost polar opposite conclusions despite having the same "morality" to a certain accuracy. Therefore, it could be argued that morality is not a sufficient measure for lawmaking.

"Public appreciation doesn't shield the site from prosecution" - serious question though, why not? Sure it infringes on copyright but I would argue at this point, research data should rightfully be classed as a public asset. It appears that's a popular opinion, based on all the piracy. So why don't we just classify it as such?

Thank you! Maybe this is the year then. :)