ricree

The problem itself was interesting, but a compromised compiler is absolutely a nightmare. It took that long to figure out even with blatant evidence of something fishy. How long does it persist when the vulnerability is subtle?

>So then is esports really the artificial bubble industry, and not pro sports?

I'm not totally convinced it isn't. Franchise valuations and player salaries have been increasing at a very fast pace, all of which are propped up by television revenue. Should TV subscription numbers drop (as many predict they will), I'm not sure they can recapture that lost revenue.

It's not going to be a killer, likely, since they have other revenue streams such as merchandising, ticket sales, etc. But with many teams signing large, multi year deals just to stay competitive, I could see it causing a number of very painful years. It would not surprise me at all if at least one of the major professional leagues contracted sometime within the next decade.

So far as I can tell, none of the Apollo 11 ever flew another mission, so it may well have been worth it.

(Though the 10 astronauts all did at least one more, with two of the three eventually getting their turn on the moon)

>Surely, someone would have eventually invented the stirrup, given ridable horses.

Perhaps, though the stirrup as we think of it shows up a lot later than horseriding does. Although the stirrup seems obvious at first glance, it requires a number of advances in saddles to support, or at least to take full advantage of them.

That said, as the article points out, you don't need stirrups to have cavalry, or even heavy cavalry.

The idea behind three strikes and death sentences, as I understand it, is that some people have proven unreformable, and therefore must be removed from society for the sake of everyone else. Of course death and permanent incarceration isn't the point, but what do you do if you run across someone who genuinely seems unable to reform and function safely?

I'm not writing this intending to endorse three strikes laws or death sentences, but you're arguing against a point that I don't think is being made.

(Now, my own personal opinion is that we ought to be taking a closer look at why the penal system is doing such a poor job reforming criminals, and that "3 strikes laws" feel a lot like "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas".)

Only one of whom was governor when he was arrested, though.

Good feelings are bad because they are a warning sign of bad faith criticism. While honest feedback is unquestionably important, there are a great many people who criticize more for their own self indulgence than for the sake of others. It's a seductive enough trap that even well meaning people might wind up giving bad feedback simply because it feels good to criticize, all the while justifying it as helping someone who is not, in fact, left any better off.

When criticizing, it helps to have a clear reason why. It may be a good faith attempt to help the other person, or because their actions affect some other thing they are contributing to, or because their actions have unintended consequences for someone else. Regardless, there should be some benefit beyond one's own gratification. If you catch yourself enjoying the act of criticizing others, it's probably a good idea to doublecheck your motivations and results to make sure that it's actually for someone else's benefit.

Crowds feed of one another, especially when it comes to outward reactions. At home, you're usually either alone or with a small group at most, which tends to limit how enthusiastic people get.

That was largely the point of the Fabian strategy, was it not? Similar to the concept of a Fleet in Being[1], maintaining a functioning force is protected, but still able to threaten the other side constrains their options and makes it harder for them to achieve victory. Hannibal may have never lost in Italy, but he was nonetheless prevented from winning either. Though the main armies could only do so much to keep him from taking objectives, it made it difficult for him to maintain control over them. Notably, Hannibal had difficulty securing lasting control or alliance with many of the Italian city states, and those he did control often required losing some of his limited forces in order to garrison, otherwise they risked being retaken by the Roman army once Hannibal had moved on.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being

I disagree. There is absolutely nothing wrong with users saying:

"I have enjoyed this use case that is currently allowed. I dislike the fact that this use case will be going away. If it does happen, I am much less likely to use the site. I think you should reconsider your decision."

Tumblr, of course, is free to disregard this feedback, but I cannot see how there is anything even slightly wrong with concerned users providing it.

I personally have at least one Truecrypt volume whose password I've forgotten.

It contains a year or so's worth of journal entries, so I keep it around in case inspiration strikes, but so far I've had no luck opening it.

Were I investigated for a crime, it's not implausible that the police might take my hard drive and come back saying something like "here's a list of encrypted volumes we found, open them", and in at least that one case, I simply cannot.

If nothing else, it probably is/was a fairly good marketing tool for YC.

UK currency was decimalised in 1971. Before that it was 12 pence per shilling, 20 shillings per pound. Not ideal to work with (there's a reason they switched), but still pretty straightforward.

Looking at the notice of retraction[1], "immortal time bias" seems to be a particular subset survivorship bias, in which there is a distinct delay between two events, and by definition one facet of the study only looked at those who survived that time period. In this case, the time period between diagnosis and the actual surgery.

[1] - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullartic...

I don't know. Even when we account for people who have made it past 65 and 75, there is still a several year gap.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2010/022.pdf

>Do women tend to get older than men

At the very least, this is pretty well supported at the upper end of lifespans.

