This is a really neat idea to explore any relational DB.
Some of the clever ways these LLMs are being used as a chat interface to information systems are really cool!
Just so I understand here; he's still on the hook for taking the bribe and running the license plate, he's just been cleared of unauthorized access because he was granted access to the system. Right? Seems to me the prosecutor messed up when charging him under CFAA, which as we can see here is a complex and nuanced section of law, instead of something straightforward, if less sexy like public corruption/bribery.
I think a lot of this is due to people in the neighborhoods not wanting the neighborhoods to change. It's this way in the USA precisely because of citizen control. Single family home neighborhoods are some of the nicest places to live in America. Why shouldn't the people who have invested in the community get to decide how the neighborhood evolves?
The NYT is a business supported by employing authors to write articles and sell advertisements to people who want to read those articles. To claim that NYT as a business has nothing at all to do with it's product, that it payed to create, curate and publish is clearly nonsense.
I will never purchase another game from Activision or Blizzard unless they recant this backwards position. American art and media should not be subject to Chinese influence.
I've been a loyal customer over the years, but I have a long memory. Refuse to delete my account if you will, it will never be used again.
This! ^^^ The author paints an overbroad cartoon picture of a complex philosophy in order to fabricate a tale of 'toxic masculinity'.
Self control is not the act of not displaying or feeling one's emotions or drives. Rather it's the act of moderating one's behavior in response to those drives and emotions.
Sure that's you. One anecdotal example. As a data driven counter example, take the number of card on the road in Los Angeles at a given time. I live in LA, and there is a zero percent chance I expose my child to typhus on the train.
It's not a right to live in the most desirable area of the country. If you can't afford to live somewhere you desire, your options are: A: Suck it up. B: Increase the amount of money you take in in order to afford the luxury you desire.
This article is bullshit, written and funded by real estate developers who want to build high density housing without concerning themselves with where the people who live in that housing are going to park the cars they own. This appears to rely on the fallacy that people are going to give up their cars to take non-existent public transportation to bring their kids to school or get groceries.
The public transit that does exist is rife with drug addicted, mentally ill homeless people. No fucking thanks!
irrespective of any of that. Respect to the guy for standing on principle and removing himself from a technology project he found ethically inexcusable. I'm also a bit surprised more Googlers haven't followed suit.
Your beautiful remembrance of your cherished love is both touching and poignant. Thank you for sharing this life lesson. I hope the act of writing down and expressing your feelings can bring you some comfort.
So, basically, your argument is that
'People can not be trusted with information that may be nuanced, so instead news outlets should limit themselves to headlines that minimize risk.'
Comparing the use of an app to a lifesaving medicine is, in my view, a gross mis-characterization. The article suggested a more secure alternative that we all agree is more secure. What's the issue?
IF the user opts in, they have the option of being notified. Most users do not know this option exists or care to enable it, so I'm not sure the above is strictly true.
I stand by my assertion that the vulnerability exists exactly as described. You have said nothing that disputes that. If I understand you correctly, you take issue specifically with the characterization of the vulnerability as a 'backdoor', which suggests intent. I don't know the dev's intent, so I'm unable to speak to the validity of that characterization in that context. That said, the Guardian corrected the story in this regard, and the text now reads 'vulnerability', which I think we all can agree on.
WhatsApp is not a secure communications platform. Claiming otherwise is disingenuous.
It's not a fake story. Every piece of information they presented is accurate. The Guardian did speak to experts in the field. I won't bore you with my credentials, but I agree with their assessment as well. Taking issue with the advice they give on UX grounds is one thing, but attacking the factual basis of the article is misguided.
So, we agree that calling this a 'fake' article is itself misleading. We also agree that Signal is a more secure alternative. Your position is essentially 'people cant be trusted with accurate information, you have to dumb it down so they can make the "right" choice based on the limited information they can absorb, so the Guardian should apologize and retract their accurate story.'
I'll point out none of the security researchers in the article dispute the vulnerability is as described. They simply took issue with the appeal to leave WhatsApp as a result of the presence of the vuln. They essentially said, Yes, it's less secure to do it this way, but we think it's more important to make sure messages get delivered than to ensure absolute security.
The vulnerability in WhatsApp was correctly described by the Guardian. Signal is more secure and does not have this vulnerability. How, exactly is suggesting users migrate to a more secure messaging platform misleading in any way?
I for one support Y Combinator's commitment to tolerance. Tolerance is sadly lacking in today's political discourse. Like many, I find Donald Trump distasteful, but to call for the removal of an investor for supporting a candidate one disagrees with is both intolerant and small minded. A pluralistic democracy depends on both tolerance and civility for its' very existence. It's more than a little ironic to me that people critical of Donald Trump for, essentially, being intolerant are now expressing that criticism in the form of intolerance by calling for the banishment of his supporters.
Without espousing an opinion one way or the other, I think the point that is most striking to me is the relatively civilized manner we're all discussing a contentious topic. Hat's off to hackernews readers for navigating tough issues with class!