The litigation on that matter is ongoing. What you said is not true right now. If you try to fight an order for your password, you'll wind up in court and probably lose, and then have to chose whether to act in contempt.
Yeah, well what I want is a (physical, literal) membership card like I have at the gym or library. I think "regular" people can learn to use USB tokens, and that they might make more intuitive sense than passwords. These places don't challenge me for the "secret password" when I come in, I just present or scan my card.
It's very tricky obviously, in terms of engineering and operations, for an internet based company to arrange anything similar. But I don't think it's too mentally foreign for the user (assuming we develop good standards).
So cards make sense to me. Way more sense than passwords. Maybe someone else feels more comfortable with the details living inside their phone, but that doesn't affect my mental model. Users don't need to understand or be taught the entire standard.
The possibility of Higgs appearing at LHC, but not any supersymetry partners, has a name among physicists: the nightmare scenario. The Higgs discovery (measuring its mass) wasn't unexpected, there were known symmetries and energy bounds that made it pretty much have to be there. Everything new LHC was supposed to discover has not appeared. That's not to say there's not good science happening there -- but many people (physicists) consider it disappointing. The purpose of building a collider that big and expensive is to find new particles.
Adding more because I've read her book (not to quibble). I wouldn't say the point is that new physics is out of reach until we build more expensive accelerators. She herself is a theoretical physicist, has theories she'd like to see tested and proposes experiments that could do so. I think she's saying rather that particle physics involves enormous opportunity costs -- decades long / billion dollar experiments -- and that the research agenda is not scientifically justified, but is sociological and even aesthetic in origin.
They all register and file disclosures though. A private fund of this size concealing its existence, its structure, and its objectives, is immoral and bad for the stock.
Allow edits to the post, or allow the author to append short updates to it, or something else, but I think the rate limit is an interesting thing and worth sticking with at this stage. It's a principle that once you break would be hard to reestablish. The main risk is that slow posting probably means slow growth, and that is a reason to add some kind of exception -- but try to make it limited it, imo.
Maybe new users can make secondary posts, and as they post more and connect with people, you guide them somehow towards 1/week. Sort of reversing the traditional pattern that new users might need to be rate limited when they first sign up, instead what you want is for established users to post slowly.
If doing it above board wouldn't make sense anyway, that means the idea is to do something illegal. You'd know who controls the board, how many shares the person currently buying it has secured, which way votes are going to go before they happen, etc. The rest of the shareholders, the rest of the whole market, wouldn't. You'd claim (and would probably have to in sworn testimony) that billion dollar gifts to you from Elon Musk, including your stock itself, were incidental.
You're right that my pom-pom action was serious, but it sounds like you're imaging a different kind of dilemma than I was. You're referring to walking away from an unproductive conversation, while I was responding to a cynical argument for choosing bad faith over good.
You can't control the outcome of a conversation, and cynicism goes hand in hand with bad faith. Communication is still the most awesome thing that humans do, or will ever be able to do!
What are the kind of boot/init processes that require the RNG? Is it only a requirement on some systems, or does basically every gameboy, laptop, soda machine etc have init processes that would need the RNG?
The issue that triggered this revert, if I'm understanding it, was that RNG reads had to be minimally decent and non-blocking already in order for a certain system to seed the RNG.
This is definitely breakage, but it'd be interesting to know about the less "reflexive" applications.
The point of this survey is to improve the deepfakes. They aren't very difficult to spot when you've been primed and are paying attention, but the purpose here isn't to show off how good the fakes are or even challenge you to spot the difference -- it's to study what it is that gives a deepfake away. This'll ultimately be used to make the fakes more believable.
The wealth difference is not as great as it seems, it's just the interest on the mortgage minus tax incentives and the opportunity cost of paying it off.
Have you looked at Project Vesta? It's a proposal to create olivine beaches around the tropics to boost sequestration due to rock weathering. I think it's somewhat disputed because rock weathering in a surf happens at a different rate than normal, but their analysis is that if "only" 2 percent of tropical beaches were covered in olivine the weathering would counteract current emissions. I can't tell how serious this proposal is and am curious to hear from anyone who knows more about this process.
The other way of looking at that is that it would only take a few hundred thousand years for a technologically advanced civilization to permeate the galaxy. But the galaxy is billions of years old and that has not happened.
The other thing is that the paradox isn't just that they aren't physically here with us. It's that there's no evidence of intelligent life whatsoever. We're at the point where we can take direct optical images of exoplanets. At some point we have to conclude that if they are out there, we would have seen some indication of it.
