tetrep

> This is a difficult issue, but ultimately I come down on the side that it is better to let ten misinformative tweets go free than it is to have one tweet covered by a note that judges it unfairly.

That seems strictly worse, to me. If you have a good tweet with a bad note, you have 1 piece of good info and 1 piece of bad info. If you have 10 tweets with bad info and no notes, you have 10 pieces of bad info. Community Notes does not seem to be able to address that issue in its current form as it seems to require notes not be very controversial and, as discussed in the article, many things these days are quite controversial. Or, in other terms, if you want to spread misinformation on Twitter and trivially defeat the lame mitigation that is Community Notes, you just need to make it controversial.

I don't know for how long this data has been tracked / how to compare it over time, but the census does cover labor force participation (look at the Family Group tables): https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2020/demo/families/cps-20...

> (except security censorship, which no one objects to in war time)

Ha! That's exactly when everyone should care the most about censorship, it's when the stakes are highest for "both" sides. I assume he realized the error in his ways by the time he realized that we've always been at war with...

> Using a different methodology, a similar, strong positive correlation between altitude and suicide rates has recently been reported by Kim and colleagues, (2011) using all counties in the United States as well as all 233 counties in South Korea.

I assumed culture was a large component to this, but I don't know enough about South Korea to compare its high altitude people to those of the US. Maybe it is something environmental?

All the parties involved primarily make money with ads. Facebook is (in)famous for their privacy invading trackers. Why not leverage FB's creepy stalker tech to mandate revenue sharing for ads related to / shown near or around the news articles shared on FB?

It shouldn't be any technically different than affiliate marketing, but instead of a product being purchased, it's ads being viewed, and it triggers whenever someone shares a URL to one of the covered news agencies.

> Almost 10 percent of American households are renting at least one storage space, often for an overflow of stuff, according to a 2015-16 Self Storage Industry Fact Sheet. It is now possible for every American to stand comfortably, at the same time, under the total canopy of self-storage roofing.

I was just reading an article about America's booming storage industry, and now I wonder how much of the boom comes from storage "addicts," similar to how a substantial portion of gambling and alcohol industry revenue comes from a relatively small subset of addicts.

> The structures were able to stick to soft cells for 16 hours even as the cells moved.

I appreciate the imagery of a tatoo metaphor, but I feel like permanance is a major component, and this is not quite that (yet?). The article also talks about applications for electronics, which makes this seem closer to a "nanochipping" experiment than a tatoo.

Even if it were permanent, how useful would it be without some sort of nanobot swarm constantly tagging cells? Don't cells divide relatively frequently?

> Hardware companies simply don't pay as much as software companies in industry. I don't fully understand the reasons, because hardware is often more difficult to deal with than software.

This is heavily reflected in hardware security. Very few devices are not tire fires, even before IoT took off. My best guess as to why is that many hardware engineers are next to the hardware in Shenzhen and their wages act as an anchor for the rest of the industry. Either that or I've listened to too many bunnie talks and played too much Shenzhen I/O.

Uhhhhh, as trustworthy as the source may or may not be (I have no idea who controls that account), I feel like such strong statements should directly reference strong evidence. I don't see any evidence supplied, only a very strong statement:

With a great deal of sadness, we now believe that the game is over. LK99 is NOT a superconductor, not even at room temperatures (or at very low temperatures). It is a very highly resistive poor quality material. Period. No point in fighting with the truth. Data have spoken.

What data?????

I suppose this article is lampooning you, then: https://www.theonion.com/conscientious-suv-shopper-just-want...

It's The Onion, so you don't need to read the article to get the point. Its title is "Conscientious SUV Shopper Just Wants Something That Will Kill Family In Other Car In Case Of Accident."

The beautfiul thing about these situations is that if the company demanding no WFH is doing it for productivity reasons, they could much more simply demand employees reach a minimal productivity threshold or be let go. No need to mandate what methods an employee uses to be productive, be it working from the home or office, if productivity is the goal, productivity should be the target.

When there is a mandate to return to the office, it really makes me wonder if the employer can even tell if their employees are productive at all, much less know that they are more productive in the office. If they could tell, they would simply use that measure directly.

As other comments have noted, just like with other addictions, it is extremely helpful/insightful to be able to see someone "further along" and say "I don't like what I see."

I interacted with and heard stories about family alcoholics when I was growing up and that is part of why I'm confident I won't develop a bad relationship with it myself. It's hard to forget what it does not just to the users, but to everyone around them.

