There are smaller, gated communities that are still very valuable. You're posting in one. But yes, the open Internet is basically useless now, thanks ultimately to advertising as a business model.
Sure, there's bad actors everywhere, but there's really no incentive to do it here so I don't think it's a problem in the same way it is on the open internet, where slop is actively rewarded.
> If you haven't read the Odyssey before, I think her translation is accessible enough to just jump right in.
I keep checking, but it is continuously checked out at my local library :D One day I'll get lucky. (Yes, I know about holds; I don't like them; I don't like the sense of obligation, and I enjoy the hunt; yes, it's a quirk.)
Your peers aren't the ones making nine figures and buying yachts and vacation homes off the results of the work you're doing. Look up, not sideways, to find the mis-allocated resources that you're after.
I see no misallocated resources. I enjoy exploiting the system that enables the yacht-havers, because then I too can have a yacht.
And while I get the feeling that most HN commenters feel some sort of misplaced injustice due to this, but the thrill of the game is part of the fun to me. I’d rather that than factory work where I can guarantee my skills will never position me to rise above my station.
The tech industry is so unique in this and it blows my mind how people just want to throw it all away.
I think you're right that for high end chips, it is worth the time to salvage it[1]. But I think that's the vast minority, like you said, most stuff being manufactured isn't at the cutting edge of consumer tech like GPUs are.
[1] They show a bit of the RMA/failed unit process towards the end of this surprisingly good GPU factory tour from Linus Tech Tips. There's some discussion of de-soldering and testing retrieved components. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS35VHEfFDU
Yeah I'm generally a tech skeptic, but getting FDA approval for a real, common problem is a fantastic use for this kind of device. I did an at-home sleep study a few months ago, and while it wasn't an unpleasant experience, it did involve a long wait for an appointment, two trips to & from a specialty clinic, and awkwardly strapping on this device to sleep with overnight. That's a lot of barriers. Being able to do get a useful result for a very impactful health condition, just with an affordable piece of hardware that many people already have is a game changer.
Great job to the team at Apple for getting this together & getting real approval for it.
This won’t tell you that you have sleep apnea, it will tell you you might. From there you’d probably need a real sleep study.
However how many people will this catch that had no idea they should get checked? Not unlike some of the people who found out they have afib after their watches suggested they get checked? I agree this is great.
It’d be interesting if we find out that a very different percentage of the population have sleep apnea than we thought simply because so many more get checked as a result of this.
If you reread what I was replying to, I was saying they might want to demand changes to management because it’s in their best interest to demand those changes, focusing only on short term benefit to themselves is harmful to their long term best interest. And organized labor does have the power to severely damage the companies they’re part of it’s not all one group or the other.
That's up to the bosses to figure out. If your business can't find employees to do the work at the compensation rate you're offering, then your business has failed. It may even be that your line of business is unviable in the current economy. That's not the employees' fault, that's just business.
It's good to keep an eye on the carbon impacts of space tourism, but if you're genuinely concerned about climate change, your efforts would be far better spent on promoting the passenger vehicle EV conversion and nuclear/wind/solar buildouts to replace coal plants. I don't think space tourism will become a significant carbon emissions source for at least a few more decades.
I happen to support electrification and renewables. It cost almost nothing (other than some negative rep) to raise a flag about the environmental costs of space tourism. I'm sure early coal fired plants said the same thing about their emissions as well. That surely one more plant or private jet could not hurt the environment. My view is if we normalize and celebrate space tourism now, then there will be no curtailing it in the future.
Plus the Starship uses Methalox which is the most efficient carbon based fuel in terms of H2O to CO2 ratio. It puts out twice as much water vapor as it does CO2.
As has been demonstrated many, many (many, many (many many many many many...)) times: there is no such thing as computer security. If you have data on a computer that is connected to the Internet, you should consider that data semi-public. If you put data on someone else's computer, you should consider that data fully public.
