MichaelGG

Guatemala numbers are less because they only count it as homicide if someone dies at the scene. If you manage to get into a hospital then die, it's not in the stats.

There's no "fine tuning" of police operations in Guatemala. Everyone is incompetent, and the UN and other "human rights" groups fuck it up even more. Average citizens are afraid to even kill thieves and extortionists due to court prosecution. Said criminals continue to run gangs from inside prisons. Most "good" people just leave as soon as they can. My ex finally called it quits when Telefonica, the multinational phone company, got extorted. Someone calls them up, tells them they owe $X/week, and then just starts shooting employees. It's getting worse, not better.

The only hope I've had here in recent times was several people, including young women, talking fondly about Rios Montt and how they wish a leader would come clean stuff up. Even a semi-indigenous person told me that (despite him supposedly being genocidal). Unfortunately GT has a preference for electing nitwits that can't even steal without getting caught. That's how incompetent they are. So it's unsure if we'll ever see a strong ruler come back in. But now more than ever are people ready for that.

Turns out, when you can't safely walk around, when you can't start a business because any day you'll get a phone call that means either bankruptcy, death, or exile, yeah damn right you start preferring a military rule. As one woman told me, "at least I could walk anywhere, anytime with my purse and no one ever troubled me".

"How do I know when to change the Filters?

You can find out if you need to change the Oas’s Purification Filter via the Oas app, showing the overall status of your Filters."

I wonder if they're using Bluetooth or other local networking or if this really means my shower needs to connect to the Internet.

I feel like picking a fight. What's the downside? It's super simple to hash them, and it prevents a read-only exploit from turning into a major catastrophe.

Example from something I built. If our db was used by an attacker, with all client API keys, they could go liquidate those accounts (place phone calls). Huge loss, and not far-fetched (this kind of attack happens daily and is profitable). With hashed API keys, nothing is possible. We don't even need to tell people to rotate keys. With plain keys, we'd need to freeze usage for people without e.g. IP address restrictions in place.

Read-only leaks happen all the time. Why not make sure they don't impact your clients API usage?

I'm not just trying to fight. It's a handful of trivially-validated lines of code that significantly mitigate the impact of a data leak. Seems like a super easy tradeoff.

What is the client? OP says API which sounds more machine to machine. If you mean the API powering a site, used from the client's browser, then sure. Track separate logins, then give them a control panel to see where they're logged in.

But most clients store their user/pass in their browser anyways so I'm not sure it's a security win for preventing credential loss.

You don't lose re-auth. The master system issuing API keys can revoke keys, too.

But anyways maybe we're talking about different contexts because I don't understand the scenario you're describing.

Not to zero. I'd personally pay $1, probably more, for even 10% of all Bitcoins, just for the novelty. If there were no miners, maybe not much more than that, and I'd want the current private keys.

I'm guessing there's at least someone that'd pay a few million for all of Bitcoin, so maybe a $0.10-1.0 floor, easily? Would be illiquid and hard for small holders to sell though.

Also, quantum computers do not break Bitcoin entirely as in previously unused addresses are safe. You'd need a way to quickly generate keys matching a certain hash. Otherwise you need a ton of hashing power, too, to rewrite the part of the chain created in the time a spend-of-interest was created and you generated matching keys with your attacking machine. Seems like something that can be upgraded assuming a QC-resistant crypto scheme exists.

How so? The client needs to have the username and password to call the login function over and over, as well as managing the session token. It's just incredibly annoying with no benefits in nearly every scenario.

I'm not a conservative (the very name implies that even if a conservative wins, all they get is to keep from losing). But it's clear Google has massive biases (at least in publicly visible representatives) and their fact checking (which I've only seen once or twice) has gone to biased sites like Politifact.

> The president of the US leaves the rest of the world in panic when someone will finally declare war with him after yet another tweet.

You know if people are actually in panic over him tweeting, maybe the problem is in those people.

It's like those folks posting pictures of their kids crying when Trump won, saying "my 6 year old is now scared he'll be murdered". Uh, you did that to yourself.

In my case, I reported it via an online form. I figured I'd get some sort of confirmation or response to take to the DMV. Found out what the standard operating procedure was the hard way.

Having had US police (unjustifiably IMO) aim guns at me[1] and having lived in a third world country, I'll take the US hands down any day.

Police violence is an issue but way overblown for most people -- violence from other citizens far outweighs the police risk.

Compare to third world countries where you can easily be murdered in broad daylight surrounded by people, over a few hundred bucks, and the murderers face very little chance of being caught, let alone convicted.

Of course the best solution is to move to a country with great demographics equalling no crime or police violence, but those are becoming hard to find.

1: Turns out if you report (online with no followup) one of your licence plates as having fallen off your $300 car, cops might do a "felony takedown" on you, your 100 lbs wife, and 1 year old daughter. This apparently includes aiming handguns at your head while giving instructions like "lift your shirt up from the top".

Shamir's Secret Sharing allows this even without dealing with multisig wallets.

