skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It does play Netflix and other streaming services, which is hard to do without connectivity.
Not just banned exactly. As I follow it, APIs used to create network plugins were restricted to the point where it wasn’t clear how Apple wanted such apps to work. Or rather, it was clear Apple felt their built-in tools would be enough. For some, sure. And yes, reducing functionality is a legitimate way to make a system more secure. But— it also does, you know, reduce functionality...
Are these comments taken out of context?
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi...
It's complicated. One thing we do know is that the variance in intelligence is larger than any group differences. People therefore often assume that anyone that insists on emphasizing the average difference is using it as a dog-whistle for some kind of bias. Whether the principle of charity should be applied or not is up to you.
It's a somewhat limited approach. For more convincing positional audio you can use a HRTF; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-related_transfer_function

Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUDTlvagjJA
I think they mean "born the same" as in, born with the same potential and capabilities, not literal clones of each other.
I've used this to cover me when traveling overseas. I print them on paper and snail mail a copy to several different family members. They don't have my passwords, so pretty secure from that angle.

This also helps if you want to use YubiKey TOTP support. Grab the keys, and then set them up on multiple sticks. If you lose a stick, you need to rotate, but if you say accidently snap one in half (yes, I've don't this).

Fido2 is better, but for sites that don't support it, I use this to make TOTP sites almost as secure.
I agree with this mostly but to play devil's advocate: If you are good enough to build a product that people are willing to pay for, would it be really that hard to get a new job if you lose your current job?
"With a full-time job, you might be fired due to external circumstances (such as COVID-19)"

Many businesses went under. External forces affect you perhaps more as a business owner but have some control over the response.
I asked this earlier, but are these out of context questions? I am not familiar with the guy:
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi...
So much of main line security practice is cargo cultism. There is so little use of actual research and data on how compromises actually happen. Somebody just gets the idea something is good for security and it sticks. No rationale needed.
Yubikeys can do TOTP. Why not just store the secrets on the key itself?
Unz certainly is and Hsu seems to understand well his opinions on several matters.

"Hsu praised Unz for writing an article entitled “The Myth of American Meritocracy.” In the “Primary Bibliography” of that article Unz cited works by notorious scientific racist, Steve Sailer, two books by segregationist writer Nathaniel Weyl, and a book by Richard Lynn, well-known for his sloppy research on race, on “Jewish Intelligence and Achievement.” Lynn’s book was published by Richard Spencer, an alt right organizer of the deadly “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville.

Years later, when Hsu hosted Unz on his podcast, Hsu describes Unz as “an old friend of mine.” Unz,the like Hsu was trained as a theoretical physicist. He also put his IQ as 214 on a job application once, which seems to impress Hsu. Me, I’d wonder about the kind of person who would claim such a thing since such "
"Since most full-time jobs involve a single employer — it’s a one single point of failure — meaning, you just need your employer to fire you to lose your income.

With a business, you usually have more than one customer and in the majority of cases: tens, hundreds, thousands, and even millions of customers who are your revenue source"

This claim is so overly superficial that it's not helpful. The percentage of businesses that fail is way higher than the percentage of people that get laid off in any given year, typically. And it's not like businesses haven't struggled to survive during COVID-- just as much as any employee has lost their job. Losing 20% of your customers can be the difference between the company surviving or not, it's not like that just means you lose 20% of your profit.
The thing is, in private we have almost all said and done things which if shown on video to the world would get us fired (or arrested!).

But yet the same people who know they have said+done bad things wish to ruin the lives of others for slips in otherwise respectable lives.
You didn’t. He’s still making a big salary as a tenured full professor and gets to pursue his bad research.
> Did you ever think it might be the way you dress or your demeanor?

This is what you wrote. "Did you ever think" is a hell of a way to start a polite conversation. It's a condescending, accusatory and downright shitty way to basically call a person an idiot and completely invalidate what they are trying to tell you.

I mean, it could be just fine....but how could I know that?

You see how absolutely rude it is to talk to people like that? Can you imagine if your TV got stolen and you went to the police and the first question out of their mouth was not about the facts of the case, not things like, "When did you first notice it missing? What kind of TV was it? How long have you had this TV? Has anyone suspicious been around your place?"...but not those questions, but the cops came up with a completely alternate, dismissive theory like "Have you ever considered that maybe you never owned a TV at all? I mean, it could be burglary, but how could you know that? Next!" You'd be apoplectic, because that is not asking questions, it's downright incredulity.

People who experience racism get gaslighted like this all the time. But of course you don't want to understand the emotional context and frustration of those people, you want to "ask questions" and find a way out of your emotional discomfort as quickly as possible. Jumping in like this makes nothing better. Nothing. Like I said three times already, Listen to people who experience racism.

