tomalpha

This brought back some memories. We had a 6502-based BBC micro at school. I remember the first time I was so hooked trying to understand how comparisons really worked, the caretaker didn’t realise I was still there and locked the doors for the night. I was 10. Caused a bit of a panic when they found out.

That started me down the long road of learning to code. Despite getting a CompSci degree later I still have plenty of bad self-learned habits from those days. But I remember them fondly.

Sounds like compared to Becky I was very fortunate in my childhood. Kudos to her to for her amazing achievements.

(I read the transcript rather than listening to the podcast and it was still great).

> Blockchain is entirely irrelevant

I believe that’s exactly what the OP said above

> You make the mistake

I think it might be the other way round here - do go and reread the post you’re replying to :)

This is what happens (in theory) with GSM mobile phones. GSM devices have a serial number in the form of an IMEI which can be blacklisted from networks if stolen [0]. There are, of course, still ways round it as detailed in the wikipedia entry - e.g. the blacklists are national ones, and organised groups can "just" ship the phones to another country and sell them there.

Even so, as you intimate, it does make it _harder_ to resell stolen phones.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mobile_Equipment...

I was going to quibble with your use of "microprocessor", given that you seem to be implying that it wouldn't include more powerful CPUs, but that got me thinking: given the change in transistor sizes since that name was coined should we be calling them "nanoprocessors" these days?

I hate to be pedantic but surely you mean “cue”?

More likely this kind of “typed”:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_and_weak_typing

Where “typed” here likely implies “strongly typed”.

It doesn't inspire much faith in article's author when its title is:

    1 in 20 workers will quit if transparency laws reveal they are paid less than co-workers

and that is expanded lower down to be:

    4% will quit if revealed co-workers earn more money

Maybe it's all otherwise true and accurate, but it raises a warning flag for me about how good their methodology might be.

Ah, but what happens when a deepfake video of that professional journalist starts going round saying 'today this presidential candidate said X, and I heard it myself' that matches the previous deepfake?

I guess the counter (which I think you're pointing out) to that is to publish text to a known-trusted website rather than a video, but I wonder how many folks who get their "news" from TikTok would read it.

I didn’t downvote you, but if folks are coming here looking for answers then a simple “my guess” based (apparently at least) on pure speculation and without inside knowledge of how Google’s setup _actually_ works, doesn’t add much to the conversation.

If your post had included something like “I used to work on Google search”, “I used to work on Bing search”, or “I’ve spotted this piece of data in the network responses being sent to my browser and therefore” you might have gotten a more favourable reception.

It’s possible I understand this differently to the way you meant it, but other sections of the Underground have National Rail trains running on them, and visa versa. For example, the Wimbledon Branch of the District Line : https://districtdavesforum.co.uk/thread/30753/wimbledon-bran...

(I know it’s a forum post but that old website is a wealth of information about the District Line).

Ford made a big thing of this a couple of years back[0]. Don't know how many of their models now have it though.

[0] https://www.ford.co.uk/support/how-tos/keys-and-locks/door-l...

I don't think it's going out of its way to hide the fact that it's an opinion piece. I wanted to highlight to someone unfamiliar with the case and issues (however few that may be around these parts), that it is an opinion piece. It makes assertions through a lens of a bias to one side of the case. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Using the word "bias" isn't intended by me here as a slight - we're all biased to a greater or lesser degree about everything. But a casual reader should be aware of it without having to e.g. navigate to a separate "about" page :)

The author is clearly against the extradition of Julian Assange, and the piece comes across as very much written in that context.

To be clear: I'm not offering an opinion either way on the rights and wrongs of that, but the piece itself comes down very much on one side of the fence.

"Get a win, then get another win."

Not OP but I interpret “win” in this context to mean something more like “success” and not strictly about winning or beating someone else.

It’s certainly a turn of phrase that I’ve heard used in that context a fair amount.

The original blog post that this is based (verbatim?) on is here: https://khronokernel.github.io/macos/2021/11/22/PCIE-ETHERNE...

Besides being the original source, it loads much faster (at least for me) and also doesn't have the amazon affiliate links sprinkled through it.

I love this quote, but to be fair it's immediately followed by:

    A team of palaeontologists were brought in for a closer look.

Which, assuming it was done by Rutland County Council, is actually pretty cool.

(Edit: where "it" is the act of bringing the team in from Manchester Uni)

I didn’t get that vibe, and the wording of the reference suggesting writing some code at interview seems pretty mild too. You could read something between the lines perhaps, but the wording doesn’t seem unreasonable.

