skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> there's a legitimate "slippery slope" argument

The slippery slope argument is the only useful argument here.

The fundamental issue with their PSI/CSAM system is that they already were scanning iCloud content [1] and that they're seemingly not removing the ability to do that. If the PSI/CSAM system had been announced along side E2E encryption for iCloud backups, it would be clear that they were attempting to act in their users best interests.

But it wasn't, so as it stands there's no obvious user benefit. It then becomes a question of trust. Apple are clearly willing to add functionality at the request of governments, on device. By doing this they lose user trust (in my opinion).

> In the long run, we solve this, at least in liberal democracies, by voting people into office who understand technology, understand the value of personal encryption

But this is clearly not the way it happens in practice. At least in part, we vote with our wallets and give money to companies willing to push back on governmental over-reach. Until now, Apple was one such company [2].

I realize that Apple likely don't "care" about privacy (it's a company, not a individual human). But in a purely cynical sense, positioning themselves as caring about privacy, and pushing back against governmental over-reach on users behalf was useful. And while it's "just marketing" it benefits users.

By implementing this functionality, they've lost this "marketing benefit". Users can't buy devices believing they're supporting a company willing to defend their privacy.

[1] https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2020/01/09/apples-scanning-...

[2] https://epic.org/amicus/crypto/apple/
To everyone looking for alternatives, there are quite a few but strong alternatives. They are on a spectrum of complexity/privacy/convenience.

Android probably is not much different. But and this a big one, android devices are not tied to the host google OS and are waaaay way more open than Apple. This is because of Apple's ir tight grip on their hardware ecosystem and lobbying against right to repair. Also, the abundance of android phone makers means you get features at a variety of price points.

The OS options are LineageOS (my daily driver), CalyxOS worth more google support, microG lineage.

More different OS are Ubuntu touch (very active), postmarket OS with multiple frontends just like on Linux desktop, Manjaro Mobile, etc.

And hardware wise, there is Pine phone and Purism. But the more people paying for these, the more there is money for the competition.

Apple id already sitting on a staggering $200billion dollars. $200 billion.
If you know the size of your data upfront this isn't applicable. Usually I use std::vector when I don't know how much data I have. If you already know the size why not avoid allocating on the heap altogether? I will update the README to be more clear.
Sounds like you didn't have nearly enough fun in college.
If I recall correctly, we booted MS-DOS via LAN, and used NetBUI to access server shares. Sometimes we had workstations linked into MultiLink which allowed multiple users under MS-DOS.
PHash – the open source perceptual hash library
Sounds like a whole bunch of generalizations made by someone only because they need to write words to get paid.
And the title would clue you in that it’s a 4G virtual address reservation which isn’t the same thing
> This implementation is hardcoded to use 4GB virtual address for each vector, so you can have billions of these per process.

The actual virtual address space on current x86-64 processors is only 48 bits[0], so unless I am mistaken, you can only create thousands (around 2^16), not billions.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Architectural_features
How does this compare to just calling .reserve(4GB) on a regular std::vector?
The world massively over reacted to covid a disease that mainly affects the old and infirm.

$60,000,000,000 / 10,000 saved works out to $6,000,000 per life saved. If the median age of death of a covid victim is 80 then this expenditure amounts to a massive misallocation of resources just on the vaccine alone never mind the hundreds of billions (actually trillions, as you say!) more spent on economically disruptive and ineffective lockdowns.

Everybody dies sooner or later. The world should never have shut down to protect people from a disease whose median death age is 80! It is social, economic and biological mass insanity.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-covid-age-penalty-115920032...
> From society's perspective maybe it's verygoodware.

At least in the US, the historical distinction between verygood searches and mal searches is given in the 4th amendment: "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Of course that has been twisted and stretched before, and this is more of the same. But if literally everything is being scanned, "probable cause" is completely absent from the process. It is a fishing expedition of the exact type that the 4A was designed to prevent.
1. You only know the size at runtime.

2. You want to avoid the risk of overflowing the stack.
> Putting it server side is categorically worse.

Why? Putting it server-side means that it's only possible to examine the images that they claim they are targeting -- those going to the cloud. That seems like a much better and more private way to do it, because it's putting the surveillance "in their house", so to speak, instead of mine.
You can't critically think your way in to deciding what really happened at the Gulf of Tonkin[1], or whether the CIA organised fake vaccination drive to get Osama bin Laden's family DNA[2]

It's claims like these and dozens of others that are made every day that fact checkers need to verify, as few if any of us have the time or expertise to check all these claims ourselves.

[1] - https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2008/f...