Looking at the list of oldest people recorded in modern times[1], the list is predominantly female. There is only one man in the top 20 positions (Jiroemon Kimura at number 16), and only 3 in the top 40.

Whether this is due to the same cause as the overall trend, I can't say. Looking at the CDC life expectancy tables for ages 65 and 75, however, we still see a gap of several years between male and female life expectancy, so whatever is causing the divergence probably isn't related to youth and early-mid adult mortality.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_people#Ten_oldest_verif...

[2]https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2010/022.pdf

From what I can tell, wild Polio cases have been in the low double digits the past couple years. Hopefully it will be gone by the end of next decade.

Does that make much difference? In my experience, the cost of cheese is by far the biggest determining factor in overall cost.

Even before that, there was a case where the federal government had limited the amount of wheat a farm could grow (to control prices), and came after a farmer who exceeded those limits for the sake of feeding his own livestock. This is, to the best of my knowledge, the earliest supreme court case where purely personal use counted as "interstate commerce".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

>Commerce clause means that if something moves from state to state, that sure does seem like a Federal matter

To clarify (as you no doubt know, but other readers might not), this has been taken by courts to mean that any type of good that is traded between states is fair game for federal involvement, even if the actual product in question never has and never will travel outside of the state, or be bought or sold whatsoever.

The full text reads:

>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What, exactly, this means has been a matter of ongoing debate for much of the amendment's existence. Some of the more fervent states' rights advocates have considered it a hard check on the power of the federal government, while at other times it has been considered little more than a truism.

My own personal read on it is that it defines the nature of state and federal lawmaking power, from the perspective of the constitution. Federal law is strict. The constitution allows it certain specific powers and subjects it is allowed to govern, and it must stay within those. State laws, from a federal perspective, are permissive. The constitution bars certain powers from the states, but anything not banned they are allowed to regulate.

In practice, this means less than it might, because the constitution's powers allow the federal government a lot of room to regulate and govern. At the state level, incorporation doctrine also limits their powers a fair bit.

In terms of judicial history, the 10th is one of the less significant parts of the Bill of Rights, becoming an issue in court far less than, say, the First Amendment (freedom of speech/press/religion) or Fourth (limits to search and seizure/ warrant requirements). On the other hand, it has come up more often than the Third (forced quartering of troops during times of peace).

Because the 10th provides little that is particularly concrete, and because the prevailing interpretation of other clauses has been fairly broad. That is to say, by and large the federal government has been acting withing the powers granted by the constitution, but at the moment those powers are held to be quite broad. Interstate commerce clause, in particular, means that the government can do quite a bit to regulate, so long as it is in some manner related to interstate trade. I don't personally agree with these interpretations, but they are the prevailing ones.

Likewise, incorporation doctrine is derived from the constitution. So anything that is considered barred by incorporation is therefore "prohibited by it[the constitution] to the States".

It has, in the past, been called "a truism" by the courts, and that's not a totally unreasonable read. Still, there issue has come up in court from time to time, and the wikipedia page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_... ) lists some examples.

Multicellular life seems to be one of the biggest stumbling blocks. Life appeared very soon after it was possible, but a pretty huge chunk of the time since was limited to single cells.

Linux Mint with Mate does this fairly well by default.

Please remember to set the evil bit properly when you do.

It's worth noting, though, that many forms of actual "free" legal advice still come with serious professional obligations on the part of the lawyer. Pro-bono work, public defenders, contingency basis, etc are free to some extent, but nonetheless create a client relationship that is at least nominally as serious as one that is paid for.

There is a reason that lawyers online are very quick to point out that they are not opening up such a relationship.

I've been too far more second run showings than full priced films, and I can't say that I noticed much difference in people's behavior between the two.

> Reddit wont be around in 4 years.

Why not? It was around 4 years ago, and seems to be more or less as healthy today as it was then.

Plus, it's pretty similar to registering r/username, which is something that a lot of these "power users" already do.

My biggest complaint (and something I worry about when they talk about redesigning/reimplementing the site) is that the page just isn't all that great.

It's slow to load (where the old overview page was pretty much instantaneous), lacks features (though two more clicks will get you back to the superior overview page), and at least to my eyes, it's even uglier than normal reddit (though admittedly this is mostly subjective).

If this is what happens when they roll out new features, I worry that the rest of the site will wind up like it once they do their redesign.

>If something planet-scale happens while we wait on a single planet, the entire species would not make it

On the other hand, the list of disasters that would leave Earth less inhabitable than Mars without also destroying any Mars colony is pretty rare. If human survival is the primary goal, it might be best to work on perfecting that sort of self contained habitat somewhere in the remote parts of Earth.