Yes, you're right. They deeply failed as a port authority and a warehouse.
I was trying to explain why civilian city leadership might not have good intuition for why the storage issue would be a problem for them.
1,716 karma · joined March 31, 2017
I was trying to explain why civilian city leadership might not have good intuition for why the storage issue would be a problem for them.
How about Hamed, who might know a guy who knows a guy, who might jeopardise the goals of Murder Squad? How important is not murdering random people vs achieving mission objectives? What if Hamed is a prisoner and slowing Murder Squad down will jeopardise the mission?
It's eerily analogous to the AI alignment problem. It seems like not having hard core elite Murder Squads would be preferable to pretending we can ask people to do their job in a moral vacuum.
I don't pretend to be right on this, and I expect reasonable people to disagree, but if you set up the incentives to prioritise mission success over human life, you will obviously get mission success at the expense of human life and a culture that is proud to kill people to get the job done (thats what makes them different from infantry). "Isn't that what you asked for?"
Arguably "content creation" is core to every > middle class job now - you have to get people onboard to get things done. Personally I still think writing is more valuable but perhaps the knowledge creation and sharing (_inside_ companies) of tomorrow will be done by making and watching videos.
I very much do not want to be part of that future, but I recognise it a likely possibility.
Do you store things in the attic? plastic tubs? How about the basement? cardboard? Do you have wool, paintings, plastic toys, plastic anything, wooden anything? Look around you and the places you keep things. Oh my god curtains they are more or less just flame conduits.
Your couches, your clothes, everything around you is fuel for a massive fire. It can be a bit scary when you really evaluate it. I bet you have never thought seriously about the risk before.
Admittedly at a city level, 3 kilotons of ammonium nitrate in a strategic location should definitely have set off some real thinking but on a personal basis most people are surrounded by fuel and don't think about it at all.
I guess my point is that that human trust is so pervasive and fundamental that there are diminishing returns to eliminating it.
What will always remain in style I think is accountability. So trust, but have supply chain integrity such that you know who it is that you're trusting and who is responsible when things go wrong.
The "default" takeaway option could be the short-lasting paper cup.
For car, office or just comfort, you could have a squashy, silicone (stands high temp) outer that would usually only need to be cleaned if the inner cup fails.
A silicone shell with disposable inner would work well for me, at least. The shell would rarely need to be cleaned and can be easily pocketed.
Try posting a nipple or copyrighted track, for example.
If Facebook had come from a different place, all songs and body bits might be Ok but perhaps discussion of government would be banned. I can't tell if that would actually be a better facebook than the one we got.
In particular we need to convince governing bodies that action is in their direct and immediate economic interest, which again takes data.
The point is that the oceans are large, there are different concerns, and conditions vary across location and species.
If you want to answer a question like "how healthy are our oceans?" you need to first work out what that might mean, and then measure that systematically like the project I linked you to.
They are too emotionally powerful and pull our collective focus away from the science.
It frames the problems we face as impossibly bad and tragic, which makes some people give up, while others want drastic experiments that can cause more harm than good.
One day WebAuthn might be usable for all the things. I want that to come soon but it is not here yet.
They produce IP (researching and producing very clear instructions for fixes) and manage supply chain (trusted replacement parts & tools, worth more vs aliexpress equivalents because they endorse them).
The things they make money off are largely substitutable. Their value add (well deserved IMHO) is trust.
The idea of using multicast in this way also ignores some of the actual good features of HLS, in particular the ability to adapt content to a specific user's device and Internet connection.
What seems to have broken down is trust.
In the many cases where you rightly point out the truth is discoverable, who do we trust to tell it to us?
It's a hard, long-term problem. If people have lost faith in priests, scientists, politicians and the media, where to go from there?
Any program to restore some ground truth to common discourse will have to operate by building (or rebuilding) broad societal trust in one or more public institutions. Ideally institutions which act in good faith and are in fact trustworthy.
It is very hard (in a democracy) to make true progress on societal issues without some way to achieve broad consensus that they are real.