[2] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vacci...
Isn't sex work legal in the UK, and shouldn't that have a damping effect on the incel thing? I mean, it's hard to be enraged to the point of mass-murder when you can get laid for 100 quid.
Incels are an online community responsible for real world terrorists attacks.
I assume their goal is to turn on E2E for what gets stored on their servers.

Right now, they have to hand over anyone’s photo library if they are ordered to do so.

If they turn on E2E that will no longer be possible, and this will be strictly better and harder to abuse.

That doesn’t mean this mechanism isn’t offensive. It just is better from a privacy point of view for them to do this and enable E2E.
Maybe not if you assume Apple is evil but for the case of Apple being good intentioned but having its hand forced, they will have a much harder time resisting a 1 line change than a mandate to spend years to develop a surveillance system
Because you can't put arbitrarily large objects on the stack and unless your program is going to be using that memory for all of it's lifetime, it makes no sense to use static storage.
Responding to your edit: I think Zepto understands that and tried to direct the conversation that way. For example:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28120649

They even spent time engaging with someone who said CSAM shouldn’t matter by arguing that the fact that lots of the general population cares about it makes it a concern worth thinking about.

Even I did, in my own way: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28165116

Perhaps our responses here are in frustration - that we weren’t able to engage with the matters at hand with people of similar skill and interests. I suppose one way to read your post is that HN isn’t suited for that level of discussion on breaking news with emotional resonance. Maybe another space.
>>I just have to wonder who green-lit this idea to begin with.

I suspect, with no inside knowledge, that there's someone high up in Apple who feels very, very passionately about child abuse/these sorts of images due to some personal connection, and they are championing the idea internally. And tbh not the worst bugbear to have, but obviously this isn't the way to address it.

As for why the big players aren't jumping on this - it's a tricky line to walk, you don't ever want to be seen as pro child abuse.
You have a large collection of large objects and don't want to allocate on the stack.
But it can handle it with a very small bit of configuration, as I’ve shown above. I am not trying to defend vim here, the editor you use or prefer has no effect on me. I’m just trying to point out that if you want it to work in a certain way, it’s almost always possible.
> The protocol states that all actors must also be Sendable, which is another new important piece of the concurrency proposal. This protocol has no actual code, and its purpose is to "mark" which types are safe to use in a concurrent environment.

It looks like Swift is taking pointers from Rust. Specifically Rust's send/sync traits. There's even other keywords like unsafe in Swifts new `UnsafeSendable` for Sendable types that bypass compile time checks.
That will actually allocate 4GB to your process, EDIT: OS dependent. This just reserves 4GB of virtual memory addresses.
They aren’t mad because they can’t get laid they are mad because they can’t get hot girls to sleep with them for free. If they worked on their careers and charisma they could probably land an attractive girl but I digress.
Added a check against localhost thanks for pointing that out.
They are encrypted at rest. This protects from someone hacking in to Apple, getting the data on disk but somehow not getting the keys, which Apple also possesses.

Apple (and thus, LEO) absolutely can look at your photos on iCloud. What you are missing is that "encrypted at rest" is essentially "not encrypted in any meaningful way".
good catch will update
At first I did read satanical magic and I chuckled.
Came here to ask this same question. Amazing how peaceful things are when everyone gets the full Maslow hierarchy experience.
> I always get frustrated by how slow go-to-definition users are compared to those that just... Open the file in the tree that would logically contain that part.

Maybe you're not frustrated with go-to-definition users so much as people who are inexperienced with their tool. I'm having a hard time imagining navigating a file tree being faster than control clicking on a function call or opening "find anywhere" and typing the name of a symbol.
Yes. A lot.
To be clear I'm using "accidental complexity" in the sense of Brooks. He breaks complexity in software systems, in his No Silver Bullet paper, into two categories: accidental and essential. My contention is that for most programers and programs pointers fall under the category of accidental complexity. That does not diminish their utility, nor mean that they never fall under the category of essential complexity (indeed, having spent most of my career on embedded systems, there are things we could not have done or done as easily without pointers). Just that, for most of the things people want to accomplish when programming a computer, pointers (though often not the broader sense of references) are accidental (i.e. unnecessary) complexity.
I learned recently the term incel. It seems to have a bad connotation even though it describes something very human. I've long theorized that a lot of terrorism would be gone if dudes would get laid. It's not for no reason that some groups promise hundreds of virgin women in heaven if you get killed in combat.

Two interesting things from the point of view of someone who doesn't know much about the term incel, but:

* I think technology is going to put a dent into this. It's easier and easier to meet someone else via apps like Tinder.

* At the same time it's interesting that this "minority" found itself as a community thanks to social medias.
Incels are a community--if an incel were to see a sex worker, they would no longer be an incel, and would lose access to the community. The real driver of the community is ostensibly access to sex but I think it's really about being in a tribe of people that identify as ugly/failures/losers.
Can you link to this story?
The claim isn't that it was engineered, just that it escaped the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Besides, reports from China predated any from the USA, so for it to even be in the USA, CCP needed to have failed in containing it.