Similarily, although I didn't see it growing up, as an adult I have seen some pretty hardcore stoners (high all the time), and I do not like the lifestyle that most seem to fall into. It's really easy to notice the cognitive decline when it happens to someone you know. Even if you want to be charitable, people at the very least behave quite differntly when they go from generally sober all the time to generaly stoned all the time. YMMV but I prefer generally sober people versus generally stoned people.

I think part of the strong correlation between stoners and legalization movements is because they're (rightfully!) self-interested in improving their own lifestyle, so they'll be the loudest and most experienced advocates. As much as I loathe the "marijuana can do no harm" attitude of some stoners, the still reactionary "omg drugs bad!" people are terrible. Making it illegal makes it so much worse for everyone involved, and you're not going to stop people from being involved with marijuana. More or less the same reasons we need to legalize sex work. It's here, it's always been here, and we need to learn how to cope with this reality in a healthy and safe manner. "Abstinence only" doesn't stop babies from being made any better than it stops people from using drugs. Education is the key (as it so often is).

Indeed, it's like "hello, world!" but actually useful :)

Well, modern gangs realized that if they don't go around shooting white people nobody seems to mind them much, so I don't think the 1930s gangs will reappear, modern gangs will just also deal in alcohol.

Same with the Chernobyl disaster. There was a breif moment in time when the engineers could have safely shut the reactor down, but after that moment passed, it became a "choose you own doom adventure" and the rest of the story is more or less about how people coped with that largely unknown fact.

And the beverage can! While it seems mundane it's extremely effective at what it does and it's actually recyclable (unlike most things).

I think a silicon age would be appropriate too.

> The warrant also recounted how witnesses and co-workers informed investigators that the engineer had allegedly “sold radios and radio equipment, worked odd hours, was arrogant, frequently lied, displayed inappropriate workplace behavior and sexual harassment, had financial problems, and possessed [Arnold air force base land mobile radio] equipment”.

> It added that a colleague had reported him twice due to “insider threat indicators” as well as unauthorized possession of air force equipment, according to investigators.

There isn't a timeline provided, so hopefully those insider threat reports were relatively recent?

Sure, and maybe there's a way to approximate it? I don't know. I'm not particularly well versed on this topic, but when I hear "reconstruction of Foo" I imagine, well, a reconstruction of it. Not an artists visual interpretation of it. This is the first time I've ever seen a recreation in a purely visual sense.

What about the title implies only laymen were involved? I had no idea going into it who would be doing what.

> (HR are meant to confirm we only see qualified candidates, but they're idiots)

My last job tried to address this by having a small technical test of skill that could be thrown at anyone as a first pass before getting any technical people involved. We got virtually no senior role "spam", so we didn't have to worry about making a challenging technical test, we just needed to weed out junior applicants who basically didn't know how to do anything other than apply for the job.

It worked pretty well for us but we were a relatively small company. I don't remember the exact stats, but I'm pretty sure we hired less than 50 people a year (across a couple offices in the US) for the technical roles we used that test for.

I don't want to cry clickbait, but I really thought radioactive material was going to be involved here. Like, setup the accident again with a machine handling the screwdriver. I was very dissapointed to read about an artist's rendition of the accident.

As you can see in other comments, this is a very interesting topic! I think that the shared article adds relativley little, though.

Thanks! That is the sort of stuff I was asking about.

It looks like it's an after thought but at least on their mind now, which is very fair with respect to Bloomberg's wants/needs. It'd be nice if they had a bit of a warning about using this until it has some basic auth(n) and TLS since they're releasing it to the public. I think it is, relativley speaking, rude to release insecure networked software without giving users a notice as to what sorts of insecurity is at least known/expected.

> Security purely in terms of the language used, or security in terms of cluster access, authentication and so on?

I'm personally interested in both, but from a docs perspective I'd mostly expect the latter, more "security for users of this system" than anything else. I'm a little embarassed I didn't remember it until now, but I think the general term is "application security."

I'm concerned that I don't see any hints of either in the project. I'm not at a computer with access to my Github account so I can't easily search the source code for hints of obvious signs of care or neglect with respect to security.

I care more about methodology than specific methods. I would like applications that handle I/O, especially network I/O, to be designed and built with security in mind. I asked my question because that doesn't appear to be the case here, and I think that is dissapointing and concerning from a security perspective.

Is this implemented with any sort of thought to security?

