skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Add a rule - pilots (or cockpit crews) who can't cope with manually flying the airplane don't get to fly.

(From Vanity Fair, it sounds like the Air France pilot's union is both extremely powerful, and profoundly hostile to the idea that pilots must actually be competent. Also like opaque layers of both poorly-understood automation and infernally-clever instruments repeatedly got in the way of the pilots doing plausible things to "manually" recover.)
When you put it that way, it sounds like China and the USA have a lot in common, given the cozy relations between tech companies and politicians.
> The problem is bail though.

No, the problem is not conditional release (bail), or even the financial penalty (bail amount) that is assigned in advance in the even the conditions are broken.

The particular conditions may be problematic, especially when they (say) require, in practice, either a deposit or other security in the full value of the potential penalty or a contract with a licensed bail agent (which some states, and the federal system, generally do not.) But…

> Bail bondsman are a life saver to a person who can’t afford their bail and have to work in the morning. Obviously being rough comes with the job, but most bondsman aren’t villains they provide a service during a time of bad policy.

…except that bail bondsmen are a major force lobbying state governments for the policies which create the need. They are working very hard to set up, and preserve, the conditions that make them seem like lifesavers.
It is absolutely not easier to take away than to help. When trying to take away you must fight the will of those you plan to deprive. Whereas while helping you can often expect cooperation.
So what? It's chinese consumers that lose by keeping American companies out.

I don't understand the reasoning on wanting to punish American consumers until Chinese consumers get a better deal
Bringing back California’s wild bees
The standard deduction doubled under the changes. The lower your income, the greater percent just became tax free.

It is true that most of the tax cuts when to the top 65% because, well, 40% of tax payers pay $0 in federal income tax.
> Perhaps I'm underestimating just how young a goober he is

Overestimating I think - he's 30 according to wikipedia, so 20 years is 50, unless you're taking into account some early release or parole program.
What proof do you have that last pass uses that encryption scheme? Is there any evidence to suggest that it meets rigorous standards?

Remember that last pass has just been caught lying about their security, and you can't trust what they say.

Calling other people idiots just makes you look like an uninformed asshole, so stop that. You're wrong, and you're trying to justify yourself rather than just back down.

Changing passwords in the face of a breach like this is standard practice and is the only logical step forward. You cannot trust last pass security from this point forward. Whether or not you should have trusted them in the first place is irrelevant in the extreme.

Last pass users should change their passwords, period. Telling those users that they're idiots who shouldn't have trusted them to begin with makes you look foolish and toxic.

Do better.
Giving up is not an option find you and get your life back.
If you want this, pass laws to force that kind of content.
I believe the courts have decided in error.
For stuff like that, best to go to the vintage and historic races and events. I explicitly looked for cars that were eligible for the Monterey historics (I have two currently.) It helps to find people who specialize in the vehicle you have, as well.

Trackdays skew towards much more modern cars. Although I met the shop that takes care of my stuff at one (they did Spec Miata rental, and now I race that too)
Another poster pointed out that the alarm might also fail to sound, or maybe the switch didn’t actually work, so you need to check it anyway.

On Boeing planes, many automations such as TOGO typically have a corresponding physical counterpart - in this case, autothrottle slides the throttle controls upwards to indicate that the engines were asked to go to full power. There’s also the engine instruments which show the engines reaction to the requested throttle level.

It’s not hard to know that it didn’t set the throttle to full power, but the pilots didn’t check or didn’t know to check. An alarm would help, but would also be another fallible automation to be relied upon.
Well sure, but what about non-empty collections? How are hashes ordered?
I’ve worked with crime reporting data before, the quality is… not high.
No, I think that logic is completely fair. From my experience it is dead simple and works extremely well, however, I think it's definitely good to vet apps in your own way.
There are no sales through Audible for these books. He specifically chose not to release them on Audible.

I'm fairly certain he was just looking at numbers of other books of his for comparison.
If you want to improve your security, don't export from LastPass. Instead, authenticate into each service with the creds in LastPass, change your password in the service, then save the new password into Bitwarden.

In general, one should avoid exporting/importing credentials. Instead reset them and save the new creds into the new place.
>He hasn't been convicted of a crime. Why should he be in jail?

He should be in jail because he very likely has the hidden resources to flee and escape prosecution if he so chooses.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u_aLESDql1U
Though, AF447 isn't a simple case of the plane being under direct control. When the two pilots give conflicting inputs, Airbus silently averages out the two inputs. The pilots were confused as to why their inputs weren't seeming to work, then the pilot who was trying to do the wrong thing (pull up) figured out why his inputs weren't having any effect and hit the button to silently ignore the input from the pilot who was trying to do the right thing (nose down). As I remember, it was the more experienced pilot (captain) who was correctly trying to get the nose down, but it seems he never figured out why the plane wasn't responding to his inputs.