To me, that doesn’t seem like going out of his way to make Sten’s life harder.

Sten’s ability to then write code at interview will determine his chances for getting that role.

If not tested at interview, the new employer would presumably find out pretty quickly and the end result likely the same.

That may or may not be the case, but I worked with someone back in the early 00’s who named all their variables things to do with the planet or sky, actually including both of those words too. Everything was $sky, $cloud, $mist, $hill, $rainbow etc.

The code was at times almost poetic, but a nightmare to debug.

At least some of this sounds very plausible.

But shares do have an inherent value. Owning them gives you a right to a share of the profits. You own a share of the company. You can vote on who you choose to run it - i.e. the board of Directors.

Now many companies recently have chosen not to distribute profits - e.g. Amazon reinvests everything back into growth.

And there are types of share that don’t give you a vote on who runs the company (or your tiny ownership percentage makes it meaningless).

And there are companies that don’t make any profits so there’s nothing to share out!

But shares, at least classically, do have an inherent value.

Edit: Examples of these classic shares are “Dividend stocks” [0], but even with say TSLA or AMZN when you buy a share you’re buying the right to a share of the future profits.

[0] https://www.investopedia.com/dividend-stocks-4689744

Edit2: Now of course that inherent value might be zero if the company will never make a profit…

Is this a change of company name or is the Facebook product/app/site also changing?

(As an aside the GDPR popup still asks me about “Facebook” cookies)

An extract from the summary page suggests a few things went wrong, but it seems like the fire was caused by liquid and electricity mixing:

> ESV found a Megapack cooling system leak caused a short circuit resulting in overheating that led to a fire in a nearby battery compartment, which consequently damaged two Megapacks.

> There were further contributory factors with the Megapack in question being switched into an off-line service mode, resulting in the protection systems being inactive.

> A 24-hour delay in connecting the batteries to the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system also meant there was no active monitoring of the Megapack alarms.

Or booking flights, filing taxes, signing up for shifts at work: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160325-the-names-that-b...

It's an interesting point, but I buy from Intel or AMD - I don't buy from TSMC. Intel and AMD supply me the product and set the pricing.

As a simple consumer, I perhaps don't know about their upstream suppliers (granted the HN crowd will absolutely know...).

Is this not just the efficient-market at work? Simplistically: Intel's chips aren't as good as AMDs so it has to drop prices.

And for future investment Intel still has ~ $24 billion cash on hand as of June 2021 [0]

[0] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/cash-on...

IANAL, but I understood Meeting Of Minds to refer to the need for both parties to a contract to actually agree that a contract exists.

From the wiki page you reference for example:

> The reasoning is that a party should not be held to a contract that they were not even aware existed.

And later on, something directly relevant to this discussion perhaps:

> Mutual assent is vitiated by actions such as fraud, undue influence, duress, mutual mistake, or misrepresentation.

I think that this discussion is more closely related to the legal concept of a Mistake [0], which absolutely can be something that a court might address. Though even that doesn't seem like quite a perfect fit here.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_(contract_law)#Mutua...

48.8C [0]

[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58130893

I completely agree about Promissory Estoppel and contract law. I was (perhaps unclearly) trying to demonstrate that other areas of the law do address the principle of relying on a promise when making a decision.

I think the principle could and should apply to some extent in this situation here too.

Something like: if you were misled into making a confession - perhaps relying on a promise or lie told to you by the interviewer - then at the very least that confession should be considered deeply suspect.

That is perhaps what is claimed, but there are plenty of adults who for various reasons, lack capacity to make such judgements as well, or even realise that the Police might not be telling the truth. There could be lots of different reasons for this too - whether something like being raised to trust the police blindly, through to having learning difficulties.

The difficulty seems to be that it can sometimes cause innocent people to confess too

Edit: adding this link to the excellent and oft-cited "Don't talk to the police [even if you're completely innocent]" lecture

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

> After hours of interrogation, police told one of the teenagers, Terrill Swift, that if he just confessed to being at the scene he could go home — so he did.

What's the advantage to society of allowing interviewers to lie (to anyone, let alone kids)? Not just insinuate something like "your partner's in the next room, it's only a matter of time until he talks so you should come clean now", but blatantly lie and then be able to rely on the result of that in court?

It kinda feels a little like the common law doctrine of Promissary Estoppel [0] where if someone relies on something you've promised, you can't then hold them responsible for relying on that thing.

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/promissory_estoppel