I don't see anything that implies as such, all FAQ and comparisons to other message queues say nothing of security (I skimmed and ctrl+f so I could have missed it). This doesn't bode well for a network-based application written in a memory unsafe language.

edit: I'm surprised so many people are interpeting this as a weird cargo cult thing. Application security includes a lot of mundane and critical things like:

Authentication, authorization, message signing / authentication (e.g. HMAC), encryption, secret/key management, how the system handles updates, etc.

You can read a bit more about it here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_security

Here's a source to support some of the above the above claims (including a link to PDF of NHTSA letter): https://www.techspot.com/news/99079-biden-administration-car...

There's some interesting context missing from the explanation too, which is that apparently the feds were consulted years ago and they said "it's fine."

The Massachusetts Right to Repair Coalition's response to the NHTSA letter:

On behalf of two million voters and thousands of independent auto repair shops across Massachusetts, we are outraged by the unsolicited, unwarranted, and counterproductive letter from NHTSA that conflicts with the Department of Justice's statement submitted two years ago in federal court stating that there was no federal preemption. NHTSA's letter is irresponsible, having been transmitted without any new evidence and after the conclusion of the federal trial, despite having been asked by the judge to participate in the court proceeding and declining. NHTSA's letter fails to acknowledge the evidence and testimony presented at the trial that demonstrated the viability and security of an open access platform. This is yet another delay tactic the manufacturers are using to thwart the will of their customers, Massachusetts voters who voted 75-25 in favor of their right to get their car repaired where they choose. The FTC, the Biden Administration, and many members of Congress have all come out in support of Right To Repair.

I don't know if I'd say it's weird, but I'm not sure I get the appeal other than for trying to hyperfocus (and with similar downsides that implies, e.g. very expensive context switching).

I like the desktop metaphor that computers adopted, and one way to use it is to think of different application windows as different paper documents on your meatspace desktop. You could have a rule that only 1 piece of paper is on your desktop at any time, but I find it much easier and more efficient to work with, as needed, two or more pieces of paper on my desktop. When multiple pieces of paper are on my desktop, I can arrange them such that I can easily focus on different papers by only moving my eyes, or, if the papers are relatively far apart, by moving my head and/or the rest of my body a little too.

I personally like the desk organization rule of "1 project/task per desk", i.e. you clear your desk when switching tasks to ensure only relevant things are on your desk / within your visual domain. I use computers to similar effect with different desktops/workspaces.

> *A straight wall of the approximal strength and length of a wavy wall, not just length.

The article suggests that, if you attempted to build a straight wall with a similar amount of bricks, that it would not be able to be freestanding (i.e. it would need to be buttressed or it would fall over). That's a significant feature of a wall to some people, so I don't think it's fair to dismiss the utility of that by suggesting that it's simply "less bricks for comparable strength," it's "less bricks for a freestanding wall."

If you want a freestanding brick wall, this seems to be the "ideal" way to do it, assuming you have the space required for the wave. I think the space needed would be a function of the wall height, so if you need a tall wall, you need more horizontal space for the wave and a wavey wall becomes less ideal.

As a victim of this bundling (RIP internal XMPP w/ OTR), I'm happy someone is looking into this.

As a recovering Teams user, I'm sure it's continued to marginally improve over the years, but I was impressed, when I was forced to use it, at how generally bad it was at almost everything it needed to do, including just basic chat. My fondest memory is of how impossible it was to scroll up in the chat more than a few messages before all messages needed to be fetched from the server again. It made navigating around large conversations impossible as you'd scroll back a bit, wait for it to load, reference the messages you need, then scroll back to the most recent stuff and, again, wait for it all the load. You'd wait for everything to load even if there were no new messages sent between the times you viewed things.

If you think about it a bit, it's almost expected. Ads are a (the only?) effective way to monetize any digital device. So an advertiser has an interest in nearly all (internet connected) digital technology, as all areas can be exploited for additional advertising revenue by them. Their only meaningful competition at that scale is other ad companies, as nobody else can monetize arbitrary digital devices as effectively.

This is why we need to be politically active and politically effective and I'm glad OP called that out in their post too. It's like reminding people to vote when dealing with the consequences of elected officials.

edit: What business, other than an ad business, can safely say "we don't care what digital technologies we invent, as long as they are popular we can make piles of money." IMO, that is the motto of a dominant tech company. You can see a striking example of this failing with the various home assistants. Despite their popularity, tech companies can't figure out a way to shove ads into the UX, so they can't make money.