Also, when they went very far into stall, the stall warning disabled under the assumption it was a sensor problem rather than the airplane actually getting into that bad of a stall. So, paradoxically, starting to improve the situation caused the stall warning to come on, while doing the wrong thing caused the warning to go away.

Both pilots were trying to debug with information intentionally being hidden from them. (Honestly, the stick should vibrate or something if your inputs are being ignored or counter-commanded by the other pilot. Better yet, mechanically link the controls as in Boeing planes... it's not great that the stronger pilot wins, but at least both know what's going on.) Granted, there was a lot of pilot error in AF447, but there were multiple user interface issues that greatly contributed to the problem.

Edit: Also, as I remember, the start of the incident was that the pitot tubes iced up and the autopilot disengaged itself because it had no idea what to do. It's hard to point to a case where the automation has explicitly given up as a case where we should rely on more automation. Clearly a world where the automation was better would have been better, but just letting the autopilot do its thing wasn't an option. The autopilot disengaged itself.
It's difficult to share resources with the poor when the rich are hoarding the vast majority of those resources.

We need both.
Wow you can even customize it with a message of your own :)
Because proper tea is theft!
He’s not going to jail. He might go to a country club where he’s not supposed to leave (but will for “special” occasions).
It replied me with this:

"You.com is owned by the company You, Inc., which is based in San Francisco, California. The company was founded in 2021 by CEO and Founder Richard Socher and CTO and Co-Founder David Sontag. You.com is backed by venture capital firms such as General Catalyst, IVP, and Greylock Partners."
The hash would only be sitting in precomputed lists if LastPass did not salt the passwords first. It's my understanding that they did.
Also see keet (https://keet.io/), a peer-to-peer chat and video app
Kinda sucks for the people who get killed so you can arrive sooner though, right?
To play devil's advocate, extremely high profile white collar criminals like SBF are objectively less likely to reoffend while on bail in a way that would harm regular citizens than someone arrested for any violent or gang-related crime. His victims deserve justice too, but the odds of him defrauding more people while on bail now that this is widely known, he's under constant surveillance, and his/FTX's assets are frozen, is incredibly low.

Bernie Madoff, Elizabeth Holmes and the like are all scumbags, but if you give me the choice between living next to them, or someone arrested for almost any other crime, I'm picking the fraudster that depended on their now ruined public image to defraud people.
> It’s a fallacy to think that there must be poor people.

Is that actually true? I’m very curious if there’s any theoretical evidence that a society where everyone is at minimum “middle class” can exist.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Using a hyperlink is not neccessary to break the rule. Naming a Mastodon account (or any account) is not neccesary to break the rule. Breaking the rule in the same way that it was broken in the examples given is not neccesary to break the rule. Elon stated in various places that attempts such as PG's to break the rule (which is about the promotion of prohibited social media) without getting banned would not be tolerated. In one instance he referred to such an attempt as 'ban evasion' (this was in a Twitter space, I'll find it when I'm back at my PC).

Elon's phrase "casual sharing" is not inclusive of PG apparently denouncing Twitter and promoting his Mastodon account in its place. PG's Tweet was anything but casual. If PG had linked to some post he found interesting that happened to be on Mastadon, that might qualify as casual.

I never claimed that my use of the phrase 'ban evasion' matched the use in the Twitter user agreement. HN and I are in agreement on that count (as I have stated elsewhere in this thread).

Frankly, you have bad reading comprehension, most likely due to motivated interpretation i.e. you tend to see what you want to be there rather than what is actually there.
Lately, a 3000 sq ft house in Stanford (which can be sold on the market, but only to eligible faculty and employees) sells for over $2.5M, whereas a similar home in Palo Alto (which can be sold on the market, to any one) sells for around $5M.

As a result, while what you said is true, I don’t think it matters that much. At the end of the day, it’s an asset that’s worth millions of dollars.
This is a threat to google because "how people access information" can shift away from web search. The fundamental "how" can shift under google.

All information has errors, tolerances, gets reprocessed, etc.

ChatGPT being wrong sometimes or a great bullshitter absolutely does not matter.
Weren't most of the law breaking done by people applying for loans and lying about their income?

Losses in the market for private label residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) were at the epicenter of the financial crisis from 2007-2009. Existing research has shown that a substantial portion of the poor performance of the loans securitized in this market was caused by fraudulent origination practices and that these practices were misrepresented to investors who purchased securities based on these loans. However, to date no paper has estimated the effects of mortgage fraud on losses from foreclosure in this market. This paper fills this gap by 1) Accounting for total losses from foreclosure due to no/low documentation loans which were known colloquially within the industry as Liar's Loans, and 2) Estimating what portion of these losses can be considered excess from the perspective of the investor. Losses are considered excess in the sense that they were higher than the expected losses for investors, had the loan quality information disclosed to them been accurate, instead of fraudulent. I find that Liar's Loans account for roughly 70% of total losses, and 36% of losses in Liar's Loans can be considered excess. Projected to the level of the entire market, this implies that $345 billion of the $500 billion in losses from foreclosure are accounted for by Liar's Loans. Roughly $125 billion, or 25% of total market losses, can be considered excess losses caused by fraud in Liar's Loans.