I'm not denying that the USA's covering it up made it worse, it absolutely did. The US government aren't innocent in the global spread of the virus. But this entire discussion was about whether it originated from a lab break or natural spread through the wet market, so in that context, it doesn't really seem relevant, while CCP's behaviour is relevant in the sense that it paints a picture of them being untrustworthy and having acted shady when their culpability was questioned, so their denials of the WIV break, as well as their other actions (especially denying the WHO the ability to investigate for OVER A YEAR) puts doubt on their story.

Doubt, though, isn't definitive proof. I never said that I think it was definitely a lab break, just that I think the chances are higher than many people like to admit and that the CCP have not proven trustworthy. We will probably never know for sure, either way.
So why 30 matches before they do something? Why not 100? Why not 5?
I wanted to post their original article on the corona virus and masks in the replies here and went to the wayback machine to find it and just learned they excluded themselves from the service. So I can see why they'd block that.
That would depend on what allocator your instance of std::vector is using, and if it is not using one then ultimately on the behavior of your program's global new, and finally in the absence of that the behavior of your platform's malloc. It's possible that on your platform, malloc already has this behavior (lazily realizing pages when first accessed).
Large-Scale Automated Source Code Refactoring with OpenRewrite
I don't think he flaunted it at all and I say that as someone who'll never make it into Google. lol
Then how can you say beyond a reasonable doubt that the majority of climate change is caused by man? I think it’s obvious that man is messing up the climate but I don’t know it’s obvious that they are the main cause “by a country mile.”
They moved away from the TimeCapsule model. If they were really committed to privacy there would be a small box you can put in your closet that provides iCloud storage functionality.
It’s this strange phenomenon where they claim they desperately want a relationship, but also have ludicrously specific requirements as to what the person in that relationship should be like. Those requirements are often thinly veiled hatred for perceived qualities of the other gender (such as an incel disqualifying nearly every woman for being “sluts”). Incels have adopted a worldview that disqualifies essentially all living humans as valid romantic partners - they don’t want just any partner, they want an impossibly idealized partner.

Heck, there are both male and female incel communities (each claiming they can’t find anybody of the other gender to form a relationship with) which would be funny were it not so grim.

So to your comment: I don’t think it necessarily matters how well groomed or charismatic or conventionally attractive they are. As long as they have that hate of the other gender any potential partner will be rejected.
I think the case has been made quite convincingly that humans have dramatically increased atmospheric CO2. I don't personally know anyone who questions this either (but I don't know any oil lobbyists, to be fair). In fact, as someone who worked in climate advocacy for many years, I think that we proved this link quite well, almost to a fault. I say a fault, because so many resources have gone into proving that humans have caused the increase in atmospheric CO2 that we paid less attention to making a convincing case that the rise in global temperatures can only be explained by the reflected heat caused by that atmospheric CO2. (Just consider your knee-jerk reaction to my comment where you automatically assumed that this was a question about atmospheric CO2 without considering the possibility that it might be something/anything else).

When you look at the graphs for atmospheric CO2 and man-made carbon emissions laid on top of each other, it looks perfect. This is the money shot. But, when you lay the 150 year temperature data on top of it, it suddenly doesn't look so good (ignoring the normal 11 year solar fluctuations, just looking at the general trend line). There's a 70 year stretch when temperatures are flat to declining as atmospheric CO2 climbs by almost 20% (in advocacy training we'd be encouraged to skip past this: zoom out and highlight that they are _directionally_ similar and definitely never chart in percent change, of course).

Personally, I still ride with Team Atmospheric Carbon. But I also don't think there's anything unhealthy with good-faith questioning of the new dogma. The Earth's magnetic field has weakened by about 5% over the past 100 years. Global temperatures have risen by about 5.5% over the past 100 years. The magnetosphere protects the Earth's atmosphere from charged solar particles which would otherwise strip off parts of the upper atmosphere, allowing more UV radiation to hit Earth. Is that a coincidence? Maybe. Is increased UV-B penetration just as likely to cause warming as increased reflected infrared radiation? Yeah? So I keep an open mind.
That's not always true as most don't count paid-for sex to break their inceldom. Though some even have trouble paying for sex being that they are so unattractive.
The flccc unequivocally states that ivermectin given alone is not known to be effective. That's why their protocols are not "give ivermectin alone", in any dose. Even the protocols they recommend that people can follow at home are not "take ivermectin".