Since there is so much history I often find it hard to see why things work the way they do, just by looking at how they work.
If one is ready to "cheat" on the question and look at a ready made answer this one is quite good: https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/413204/how-does-uni...
I would summarise the reasons behind common UNIX shell implementation(s) of this as "directory names are not stable over the lifetime of a process" and "$PWD cannot be trusted".
The thing that needs to be protected is the pursuit of truth and I think this looks a lot like freedom of the press and freedom of civic speech.
It's not a vestigial impulse, it is perfectly rational.
But even though there are common scenarios, each computer can also be broken in a different way.
To make this make sense, I think you are assuming but without explicitly stating the use of signed cookies? EDIT: "if it validates", I guess so.
The other bit which is not clear to me is, what is the key in the database to identify ownership of user information?
You need a linking record which looks like hash(email) -> uid (or user record or whatever) which does not seem any better than what is proposed in TFA.
OTOH if no information is stored against the user's email / uid / username then you probably don't need login or auth.
I already live in a "heavenly" future compared to most of my ancestors.
I have hot and cold running water. My waste is whisked away. I can travel far and harness powerful energies with the flick of a switch. I can summon almost any food or item imaginable to my doorstep. I can open a portal to anywhere and speak with people there. There are still mysteries however, and the human body is rich with them.
There is a growing sense that using our powers comes at a terrible cost.
Many feel that the only solution is to abstain, although some factions believe that we can "purify" our technology.
Because the problem, filtered through the human psyche, is seen as a moral one. That it's _wrong_ for so many things to be too easy. Ten dollars shoes, drive-thru fast food and plastic bags must be evil because anyone can see it's absurd that these things are even possible.
Naturally, developing new powers (such as space exploration) would come with more terrible costs, and this must be stopped until we address our sins here on earth.
It's Apple's sandpit and they make the rules, but I think it's hard to rationally justify their take other than "because they can".
Hunger is usually framed as a supply failure, not as a distribution failure. The picture is swollen bellies and the story in people's minds is "crop failure" or "civil or natural disaster", to which the logical solution would be "send food".
... because the natural next question to ask if it is a distribution failure and food is just sitting in warehouses and people are starving is: "why doesn't their government sort it out?".
If the solution is to give people cash, there are awkward questions like "who are the importers and suppliers who will be collecting all this cash?" and the inevitable conclusion that "this is just government corruption with extra steps".
To be clear, I think if one is to "give well" then doing it in an evidence-based way that will provide the most benefit is best. But I think it sets off a chain of questions that makes giving more morally complicated for many donors.
But I also don't think I'm a luddite re: disposable electronics. I think I'm the opposite. I agree that as integration and product complexity increase, it makes more sense to make a new thing from feedstock than repair an old thing.
But what we can do is recover the resources used in manufacture. Critically, the product needs to be made in a way that supports this.
I want manufacturing to be so advanced that "full circle" resource recovery is incorporated into the design. The glues have corresponding (low toxicity) solvents for disassembly, the plastic can be cheaply digested back to clean monomers, the metals easily separable. No "retrofit" processes with show pony robots, but full "reverse manufacturing" facilities built with the same care and attention as the ones that make the product.
The thing I want is more automation, and more advanced design.
Do regular challenges play a role in modulating immune response and health?
You can separate transmit and receive IPs, if your tx network does not implement source filtering.
So you can tx from one place and receive from one or more other places "sensors" that you use to receive SYN-ACKs.
You can use several (an arbitrary number) of spoofed source IPs on tx to hide your "real" rx IPs, at the cost of more egress traffic.
There is a technique involving ipids (idle scanning) you can use which does not reveal your IP at all but it is not reliable; read: not usable beyond very tiny scale. You could put a lot of effort into it but it's not worth it. Nobody beyond a few vociferous cranks _really_ cares about IP scanning.
The real way to stay off radars (eg dshield) while mass scanning is have a ton of unrelated IPs and scan as slow as you can stand. This assumes good randomization (not obviously striping across networks from the same IP).