"Hetero privilege" is proved by the discrimination and stigma against gay relationships, families, the violence against them, rejection by their families, their churches, institutions like blood banks, etc. I think if someone can't already see it there then they won't find it by teasing apart an example like this. It's just seen as another awkward situation. There are awkward situations specific to hetero men too, so it's not seen as a problem.
Your premise is a civilization with values that are some extension my own, which considers the environmental recklessness that preceded it as either amusing or necessary. That doesn't sound plausible. I really believe that, but I don't feel emotional about every specific tragedy in recorded history.
Death really is around the corner for chicks in an egg though. Even professional hatcheries supposedly can't manage more than a ~90% hatch rate. The thing that is silly about the chicken's worry (apart from the anthropomorphism) is not that the situation wasn't actually life threatening, but that it is completely out of the chicken's control as an embryo.
Pollution and climate change are killing millions. For anyone in the glorious future looking back, I hope they will not be amused at how disturbing that is to us, but instead think, "yeah that was really terrible, thank goodness we got through it".
You argued that on one hand we could save individuals with cancer, and on the other we could save all of humanity. Only that doesn't include the individual with cancer, or anybody else on Earth! I knew exactly what you meant which is that a non-zero number of humans would be alive, but to me that doesn't live up to the grandiose idea of saving humanity.
I don't want to divert money from cancer and presumably other medical research as well, so that the last N humans can live in a space capsule. Mortality rates for cancer have been on the decline for decades, so the issue is not theoretical.
It could not save "all of humanity". Humanity would be down there on Earth dying. In the end who you would save would again be individuals -- a few people on the moon. The question is could you save more people in space in a hypothetical end of world scenario than you could people on Earth dying in a very real scenario today.
So are planetary risks. They give the name to "astronomically unlikely". But while cancer might not kill everyone at once, it's going to kill billions of us.
But nothing at all is really known about "length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space". It's somewhere between a few decades or so and 10 billion years?
Rights are expectations that you have from a just society. There's no real division into positive and negative rights. Due process, for instance, could be phrased either way but it is the same right nonetheless. One phrasing would emphasize freedom from extralegal persecution, the other would emphasize that all sorts of people (e.g. lawyers, juries, judges) are compelled to provide you certain services.
You can't have rights without guaranteeing action. My right not to be tortured requires all sorts of individual and societal interventions in order to fulfill. There's no classification of rights into positive/negative and certainly no difference in validity between the two.
If he'd tested it beforehand the comment might instead be "this destroyed my laptop".
You have a responsibility to test before releasing to production, yes. But the amount of fucked up your program has to be for `sudo ___ --help` to wreck the operating system, the unexpectedness of that result... IMO attention should be focused here on the irresponsibility of the npm team, not their users.
It's banana-pants crazy to run npm at all. Even given all the wisdom about running as sudo, best practices etc., this team released an update where `sudo npm --help` breaks the operating system. The recklessness and confusion of ideas that indicates... postinstall hooks, I don't even want npm running. This isn't even the first such shenanigans.
Science isn't driven by principles like that. Nothing is built from the ground up, and data that isn't formally understood or modeled is relied upon often. Though we think of it as a dead end today, the experiments and thinking of alchemists (like Isaac Newton) are part of the history of science and were essential to the development of e.g. chemistry and physics.
Human nature is exactly what we make of it and nothing more. Evolutionary forces tending our nations towards oligarchy, or more recently representative government, would be group selection which is largely debunked. In fact it's a much more dubious idea than that, since even group selection theorists don't assert that those forces apply at the scale of entire cities or nations.
Your question is about people who have already become employed software developers. Obviously those women don't far outnumber men in any respect. What I'm saying is the candidate pool of women is much larger than is assumed here (the candidate pool of men is as well). It wouldn't take a "magic wand" to start hiring them. Maybe doing so would amount to discrimination in some people's eyes, but I think this business of hiring professional models to entertain the men and give the appearance of parity is pretty sketchy as well. Corporations are apparently willing to take drastic measures to create the a certain kind of gendered workplace experience. Given the choice I would rather the results of their actions actually benefit society in some way.
20% would be a lower bound. I majored in a hard science, not CS. Two great programmers I know, in senior positions, don't even have a degree. At my last company there was a decent Rails engineer who studied communication in college and had worked in affiliate marketing at his previous job. There was also a guy who was a lawyer and then went to code camp and got hired as an engineer.
The pipeline isn't sufficient to explain the gender ratio.