Heavy bitlocker user here, and up until now assumed the first approach is what's going on; how do I verify which system is used, and switch to the former in a few words?
Thanks for the heads-up!
1,644 karma · joined June 6, 2009
Contact: sdrinf at google's email service
Web: https://sdrinf.com/
Thanks for the heads-up!
Conflict as a regulation tool might have worked for our evolutionary ancestors, where resolution can be swiftly found and incentives re-aligned; however, if you reward conflict, the modern machine can generate an endless supply of it, on the tap. The correct solution is to shift the incentives, and reward with your attention the kind of stuff you want to see growing.
In social networks the leverage point in eliminating toxoplasma from your life are the bridge people: people who are being rewarded for taking offense in your in-group, and therefore select for the worst possible behavior of the outgroup. These people act as stressors, specifically triggering ideations of worst-case-scenarios. The fix here is removing these people from your feeds/circles of influence.
I wrote more of efficient defense systems in the age of attention at https://sdrinf.com/age-of-attention .
The other side of the issue is tough, though: Chrome extensions are regularly purchased & have ads embedded into them ( https://superuser.com/questions/1551266/how-to-track-down-wh... ), so Google's chrome extension team (couple of ~hundred person?) is essentially held accountable by ~1 billion users to the behavior of ~10s of thousands of extensions.
Spreading misinformation is not funny. Making others miserable is not funny. Schadenfraude is not funny.
We need levity and laughter more than ever. Doing it well is where the dividing line is. I'd suggest do it well, or don't do it at all.
> I might as well become a founder and start my own at that point
Great! So, how would you recruit your first 10 employees?
* CI tooling (ie for git push master to be automatically deployed to kubernetes) requires eg git + travis which is somewhat expensive for eg personal development, or manual devops work, which is somewhat expensive work-hours wise
* setup time for each microservice is just on the boundary where it happens infrequently enough to not get scripted, but each new one takes an hour to set up manually
* CI deployment time for eg docker builds on Travis can take 3-5 minutes, which is not great if prod breaks
> If one already has an effective level of security — say, by way of illustration, one that protects against 99 percent of foreseeable threats — is it reasonable to incur massive further costs to move slightly closer to optimality and attain a 99.5 percent level of protection even where the risk addressed is extremely remote?
> if the choice is between a world where we can achieve a 99 percent assurance against cyber threats to consumers, while still providing law enforcement 80 percent of the access it might seek; or a world, where we have boosted our cybersecurity to 99.5 percent but at a cost reducing law enforcements access to zero percent — the choice for society is clear.
One issue with all proposals around this, is risk = probability X impact. While the above speaks to the risk, the impact of malicious actors having their hands on masterkeys would be insta-access to any & all gov-mandated communication channels, to the exact same access level as warrants would afford.
While the attorney is right, that so far most corp master certificates have not been compromised, none of those had this pricetag attached to it. And the impact of this would be retroactively applicable -ie for any present-day communication, we'll be taking on faith that no future masterkeys will be leaked, ever.
I would not take that bet; and so far, neither did insurance companies.
Specific procedure I’d recommend is to make this a regular process: open fb feed, read until you find a thing which does not improves your life, click on owner (author / group) -click “friend” -> unfollow. Iterate until sanity is restored.
And one moral of this story (hi Facebook, please understand this) is that people are multidimensional. Just because you know someone once, in one context in real life, does not, actually, imply positive relationship on informational ecologies for all time in the future. “Authentic self” as defined by Facebook as a single coherent identity is a lie.
The results are pretty striking, esp here in the Bay: eg UCSF ( https://www.ucsfhealth.org/about/pricing-transparency/ ) charges $2600 for 1-way and 2-way chest X-rays, but charges $220 (that’s two _hundred_) for 3-way chest X-ray. The difference? How many angles they take of your body -ie, a 3-way includes the 2 & 1-way; and, more notably, the 3-way was used as a chargemaster item used in pricing estimators. So eg when I went in for a routine chest x-ray, I've expected a $300-ish bill, and got charged with a $2600 one. Knowing these prices now allows me to ask specifically from my doctor to select the diagnosis&intervention with the highest benefit/cost ratio.
I’m really curious seeing consumer reactions to this, because current medical billing practices must die.
This generally leads to stock-option based compensation; which, in turn, expires 30 days after employee leaves.
This economics -as practiced presently- strongly implies for savvy startupy people to work only on startups of their own; which in turn makes early hiring extremely difficult.
There are 2 points of equilibrium here:
* The current one is people leading less savvy people on. This leads to a lot of resentment; see rest of HN for that.
* a much less wrong solution would be to have secondary markets set up significantly earlier in the game (post series a); which would make stock & options immediate liquid. Despite sales difficulties(for finding counter parties for that), this can be a huge advantage during hiring, as employees don’t have to take on lottery tickets; and allow early employees to resign with much less resentment.