From https://peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1008-liar-s-loans-mo...
> I have two iPad 11 Pros and they can not last a week just sitting there.

To be fair to Apple I don't think any company is too concerned with features aimed at people who don't use the product.
I find it fascinating that this is considered some kind of doomsday scenario in Europe, but happens regularly in the US. Different priorities, I guess.
Some sites*
Depends on whether you are giving people what they need, or what they want.

If you ‘give’ an addict rehab they may fight you every step of the way, but if you give them heroin they’ll love you.
Elon Musk is pretty much single handedly destroying their brand as we speak
> weakness of the federal government. ... meant there was no monopoly on military power to enforce abolition on resistant states.

still digesting the rest of your reply, but on this point: prior to the civil war, the US army had made its units up out of people from the local area. In the run up to the civil war, some of these units defected en masse, with their command structure intact. Ever since, the army has been careful to rotate geographically diverse people through each unit, ensuring spatial and temporal mixing.

(if chatter surrounding events of the past few years {Bundy, Floyd, J6} is to be believed, the army is not worried about the ability of its officer corps to distinguish between legal and illegal orders as it is the inclinations of potential splinters at the squad level)
Is that same risk present if you use the app?

My understanding is the app decrypts the vault locally. I guess they could put out a malicious update but then you’d be impacted whether there was a cloud-free option or not.
27 minute video, poorly summarized, never seen this guy, never heard this channel and/or car brand. Apologies, to me it was clickbait.
Touch tip of thumb to tips of index and third fingers. Slide thumb-tip back-and-forth between fingertips.
Every politician they gave money to is trying hard to distance themselves. Nobody is going to stick their neck out for SBF or his family. What on earth would be in it for them?

Besides, why is SBF in the USA right now? He could have tried to stay in the Bahamas. He came here because he knows that his chances with other countries’ justice systems are far worse. And what country in the world would give him shelter? He ripped people off all over the world. Anywhere he might go, there is a strong chance he would be arrested there.
You’re missing half the equation. It’s Americans that lose out by not being able to sell into the Chinese market.

Banning TikTok doesn’t hurt American consumers in any real sense. They can amuse themselves with short form video from any number of providers. Social media is a zero sum battle for your non-sleeping hours at this point.
When we bought a couple years ago, there was a surprisingly small difference between homes on-campus and comparables off-campus. That may have changed somewhat, but I'd be surprised if the difference were 2x.

But the bigger picture is that SBF's parents cannot have signed over the right for the government to seize the property. They do not own a fee simple interest in the land. They have a ground lease that lasts a few decades (the limit is currently 51 years, but they bought decades ago when it may have been different).

Is the house worth millions? Yes. Can the government seize it? Stanford would say no because the residents are not the fee simple owners.
I’m sure some people will find a way to be seen as poor even if they have an adequate supply of money.

Poor just means they have less than most other people.
No, they actually don't. That is against the rules to even talk about. You're thinking about /b/ or something from back in the day, or the people attacking the site.
>Lift up as many people as possible. It’s a fallacy to think that there must be poor people.

To illustrate this point, in our current era of the mega rich, we also have record low levels of poverty.

Wealth isn't a zero sum game. It's possible (but not always the case) for a billionaire to create more than a billion dollars of wealth for other people.
The Bitter Truth: Python 3.11 vs. Cython vs. C++ Performance for Simulations
What I find a bit startling in this article is not as much that it rejects the old (half-baked) paradigm, but that I was holding out for that big reveal of a solid alternative... and it never came. The article offers three choices:

1. Invest in negative security warnings. This is fair, but how would that really work? HTTPS seems like an odd example, given how binary it is. How do you generalize it to online safety? Blocking known bad sites or behaviors is a never-ending game in a world where it costs next to nothing to set up a new phishing site or roll out a new malicious binary.

2. Unphishable credentials. This is reasonable - but what about attacks that don't care about credentials? Again, malicious downloads and plenty of other things that are happening today.

3. App-level content moderation. Sure, but this works only as long as you stay within walled gardens of a small number of platforms and are not an interesting target. What if you go to an URL not ending with .google.com or .facebook.com? What about specific, targeted populations that aren't adequately protected by the heuristics used at that scale?
I don’t believe so, but the judge sentenced him so harshly because the amount involved was astronomical, exceeding the maximum amount specified by federal sentencing guidelines for fraud ($400 million at the time)[0]. Also, many people lost their life savings and the fraud lasted for nearly 30 years and the judge didn’t feel that Madoff did everything he could to mitigate the harm caused by his actions.

