rudyfink

-46 f (-43.4c) actual temperature. The rest is just the fact that it's a windy mountain and wind chill values wind speed.

If you were also curious, the lowest actual recorded temperature without windchill was -128 (https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature), so this temperature is about 80 degrees higher than that.

Or the performer is whomever you'd like it to be but some performers cost more than others based on rights? So if you'd like, you can be Rick-rolled by an AI generated dancing penguin in the style of Picasso with anime overtones for one price, but the original or AI up-scales thereof will cost you more (though, obviously, your willingness to accept AI-added background product placement built into the video will effect the cost).

https://patents.google.com/patent/US7629497B2/ (if anyone else was looking for a link, assignment information is near the bottom).

Here they are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0feR5grSa4 (32 second spot) / https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEVjILqU3pU (apparently the UK version of the same commercial).

Yes, here is a chart of their activity in setting the Federal Funds rate since the 1950s (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS). It is only, in very recent years (from 2008 to 2015), that the rate has stayed unchanged for so long.

Adverse issues (e.g., fraud) tend to get noticed more in downturns, because, generally, everyone cares more about the details in those times. In times of plenty, they also occur (perhaps even as much), but people are more willing to let the same behavior pass because everything is going well.

At the risk of stepping too much into the meta, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some innate behaviors from evolution for responding to downturns (e.g., caring more about fairness).

Thank you. And I guess those protections apply even at the volumes of data subject to these ransomware attacks?

This may be a very dumb crypto / ransomware question, but if someone knows the answer, I'd appreciate it.

Why don't businesses (or systems) seed their drives with files with known text / content and then use those files to reverse the method used to encrypt? It seems like having an adversary encrypt a set of known "canary" files should provide information to reverse the encryption?

Again, there may be a good reason (or many many good reasons) why this would not be a good solution, especially since I'd expect most OS installations have enough standard files to do this if it worked, but I am curious if someone knows.

Edit: From the helpful comments, this is a known class of attack on a cryptosystem called a plaintext attack. Using that information, I looked into how ransomware systems address this attack, and several, apparently, use per-file keys as, in part, a defense against this type of attack.

If anyone else wants more detail, this is the FCC's page on the notice:

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-fine-interrupting-...

This appears to be the agency's statement:

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-43A1.pdf

You might enjoy a book called Financial Shenanigans (https://www.amazon.com/Financial-Shenanigans-Fourth-Accounti...). It's essentially examples of detective stories based on financial statements.

How about a view that weights the time headlines have spent on that page per day? In other words, as I understand the page, it aggregates the current headlines, but I'd like a view that shows what that page has shown to be the news that day (or for the interval you choose as appropriate).

That may be something different than what you are trying to create though!

I was thinking of it as maybe three "brutalist" views (in descending level of abstraction): 1) what the news has been; 2) what the news is trending to; and 3) what each site is currently reporting.

Yes, it feels like a return to the walled-garden days of America Online, Prodigy, CompuServe, etc. Essentially, they seem to be want to create a separate network that they control--one that is not "internet-ed" to other networks in an open fashion.

Do both?

From "The Demon Under the Microscope" by Hager--an interesting read on the history of Sulfonamides (the drug that kicks off the "golden age of antibiotics on the chart)--usage was entirely uncontrolled and people did not complete drug regimes. Generally (and I'll probably get this very wrong), that antibiotic worked by blocking uptake of external energy sources.

The drug was tremendously effective and widespread. The book made it sound like all of the strains that did not evolve a solution to that antibiotic were completely wiped out by the evolutionary pressure of the antibiotic.

I'd imagine (just guessing) that even if the antibiotic was stopped, the organisms would not have anything like the evolutionary pressure to change back (and the consequence of getting wiped out by the drug if they did). They probably get along "good enough" or the drift back is slow. In other words, the pressure to change was one of, essentially, absolute survival, while the change back is one of risky convenience.

I'd love to see a paper looking at this (e.g., how often is the "primary" author the last author or is the last author a better predictor of quality than the first, if you look back historically). I suspect this is very widespread issue.

In short, "necessity is a helluva thing." It is not a technical explanation, but there is a great amount of truth in saying they were that way because they had to be to make it work.

Coming from another angle, the developers at that time considered those resources to be an amazing amount of plenty. Compared to, say, an 8086 with 128k or 256k of RAM, no HDD and maybe 512k or 1.44MB of floppy storage, those specs were huge.

If you're looking for other kinds minimal examples, I recommend glancing through the demoscene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoscene) stuff. To some degree, the "thing" there was amazing graphical outputs for minimal size.

I can confirm this is a nice use case: I had this on a ThinkPad once, though the pad was not MacBook big. It was also nice to be able to do some mouse movements with the trackpoint without having to alter your hand position on the keyboard to use the pad.

A Facebook login is required to read an explanation to the public? I get a login/password screen... There is probably a good quip there about the psychology involved in placing a response on a private forum, but the effect for Facebook is I will not see their response.