Our computer security analogies are modeled around securing a home from burglars, but the actual threat model is the ocean surging 30 feet onto our beachfront community. The ocean will find the holes, no matter how small. We are not prepared for this.
It's a matter of opinion, but no, I disagree. People are building new software all the time. It all has bugs. It will always have bugs. The only way to build secure software is to increase its cost by a factor of 100 or more (think medical and aviation software). No one is going to accept that.
Computer security is impossible at the prices we can afford. That doesn't mean we can't use computers, but it does mean we need to assess the threats appropriately. I don't think most people do.
It's not a matter of opinion at all. You can disagree but you can disagree with the earth being a sphere also.
> People are building new software all the time. It all has bugs. It will always have bugs.
No. Most bugs these days are due to legacy decisions where security was not an issue. We are making advances in both chip and software security. Things are already vastly more secure than they were 20 years ago.
20 years from now, security will be a lot closer to being a solved problem.
> The only way to build secure software is to increase its cost by a factor of 100 or more (think medical and aviation software). No one is going to accept that.
What are you basing that cost on?
> Computer security is impossible at the prices we can afford.
No, it really isn't. There's a reason some organizations have never been hacked and likely never will be. Largely because they have competent people implementing security that very much exists.
> Our computer security analogies are modeled around securing a home from burglars
Well, no home is burglar-proof either. Just like with computer security, we define , often just implicitly, a threat model and then we decide which kind of security measures we use to protect our homes. But a determined burglar could still find a way in. And here we get to a classic security consideration: if the effort required to break your security is greater than the benefit obtained from doing so, you're adequately protected from most threats.
I agree, my point is we need to be using the correct threat model when thinking about those risks. You might feel comfortable storing your unreplaceable valuables in a house that is reasonably secure against burglars, even if it's not perfectly secure. But you'd feel otherwise about an oceanfront property regularly facing 30 foot storm surges. I'm saying the latter is the correct frame of mind to be in when thinking about whether to put data onto an Internet-connected computer.
It's no huge loss if the sea takes all the cat photos off my phone. But if you're a hospital or civil services admin hooking up your operation to the Internet, you gotta be prepared for it all to go out to sea one day, because it will. Is that worth the gains?
And I think there's some cognitive problem that prevents people from understanding that "the effort required to break your security" has been rapidly trending towards zero. This makes the equation effectively useless.
(Possibly even negative, when people go out and deliberately install apps that, by backdoor or by design, hoover up their data, etc. And when the mainstream OSes are disincentivized to prevent this because it's their business model too.)
There was a time, not very long ago, when I could just tcpdump my cable-modem interface and know what every single packet was. The occasional scan or probe stuck out like a sore thumb. Today I'd be drinking from such a firehose of scans I don't even have words for it. It's not even beachfront property, we live in a damn submarine.
Do you use a bank account? Or do you still trade using only the shells you can carry in your arms? Perhaps networked computers are secure enough to be useful after all.
I never claimed the Internet isn't useful. I just think people don't recognize how vulnerable computers are to attack. Search this very incomplete list for "bank": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_data_breaches
As far as I'm aware, there really aren't any firm theories, it's just a completely baffling artifact. Based on dating, it's (probably) not a forgery. It's an incredible amount of effort for the time to be just some person's fancy. There just doesn't seem to be even a theory that fits all the evidence. It's truly bizarre. I love it.
It's a lot of work, but not particularly more work than a scribe would usually do.
People have always been people, we've always been creative and intelligent, and I really think the best explanation is that this is just an odd creative work. We'll never know the exact details.
> What is "ethical" when it comes to a social media network?
For me, primarily one does not use a business model that profits from outrage, clickbait, misinformation, etc. Business models that use view-based ad revenue are unethical, for example.
Beyond that, it should make an effort to stifle the spread of harmful content. Where that line is drawn is of course hard to define. Twitter and Facebook largely ignore their responsibilities here, which is one reason I don't use them.
reply