[0](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/0...)
Is there a site that published this you can share?
I may be wrong, the idea is interesting but looks more like a password generator and a terrible password manager to me.

You still need to store somewhere informations like url, username, counter, etc. right ?
Can you change the master password without changing all your accounts password ?
If one happens to find your master password, he's basically able to get/generate all your passwords just like a normal pw manager with no 2FA, correct ?
In doesn't defeat the purpose since you have to pay back the loan yourself
Side note: if you're using IEEE-754 doubles (not a great choice for decimalized prices), use NaN to indicate no price, missing price, etc. instead of using an "impossible" value like -1.0. It's always possible the system will be expanded to some domain where -1.0 is valid, requiring lots of on-the-fly rewriting of live systems literally handling multiple billions of dollars per day.

Better yet, use proper algebraic data types.
My understanding is that yes, the land is owned by Stanford. They would have granted a ground lease that lasts some period of decades when the home was purchased (reportedly in 1991). Rules may have been different then, but I don't think they were handing out fee simple interests at that time either.
>managing strong unique passwords for hundreds of accounts across desktop, mobile, servers,

I have a couple of dozen unique passwords. The ones I use most frequently are easily remember with pass phrases and all are written down on a couple of sheets of paper.

>and other devices is a major pain and I’m tired of dealing with it.

You are free to sacrifice security for convenience, but don't cry about it when your security is compromised because you consider maintaining your security too much of a hassle.

>It’s human nature to take shortcuts and develop bad habits when you’re dealing with a flawed system and poor tools that puts the burden on the end user to manage this.

I would argue that outsourcing your "security" to a third party is a shortcut and a bad habit that compromises your security. If you can't be bothered to worry about your own security because you find it too much of a hassle, then you have nobody to blame but yourself when your security is compromised.

>And if I’m struggling with four decades of experience, how is the average non tech user expected to do it?

Most non-tech users don't have hundreds of accounts to manage. I would hope and expect that even non-tech users have the ability to use a paper and pencil, and write down their passwords. At what point are responsible, sentient adults expected to take responsibility for themselves and their own security?

>May I ask how you accomplish this without any sort of burden?

Being an adult who is responsible for yourself is a necessary burden. This is also true for your own security.
I don’t quite understand how your desired solution for software supply chains actually achieves much.

Content addressability doesn’t seem different from checksums or subresource integrity.

IPFS requires file pinning, so who is owning that and how is it different from a current state package distributer?

Further, someone/a build-machine still has to upload to the storage network… so Now we need smart contract to build (plus a coin)? … then we’ll need a coin for the compute providers?

And even if we have all of that, Charlie still employs his advanced supply chain attack upstream like he normally does… and we’re still left with malware plus a bubble of infra that didn’t quite solve much it was funded millions to solve.
I've seen exactly one supercharger station in the last three years, and it's attached to the tesla dealer a good 30 miles away. There's a generic charger on my office building, a different generic charger a mile from my house, then a couple more in between.

Unless they've changed things, you need an adapter to use the generic chargers with a tesla. I'd rather just buy a car meant to work with the infrastructure available to me
I wish we'd just start issuing software engineering degrees so it would be easier to get an actual computer science education.
> Resource scarcity creates a zero-sum game

No, things (e.g. transactions in the economy, contracts that get signed, tax & transfer payments, etc) are almost never zero-sum. They are usually positive-sum, and sometimes very negative-sum. Almost never zero-sum.

They appear to be zero-sum if you only focus on the raw dollars that change hands in a transaction. But they're not zero-sum in the utility that's created, which is what matters for any meaningful analysis.
I’m not familiar with the details. But I assume there exist a way for creditors (incl the government) to seize it somehow, and then sell it to eligible buyers to recover what they’re owed.

Does your Stanford home has a mortgage on it? If so, I assume you signed a deed of trust somehow.
With so much compatibility now how much work would it be to port Firefox? What are the showstoppers?
Well I’m more talking about preventive maintenance

The act of doing your job in IT means problems never come up and you can’t really measure what didn’t happen
I've also never understood this, when I have an earlier boarding group I prefer to wait with the later groups, maybe stretch a bit.
>Every politician they gave money to is trying hard to distance themselves. Nobody is going to stick their neck out for SBF or his family. What on earth would be in it for them?

What was in it for Bill Clinton when he pardoned Mark Rich?

>Besides, why is SBF in the USA right now? He could have tried to stay in the Bahamas.

In the Bahamas he was in jail. Hours after landing in the USA he is in a mansion in California. Is it really that hard to understand?