I suppose I misspoke, your mental model sounds accurate XD. I wish there were a mandated evidence double check sampling rate! The point I was making is that I suspect in most courtrooms the rate is effectively 0.
Larger scale smugglers/producers definitely do this, and yea, if you're a middle management drug dealer in one of those organizations, that's probably the play. But also they'll be getting spied on by federal/international organizations with better tools than physical magnetized trackers.
I mean, both. But there are plenty of self proclaimed radicals in America who claim they'd be willing to die on the barricades, but a) there's no central set of barricades upon which to die, even in the global "centers" and b) the ones that do exist are way too well protected. Remember Occupy Wall St? That was essentially an attempt to besiege (albeit non-violently) the financial power centers, but it was easily swatted away by local municipalities armed to the teeth with military grade crowd control tools.
I don't think most reasonable employers hold it against prospective employees if they have "bad" former employers. Obviously the exception being if they were employed in executive (and perhaps in some cases, managerial) capacities. But certainly not line engineers.
I still don't think that would have had the same downstream macroeconomic effects as, say, exploding mortgages for millions of working and middle class Americans. Nobody leasing their commercial properties to WeWork is one missed paycheck away from homelessness or health crisis.
I think they justified it by saying that they were aiming to be tech unicorn, not merely a real estate company; and it's par for the course for the board to pump and dump a tech unicorn once they realize the horn is about to fall off.
Interesting observation, but a) events of the last 10 years are documented at an exponentially higher rate and resolution than events of the 17th century, and b) this list has lots of events which hardly raise to the level of the large scale revolutions of the 17th century, aaand c) none of these events are taking place in global centers of wealth and power. Today's elites are without a doubt more protected than the denizens of Versailles precisely because their power and wealth operate on a global scale.
I'm confused as to what Boeing is changing then - your description of 'dual-dual' systems sounds like what is happening with the master/slave failover system already in place. It sounds like what they're changing is to have the two systems cross-check each other in real time, rather than have the in-band delayed core be the sanity check for each system, which seems like a big difference because it means that there are now disagreement scenarios whereas an in-band sanity check always is just checking one system against one set of invariants and thus can't disagree with it's own observations. Or am I misunderstanding?
SE = structural engineering? That's cool, I'm glad your discipline is receiving some ethical training. I've never heard of any CS program including any sort of engineering or general ethics courses in their curricula.
Yea I understand that there's a technical definition that it falls short of, but again they're very explicitly noting that it falls short of that, so I don't see how it's being ambiguous or misleading. And I don't buy that it's not "open" - it's out there in the public; it's open for contribution from the public; it's open to be modified and deployed except if you're a monitoring provider. The OSI doesn't have a monopoly on the definition of the word "open".
Also I think that the assertion that it's "actively harmful" is wildly hyperbolic. Sentry isn't going to be out there copyright trolling people and you know it; they're trying to protect themselves from a very specific category of IP infringement. And there is still much potential upside to it's openness that you're willfully ignoring.
I think this is great; if I ever start a SaaS business I'll happily follow Sentry's example and use the BSL if I want to develop in the open.
To the open source fundamentalists expressing disdain: why is the ability to commercialize a piece of code such an important part of the OSS ethos to you? Why are proprietary protections, even when the code itself is still freely visible, usable and modifiable, such a step backwards? What about the very real threat of a business 1000x your size just deciding to fork your code and eat your lunch? Are businesses with open source products supposed to just accept that risk in the name of being good OSS citizens? I'd still much rather see a business with source available code, which will still benefit their users and the community at large - would you rather it be OSI approved open source or nothing?
Is it morally fine in every case? Or just in cases where the project was initially open source? If the latter, why, and why should anyone try to maintain an open source business if that's the case?
Anyway, "morals" aren't the standard by which these things are judged in practice, ethics via laws are, and I'm fairly certain most legal systems don't see the practice of IP theft as fine.
I don't think it's weasel words. They're just acknowledging that the OSI doesn't recognize the BSL as an Open-Source license, but the source is still open in the literal sense. Not only that, but most of the things associated with code being open source are still true: you can inspect, modify and use the code as you can with any OSS, the only things you can't do is commercialize or redistribute it.
Just because people often report the experience of massive perspectival shifts after becoming a parent doesn't actually elevate their authority on the matter, or invalidate the opinions/beliefs of non-parents. That's just a straight up fallacy. I'm not saying the average parent doesn't have relatively more authority on matters of parenting than the average non-parent, but there's nothing inherent about becoming a parent that justifies radically elevating the epistemic status of their beliefs about parenting.
Simulators can "break" in the sense that support simulating various failure modes, including presumably sensor malfunctions. It's very possible that they stumbled on the exact conditions that led to the real world crashes, which would be even more damning.
Since when are businesses responsible for the health of democracy?
Have most business in American history been hotbeds of political discussion and activity? Have we previously attributed the relative health of American democracy to this characteristic of American businesses?
He hasn't really had reason to, none of his businesses thus far have involved media, telecom or social media. Not saying it's particularly likely that he would go against the grain, but its a bit unfair to say he hasn't when he hasn't had occasion to yet.
I feel like my examples are just as convincing as the boat over boat: they're all theoretically unsound lines that no winning player would take unless they had x-ray vision, and if you claim you would x/f TPTK on the flop because of your sick live reads I'd like to play with you. But whatever, glad you saw the light I guess.
I actually think the "changing cards" situations were the stream employees seeing the action and finding it so implausible that he was playing a given hand that way, and inadvertently gaslighting everyone by overwriting the graphics based on their assumptions. So they weren't necessarily complicit, but were sort of forced to cover for him because they couldn't say "Hm, maybe he's just cheating" to explain the insane moves hew as making.
Yea that's fair. But the point is it's possible/normal for some amount of the player pool to put up those numbers over some time span, whereas 10x that is an outrageously far outlier. Who knows, some of the in-band high winners might be cheating too, but just doing a much better job at hiding it.
Also FWIW I think some live cash crushers can land in the 20-40bb/100 range with some consistency. The online cash player pool is known to be much tougher per capita.
There are plenty of other pros who have played on Stones Live, who Postle has repeatedly gotten the better of.
Even if the average hands are playing 2x or 4x above nominal stakes, that's still an outrageously high, many std-dev above elite, win rate.
Yea, it's hard to prove things generally, but I don't really feel like the standard of "proof" matters here. I'm 99.99999...% sure the guy is cheating. I'm not saying put him in jail because of it, but definitely raise the alarm and don't play with him. Would you play with him on the Stone RFID table?
It's a necessary evil to make the game more marketable. Watching poker without knowing the hole cards is pretty damn dull. They used to use cameras but RFID is cheaper and lower friction for players. FWIW major tournaments and other casinos with streaming shows have been using them for years without prior incident. It should be a fairly securable system in principle, just ban devices at the table, and don't let players have access to the equipment, but Stones was clearly way too lax.
I doubt he has an accomplice. I think he's intimately familiar with the RFID system, including having had direct access to the actual one being used on Stones Live (per his connection to them that was observed on Linkedin), and enabled a multiplexing debug feature to send his phone a stream of every card being read.
For additional context, at most stakes being a 5-10bb/100 winner is considered being a very good player. The thin cluster of people winning around 100bb/100 are the actual top tier players representing the top ~1% of the player pool. And then there's Postle off to the side doing 10x better than them.