/out
> In networks protected by firewalls, it is axiomatic that all
attackers are on the outside of the firewall. Therefore, hosts
inside the firewall MUST NOT set the evil bit on any packets.

LOL

>
Intrusion detection systems (IDSs) have a harder problem. Because of
their known propensity for false negatives and false positives, IDSs
MUST apply a probabilistic correction factor when evaluating the evil
bit. If the evil bit is set, a suitable random number generator
[RFC1750] must be consulted to determine if the attempt should be
logged. Similarly, if the bit is off, another random number
generator must be consulted to determine if it should be logged
despite the setting.

i am ashamed (or maybe not) to say that i have engaged in this form of debugging during past moments of desperation...
What's wrong with using vanilla WireGuard? I tried this Tailscale recently and it was a huge mess. It destroyed WireGuard's throughput compared to the kernel implementation and the CPU usage was like I am running a game along with the excessive logging in systemd. One of the worst software I've ever installed on linux.
This seems to ignore the costs of acquisition

Getting one source to supply 100% of your income is easier than getting 100 sources to supply 1% each. Eventually the cost of management outweighs the benefits of distributed risk.
Author here—I guess, to a degree, that’s how Apple sees it too, it’s just they think they deserve a larger percent than developers want to give. There are apps—business software including Adobe and Microsoft’s subscriptions, media subscriptions, and more—that offer subscriptions directly on their site, plus offer in-app purchase subscriptions on their mobile apps. If you’ve already subscribed on their site, Apple gets nothing, but Apple gets a percent of any sales that originate from the App Store.

If it were closer to just payment processing + an affiliate cut (say 3% plus a 7% affiliate cut) perhaps it’d frustrate devs less. And for what it’s worth, Apple does take only 15% on subscriptions after the first year which gets closer.
Sorry to hear that. How much power did he actually have to damage someone's research career?
That's a terrible argument that's often used to deflect from its crux. Of course within group differences are larger than racial differences. You're comparing a single (admittedly aggregated) factor to the sum total of human variation. That it has a lowered effect isn't surprising.

Furthermore, the paper you cite doesn't even deny that different groups test consistently differently. Furthermore, it also explicitly states studies of test bias have consistently shown negatives.

I also strongly oppose the conflation of population level metrics with individual level metrics.
One pays you $5, the other pays you $100k
So Hey should boost their prices everywhere, even on their own site, to $142, so that they can make up Apple's cut? Which is what Apple demands. I don't think that's reasonable.

I think that you and I are broadly in agreement. If Hey were allowed to charge $142 in their iPhone app, and $99 on their website, I'd think that was much less ridiculous than the situation as it stands today.
The only company with any access to my primary account is my brokerage. I have given access to a secondary account for Venmo which I only use to pay my child's music instructor since lessons are remote right now and I can't hand him a check. The secondary account nver has more than $400 in it and usually far less.

Every other bill gets paid by credit card or gets pushed to the biller through online banking that I approve. No one gets to pull money from my primary bank account.
Alexander?
Is there a term for "seeing" music? Not anything visual perse, but like a minds eye landscape texture. I think it might be associative synethesia?
There aren't big population-level differences, aside from basic cosmetic differences due to genetic drift [0]. Humans act as one single species, with one single pedigree [2], lacking any selfish genes which speciate us further.

Genes within a single species' gene pool follow a Poisson distribution because they are randomly permuted [1][3][4], assuming the pool is large enough. This means that often, some genes will be popular for no good reason; that is, these popular genes are cosmetic. When, for example, most people in the world follow one of several popular skin-coloration patterns, that does not therefore imply any sort of fitness function is selecting for skin colors, because the null hypothesis that they are randomly permuted has so little problem explaining how they could arise without any effect on fitness.

These questions aren't dangerous because they somehow subvert existing institutions, but because they're a direct introduction to ethnofascism via eugenics. We should roundly not just reject them based on empirical observations and data, but also based on theory and modelling; this is because we can then use contraposition to flip around various deductions. For example, people often ask whether "race" affects "intelligence" and point to survey data which shows correlations; using contraposition, and understanding that "race" is a social construction, we can refute the idea that "intelligence" is innate and suggest instead that it is tied to socioeconomic status or quality of education or other confounders.

I would end with a question: What observations and data, exactly, are you looking at? What conclusions have you drawn? Can we use contraposition to flip around any of those conclusions and find deeper or simpler truths?