"Law? What do I care about the law. Ain’t I got the power?” (attributed to Cornelius Vanderbilt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Vanderbilt)

Your question made me think of that quote. There are technical answers to you question (that lying under oath is a crime), but the realist answer is, that unless Congress/executive has the will to enforce consequences, very little.

I think of that as a parachute-rigger solution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute_rigger).

Historically, people packing parachutes could be randomly selected to jump with the parachute they had packed.

In case anyone else wanted to know more, there are, apparently, 2 official languages and the other is Spanish. https://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/pa00000_.html#A140_

I recall once hearing a talk that discussed, what I recall as, "test patterns" being run across the visual cortex prior to birth. Essentially, waves / patterns of stimulation would go across the optic structure that would be used to, again as I recall it, "calibrate" the visual system.

I dug a bit and was able to find this paper https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15289028/ , which seems to track my memory. It has a number of forward and backward citations if you are interested. Perhaps someone with far more than my vague recollection of a talk will step in though!

The recommendation system, historically (i.e., in the long-long ago of spinning disks), was insanely good. But then Netflix moved to streaming and, as a consequence, its own--and generally less good--content.

By analogy, Netflix went from being a sci-fi future of having and being able to recommend on the basis of _everything_, to having a handful of good offerings and a huge amount of b-movie-level offerings.

My gut sense is management tried to paper over this "content loss problem" by making changes:

1) to the recommendation system to push Netflix content[1]; and

2) making changes to the UI to force users to be more reliant on the recommendation system.

I suspect these changes have, generally speaking, made user-consumption metrics look decent--in my mind the core of almost all Netflix's post-streaming decisions. But, as you suggest, it is all papering over a problem of user dissatisfaction: Netflix recommends you mediocre content, and you eventually give up and watch it--and then feel meh.

[1] I can imagine Netflix executives being unwilling to report that the content Netflix had paid mightily for scored low on Netflix's own recommendation algorithm. Philosophically, Netflix went from being, essentially, content agnostic (e.g., it just bought more of X DVD), to having incentives to see particular content (e.g., its own) rank highly.

Would you mind sharing your experience on how well that has worked for you? Has the complexity of maintaining different addresses been a problem?

I ask because it is something I have always thought about, but I suppose I kept hoping a service would come along and magic the solution for me. Kudos on making it happen!

Alan Turing's Google NGram certainly supports your impression that "general public knowledge of Turing's life and work has increased over the years."

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Alan+Turing&ye...

Generally speaking, this decision should not alter decisions in the district courts. Today's decision concerns filings in a specific agency court (the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Trial_and_Appeal_Board) created in 2012 as part of the American Invents Act.

Also, the Western District of Texas and Delaware have more filings these days than the Eastern District of Texas. The case-filing numbers for 2020/2021 collectively are WDTX (~30%), DDE (~26%), and EDTX (~14%). There are a few things behind that change, but the biggest is probably a Supreme Court decision in 2017 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TC_Heartland_LLC_v._Kraft_Food...).

To add to this, the App Store clearly markets security and trust.

These are the very first words describing the App Store (https://www.apple.com/app-store/):

"The apps you love. From a place you can trust.

For over a decade, the App Store has proved to be a safe and trusted place to discover and download apps....And a big part of those experiences is ensuring that the apps we offer are held to the highest standards for privacy, security, and content."

The page then says this about security:

"Security for every app. At every level.

We ensure that apps come from known sources, are free of known malware, and haven’t been tampered with at the time of installation or launch."

And this about trust:

"Apps must adhere to our guidelines.

When you download an app, it should work as promised. Which is why human App Reviewers ensure that the apps on the App Store adhere to our strict app review standards. Our App Store Review Guidelines require apps to be safe, provide a good user experience, comply with our privacy rules, secure devices from malware and threats, and use approved business models."*

Maybe not? Most consumer arbitration agreements these days ban asserting class claims. This has been on the rise since 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_LLC_v._Concepc....

In my opinion, this legal change is a huge sleeper story that is behind a number of changes in how customers are getting treated. Since customers can no longer economically avail themselves of the courts to protect themselves en-masse, certain companies find it in their interest to exploit that asymmetry for profit.

In other words, a company could always impose a harm on all of its customers for its profit. But, now, if that that company imposes a class ban through arbitration, those customers cannot, collectively, seek recourse for that harm.

I have no idea if it is true, but, in Egypt, my guide (who I will say was wonderfully knowledgeable on historic matters), stated that the reason many properties had rebar extending upwards (e.g., it looked like there were more stories to be added) was related to tax policy. I forget the full detail of her explanation, but there was some different kind of tax treatment if the building was "finished," so there were a number of approaches to not "finish" a building.

Edit: From some subsequent Googling, it appears this tax explanation was, at least, historically true in Egypt. There are reports that this policy may have changed in the early 2010's.

From the article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22274-1#Sec2

The point of the article is, in my estimation, the university's press office celebrating the achievement of its student, its faculty, and, by extension, the university.