Moreover, as to the claim that the flccc is recommending ivermectin with no proof it works; they have 60+ peer-reviewed studies showing that it works, a couple un-reviewed studies by avowed skeptics which show that it does nothing, and zero studies ever in the history of the drug showing it to be harmful. That is better than can be said for any other purported treatment for COVID.
Is this community in the room with you right now?
Too late to edit but I meant Piet not Pike for a non-text based programming language.
Probably not.

Does any technological system used widely justify itself by saying "it would take two national jurisdictions cooperating to break this?"
Tbh this essentially just like saying to a depressed person: "have you tried not being depressed?". Of course they could get a girl if they were more attractive.
This is an example of the sensible use of a low-level, hardware-supported abstraction. (The practical computer science is about computers after all.)
But at least you sent them away and can have reasonable expectation to be betrayed. But that your camera device also scans and report what it doesn't like.
yeah it's not any better in that case then. i updated README to reflect that.
Damn. This is cool. I need to more of this. Write something in multiple languages to really get a feel for looking at it from multiple angles.
You mean those investigations into app store practices. ;)
Estimated U.S. Energy Consumption in 2020: 92.9 Quads
I’ll have to admit that I don’t fully know how these things work, but my impression was that a malloc(4GB) on most systems will not actually allocate 4GB, but only acquire virtual memory and the OS will give it memory when it’s being used.

Is this too simplistic and this package is doing something else?
They tried to get too cute by half. If they had just scanned iCloud for child porn like every other cloud vendor nobody would have even been talking about this.
Sounds like it still comes down to trust. Quoting from the paper:

"Apple will refuse all requests to add non-CSAM images to the perceptual CSAM hash database; third party auditors can confirm this through the process outlined before. Apple will also refuse all requests to instruct human reviewers to file reports for anything other than CSAM materials for accounts that exceed the match threshold."
Is it really voluntary if it is opt-out?
Thanks, that seems to be the right answer.

I just recently migrated everything to Apple + iCloud, but now it appears to be time to switch to synology+pixel/graphene+Firefox

Apparently obsidian.md can be end-to-end encrypted through their service, for anyone else planning to ditch iCloud.
Not going to happen. Words consistently get watered down in meaning by slight misuses that compound over time. There's no stopping that. People don't like being told they're using a word wrong. (And if language is constantly evolving, is there even a way to use a word incorrectly?)
I don’t like the idea of stuff running on my device, consuming my battery and data, when the only point is to see if I am doing something wrong?

An analogy I can come up with is: the government hires people to visit your house every day, and while they’re there they need your resources (say, food, water, and electricity). In other words, they use up some of the stuff you would otherwise be able to use only for yourself — constantly — and the only reason they’re there is to see if you’re doing anything wrong. Why would you put up with this?
What is the value proposition here? Why should I use this instead of AWS? Something something, on premise? This reads like a GPT3 generated advertisement.
Maybe. But I think the point is that incels cultures promotes this idea that they deserve some platonic ideal of a pretty virgin girl that just doesn’t, and has never, existed. They are mad because the girls they know in real life don’t want to fuck them and the girls don’t want them because they are incels. If they lowered their standards and put as much effort into improving themselves (in a real world sense) as they did into being hateful online they could probably get girlfriends.
That is absolutely complete nonsense. Natural immunity is estimated to be incredibly more effective in all measures than vaccine generated immunity for covid. Of course it’s incredibly more dangerous to acquire.
Is there any benefit to using virtual_vec as opposed to a std::deque then? It guarantees constant time pushes to the back and constant time random element access via operator[][0].

I think the case for std::vector::reserve() is when you know you are about to add N elements via push_back(), you call reserve() with the appropriate size to ensure there is only one reallocation caused by that addition of N elements.

[0] https://www.cplusplus.com/reference/deque/deque/operator[]/
Are you an incel? It’s a very real thing and you pretending it’s not does little to change the minds of everyone else about the danger of these people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings
CIECAM02 Color
Show HN: Flasha.re
I have created a mechanism for sharing secrets in a fairly secure way. You as a user can choose how secure you want to make it.

I'd love to hear what people think about this, if it's usable, or terrible ..

thanks.
I think my limit is $50K/day which seems like plenty. Maybe shady accounts have lower limits.
Not exactly unexpected. Most of us work with the virtual address space these days.
AI21 Labs trains a language model to rival OpenAI's GPT-3
> Everyone who's working a non-volunteer position is doing it for the money.

But usually not solely for the money. And usually there are lines people aren't willing to cross just for the paycheck.
> This is not so much a study as it is tracking the outcomes of someone taking their pets' heartworm medicine without any advice from their doctor. It's farcical.

Farm supply stores are running out of Horse ivermectin due to people going and buying it to try and self-treat their COVID. https://slate.com/technology/2021/08/ivermectin-covid-cure-f...