From the horse's mouth:
| John Hancock Vitality Life Insurance now offers new and existing* customers two options to support and incentivize healthier choices, wherever they are in their wellness journey:
| Vitality GO: Vitality GO will be offered on all life insurance policies, at no additional cost. With this basic 'be healthy' version of the program, consumers will have access to expert fitness and nutritional resources and personalized health goals through an easy-to-use app and website. And as they reach key milestones, their healthy activities will be rewarded with discounts at major brand outlets.
| Vitality PLUS: For $2.00 a month 5, customers will receive all the benefits of the John Hancock Vitality Program, including savings of up to 15 percent on annual premiums and valuable rewards for the everyday things they do to stay healthy, like exercising, eating well and getting regular checkups.
https://www.johnhancock.com/news/insurance/2018/09/john-hanc...
Correct article title is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18027323 "John Hancock will include fitness tracking in all life insurance policies".
And with that, reuters.com enters into my HN blacklist.
Writing an open, and distributed web crawler / indexer is a nice programming exercise. Writing an "objective" ranking function (for any values of "objective") in an open, and distributed manner is structurally not favoured by humanity's current incentive structure. As in:
* a dev team have to agree on signals, and weights: "SERP quality" has dedicated teams of people assigned for specific verticals @ Google; replicating this in a distributed manner will be played politically
* Assuming any significant usage, the second you submit ranking code to public github repo, the algo will be played by thousand SEO scammers to their advantage
* Executing custom ranking function on other people's computer not only introduces security risks, but will have scammers setting up honeypots for collecting other people's ranking signals, and playing accordingly.
You did: the position of neutrality. The position of not taking a stance either way. The position of actually doing stuff, like, in the real world, orthogonal to that of politics. The area outside of politics.
I observe, based on your comment 3 above, that you consider politics as all-encompassing. I reply: politics, as practiced currently, is a virus, which attempts to stick itself to everything, every act, every stuff; and until nuance, tolerance, and understanding re-enters the picture, I will not take any part of it.
Please do not take the position of neutrality away from me. Anyone who forces me using the reasoning above, is, by default, an enemy of mine, regardless of coincidence of wants.
It is not useful to expect good predictions from the former group, and the later group isn't really interested in publishing in CS.
> "2870. (a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information"
https://web.archive.org/web/20160516081153/http://www.leginf...
They can be as unflexible about this as they want. Stuff you built outside the scope of the company, AND outside working hours, AND not using company resources, is yours.
> "(b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable. "
The reason why you want to cross out that section isn't so much as to signal non-compliance as to communicate, that that part of the contract is illegal by California law.
If the contract does not have a special clause about illegality, leaving that paragraph in might make the entire contract void.
Specifically, under the condition where the debate actually matters, your compulsion can be exploited by putting out any number of variedly wrong ideas, for which you pay an asymmetrically higher cost to refute, and an opportunity cost of not being able to present ideas of your own.
The debate can this way be framed to either never reach "consensus", or to do so at the counterparty's favored position.
The widespread use of this strategy is a reason why society is falling back on censorship as opposed to reason.
Could you kindly link to relevant threads / RFCs / orgs / undertakings currently working on that, please?
I ponder on this question seeing how Google is planning to increasingly depreciate HTTP. While in general, I welcome the security upgrade, the lack of next-best-free-options makes me vary of this config change locking us into a $$$paid-only web publishing system.
2.2 Billion users. 74,000 employees. That's 300,000 users per employee. Converting Google's entire current operation into customer support, and assuming 1 ticket per year per customer, would require every Google employee to solve 1.7 tickets per minute (365/8) to keep up. Assuming a 5 minute ticket resolution (and still 1 ticket per year per user) would require 500,000 trained customer support personal to support that; assuming $20K per year, that equals to ~$10B. Google's profit was ~20B last year. This is not very likely to happen; and conditional it does, it would kill very large parts of the IT sector.
Can we kindly attempt to actually get to a solution that is actually mutually acceptable by all parties for this?
Also, consider the conditions:
* You are a scammer
* You pay $10 to Google to "fix getting back into your account"
* Google knows that account does not, actually belongs to you, but now are in a position, where they either: eat the $10 with a WONTFIX, and pave the way to a mass lawsuit or refund the $10, and have a free way for scammers to exploit.
> In consumer (markets), even a great product will often get blown out of the water if a competitor with a worse but good enough product has a deep, deep marketing war chest. If you space has a VC backed competitor, you have no choice but to also raise money and fight a war of attrition
* No, it is not an emulation. The win10 kernel + compatibility layer just happens to be able to also run ELF binaries. Yes, these show up as standard processes, and can be interacted with using normal windows tools (eg taskmgr).