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

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift#Wright.E2.80.93F...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution

[4] https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2019/12/random_permutat...
When More Info Isn't Better for Students (2018)
> New findings by researchers at Stanford University suggest that academically competitive college students actually perform worse over all when they get access to digital course-planning platforms that show how previous students performed.
But similarly, to my knowledge only accredited investors may invest in PEs / HFs, and shares in those funds are special kinds of securities that differ significantly from those covered by SEC / blue-sky laws and therefore are not subject to the same disclosure requirements. It's not in anyone's interest to treat these different types of investments as if they were similar.

I'm not in PE per se, but would think investment in one is through an investment contract which is an exempt security
So it’s okay that a Twitter mob had him removed from his previous more senior position?
It's interesting to see a culture revolution in western. A cultural suicide! People never learn.
I wish more authors used leanpub/gumroad and the likes. But these sites are nowhere close amazon's popularity, not to mention amazon has reviews and these sites have only ratings or not even that.

If authors aren't using Kindle Unlimited, then using such sites and pushing it to their readers on social media (might even offer lower cost because of higher earnings) might atleast be a good start.
Isn't that valid for software installed from those platforms respective app stores which is to say almost no software on either platform you are likely to install.

On Linux one could use firejail, qubes, selinux to contain software you are already running to at least some degree.
I wish more people try gRPC outside of microservices. It is the perfect solution for building APIs.
Nope. He has a very fringe view on the state of the science. His conclusions from his work have been widely considered wrong.
I hope that's sarcasm.

It's a very US-Centric view of the world.
Comparison Between Zxing and Huawei HMS Scan Kit
Lol.

To clarify, I'm not saying I know if Steve Hsu is right, wrong, genius, etc. I hardly even read anything he said.

Only that ideas and science are good and forcing resignations for unpopular theories is bad.
Increased skepticism of scientism, and evidence-based decision making instead.

Unfortunately, the scientific method has been replaced by trust of authorities, which are proving themselves untrustworthy. The implosion of fraudulent monetary systems will complete this cycle.

Evidence-based reality will resume its ascendency, when fraudulent money is no longer available to cover over bad decision-making.

Observe specifically what happens to municipalities that depend on government largesse, and have no productive agricultural or engineering capacity, and few in the community with internal moral imperative, and the will and capability to defend the innocent...
One thing to keep in mind, is whether the difference is big enough to matter. I used to think the same as you, then I talked to my wife about a study I'd read that said the top end of male IQ is higher than the top end of female IQ, even if they are the same on average. She pointed out how even though there is a difference at the top end, it's not significant enough to matter (which is true). So there is no upside to publishing the research, but there is a definite downside of sexists/racists using the research to say "See, X is genetically inferior to us, that's why we shouldn't treat them the same". I don't think any particluar research should be banned, but the researchers should have the moral integrity to think about the impact of their research.
Won’t it be great if/when device manufacturers have cheap cellular modems to sprinkle in products? Selling cute Faraday cages on Etsy here I come.
no that is not why
Scientific consensus is pretty heavily on the side of "50+% of within-group variation in intelligence is genetic, the remainder is non-shared environment" (in the US, barring known negative confounders such as fetal alcohol syndrome), and as far as I know the science on between-group variation is still very much undecided, but genetic components are as far from ruled out as you can get. But that debate won't be settled until you can 1) find the environmental differences that lead to IQ differences between groups, including (IIRC) in adopted children, 2) show that IQ tests only correlate with g within ethnic groups, but not across them, or 3) decode the genetic basis of IQ and show how differing frequencies explain group differences. Which is going to take a number more years, no matter which it ends up being.
I print them on paper and snail mail them to my sister and parents. I lose my yubikeys (I store TOTP secrets here, not my phone), I can call them internationally and have them ready me the seeds (or send me a picture, at which point I roll them all over).

I've also done it where I sent them a YubiKey with my secrets, then set it up so I can access a computer remotely (via ssh, rdp, etc...). I have to call them to insert the key into the machine, so if the machine gets compromised, there's not much risk, as it's only plugged in if I call them to do so (and tell them to unplug it X minutes later).
> handful of energy sources, so argument is lame

A matter of fact isn't an argument, it just is. It's usefulness here is that IF your solution depends on humans doing something for the first time ever in not just recorded history but also in the entire archeological record, it's a big assumption to be weaving into a proposal and weakens (but granted does not make impossible) the idea that you may be on the right track in assuming it will happen now. It's like the famous "How to draw an owl" meme: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/how-to-draw-an-owl

Are miracles possible? Sure. Should you bet on it in your planning? No.

> Hydrogen, ammonia

Both of these require fossil fuels to synthesize in quantities to meet today's needs, let alone new at-scale quantities. Hydrogen certainly may be better than burning coal or even natural gas, but it still would require fossil fuels. The amount of organically sourced ammonia we have on the planet _in total_ is only sufficient to support crops for ~4 bln people globally. There is no solution right now to synthesize enough ammonia at scale without hydrocarbons.

> [embargoes] will coerce the holdouts

We'll not get a chance to test this, but as a thought exercise let's consider how well embargoes work today. Then consider who the embargoes will be placed on from a justice perspective or from an effectiveness perspective. You are either advocating a form of colonialism in the developing world or telling your French neighbor to pay way more for heating, cooking, driving, etc. Both these things have taken place in isolation, and both had bad outcomes. Scaling it up doesn't make a good outcome any more likely.

> What's your alternative?

Rational thinking isn't defeatism - it's application _is_ the solution.

I would gently ask - very gently and politely as I would a friend - that you to re-read your initial response to my statement. You said it was "utter nonsense" and equated it to saying the earth was flat. I'm sure you can appreciate now with more data how the critique is actually the reverse. Your response to my points assumes a miraculous technological development at an indeterminant future date whose likelihood is not supported by existing efficiency improvement data. It disregards the voraciousness with which the planet is consuming fossil fuels today, the future burden forecasted by developing economies, and the insufficiency of current technologies to scale.

I empathize with your sense of hope and am similarly shocked at the risk we face as a species, but people typically do two things in the face of this shock that are equally irrational: deny global warming or believe the solution for energy transition is easy.

Bill Gates said in a talk at Stanford a few months ago that the "easy" people are a bigger barrier to decarb progress than the deniers. I don't know if I would agree in the ranking (or care), but agree that neither are helpful. The problem is enormously difficult (as befitting a planetary emergency). My view of solutions is informed the same way as my assessment of current energy use is. Seek knowledge, be rational, be very skeptical, watch out for the hucksters, support what's left over.
A Comprehensive Study of Real-World Numerical Bug Characteristics [pdf]
How so? Seriously. There seem to be lots of people who don't consider Apple to have a monopoly in any market, and I just don't get it. Can you explain the argument for that position?
It's better to just let the advertisers and political manipulators gather the same data and do essentially the same research, but in secret and for their own aims, and benefit from the resulting understaning, than for the research, and it's possibly unpleasant resulting knowledge, be in public and used to defend against those who would otherwise get to capitalize on it, at the expense of the very people you presumably would like to protect from abuse?

Ignorance is never the correct answer no matter how unpleasant some bit of knowledge is.

Whether the answers come back in your favor or not, having the answer is better than not having the answer, or worse, only some people having the answer and not everyone else.

This guy might indeed harbor odious intentions, but some of these arguments are not holding water on their own.
That's kinda depressing, unless there's evidence that the money goes immediately and directly into electrification.

In that case it would be good. Offsets are just rearranging the deck chairs, or to be as charitable as possible to the strategy, making renewables a cost center rather than a profit center for the business.

The presser does outright state that this is what they're doing, so I'll choose to be optimistic, at the risk of being disappointed if it's all talk.
The obvious fallacy is that this is comparing a stable, successful, established business to a risky job. He’s also assuming it’s difficult to get a new job, but ignoring the difficulty of establishing a stable single-person business.

Successful, stable businesses with multiple diversified clients don’t come easy. It’s rare to have a single-person business with a product that scales to many customers. Once you scale it, you likely need to bring on employees, which means you now have significant financial obligations to make payroll every month. That’s hardly low-risk.

If you’re the type of person who can build a successful single-person business with multiple customers, it’s not exactly difficult to find a high paying job doing the same work for someone else.

You don’t start a business because it’s easier or less risky than a day job.
Do you think you might be understating the probability of failing in business, and overstating the odds of getting laid off? It's not like many businesses haven't closed their doors during the COVID pandemic.

I also doubt the percentage of startups that fail in a given year would compare well against the number of people that get laid off in a given year.

And having 100 customers doesn't help if losing 10 means the business is no longer profitable.
Maybe this is why people park themselves in Silicon Valley in spite of soaring rents and other issues?

When your employer lays you off there, you simply go get another one.

When this happens in, say, Pittsburgh, PA, your options aren't quite so numerous.
Trust me, it's just another smokescreen for all the problems they still have.
You are perpetuating the pseudo-science known as "race science".
There is a modern version in the works: https://www.blackbythenumbers.com/
McCandless was explicitly escaping society. He had already vacated his family, friends, home, money, his vehicle. At this point he's a major outlier in terms of being a member of society.
I vehemently disagree.
This hysterical scramble to label everything as racist regardless of merit, and suffocate any rational discussion of issues, is tearing the fabric of society apart, and only serves to dilute the message against police brutality.