And if Bitcoin Cash starts being recognized as Bitcoin? (Far fetched, but not in the Segwit2X case.) Use your original cost basis?

Wasn't there a practical design using atomic bombs to propel a spacecraft? Alien artifact would certainly justify the budget and risk. Though if a country determined it was alien, they'd probably not share it until their craft was well on the way.

The CMO was previously at BitTorrent which is fairly user hostile.

This is not that special nor should it be unexpected. Uber's real problem here is that they were so careless about their operations. Like the rape victim health records incident. They sent their own VP over to go get these records? They should be using deniable intermediaries.

I feel it is rather naive to think that large companies don't have intelligence agents or other such things. The amounts it costs to spy and subvert people is just too small. The KGB was able to flip FBI and other agents for very small sums of money. So how much easier must it be for, say, Oracle, to flip a Google engineer? Or to simply support someone's career and get one of their people hired on an into relevant projects?

Some large companies certainly have Internal Affairs orgs that can go undercover to find out corruption in their org. (I've seen this happen in the case of overseas subsidiaries fudging numbers to steal from corp.) It's bizarre to think they wouldn't spend a small amount of money to obtain info worth thousands of times more.

I mean how much would you really bet that Oracle or Microsoft have never, ever, engaged in anything undercover?

>nodes don't mine

Hmm that's not how it used to be. You must be talking about something other than Bitcoin.

The comparison to Apple is funny. Are you suggesting Bitcoin is a centralised company with a trademark?

If suddenly someone spins up a million bitcoin cash nodes will you call it bitcoin? If total PoW exceeds core will you? If core finally hard forks to increase the blocksize will you stop calling it bitcoin?

But that you'd compare it to Apple, that's just weird.

Privacy boost for a malleability improvement? Do tell.

All full nodes had to upgrade or risk mining invalid blocks.

Except people with worse mindsets are not following your footsteps. People conscious of this problem should have many kids, raise them well to improve civilization, if you want to minimise suffering.

Of course if a physical solution to ending existence without introducing a lot of suffering can be found, even better.

Using which exploit? Quoting the article: " The vulnerability identified in CVE-2017-5712 is exploitable remotely over the network in conjunction with a valid administrative Intel® Management Engine credential. The vulnerability is not exploitable if a valid administrative credential is unavailable."

So where is the Ethernet level remote vulnerability? The rest require physical access.

This is incorrect.

You do not know what the current price will be when you click the submit button. You may enter a limit of 105, and find that when you get around to submitting, the price is suddenly 205 or 1.05. This is why you use a limit order, so that your "market" order doesn't give you a sudden surprise.

On top of that, the current price is only valid for a certain depth. So if the asks are 10x101 and 20x106, I want to set my limit to 105 to make sure I only take that 10x101 order off, and not start chewing through and execute at a much different price than "current". All these orders are changing extremely rapidly for any popular item, so using limits makes sure you get the execution you want.

The limit does not set the price that your order will execute at, but the limit. It'll match at or better than the limit you set. So you never end up paying more than you're OK with, but you prevent getting burned by sudden movements. This is much more important on these cryptocurrency exchanges than traditional stocks.

Yes that's the only sensible choice if you want to minimise suffering. Maybe in the future we'll have benevolent AI. Without that, it looks like we increase a ton of suffering.

If your goal is to minimise suffering, that's the only humane choice, barring friendly AI coming online.

Huh? Just set your limit to 105 or 200 or 10500. There's no reason to ever use a market order unless there's some other severe limitation on limit orders in a particular implementation.

This is negative utilitarianism, right? For instance, if you could press a button and wipe out humanity without (much) suffering, would you do it? Personally I'd have a quick reminisce then all slam it.

But practically, this isn't an option (yet). Nor is voluntary extinction. The people susceptible to this message or any such message (better for environment; your group of people is bad and shouldn't continue; life is more fun without kids) are more likely to be the kind of people that would contribute to a positive next generation.

The bulk of growth that'll receive and cause suffering is from people that won't ever listen or heed such a message. Hence anti natalism will only increase suffering in the world.

Why would anyone ever want to use a market order versus a limit? In any exchange, for any kind of trading? If you're really ok with e.g. selling for 0.01, set that as your limit.

Input Method Editors, for other language input.

I'm honestly curious in why you think it's likely there are no genetic differences. Everyone accepts physical attributes, most people accept the brain is responsible for consciousness and personality and is a physical object.

Would it not be completey bizarre if there were zero differences in the one most complex organ we do not understand?

Would you argue that no group of people are taller? Or could run faster? Or perhaps have varying levels of visual acuity? What would cause such differences to suddenly just completely stop because it's related to the brain?

http://m.pnas.org/content/106/7/2118.abstract

If Ubuntu started shipping on a lot of devices, the HP and other OEMs would start shipping value-adds from third parties as well. The title of this thread is "HP installs system-slowing spyware on its PCs". This by no means would be Windows-specific if HP shipped any serious quantity of consumer Ubuntu boxes.

This is incorrect. Every time I click the Unity button, the first icon is Amazon. No way to remove it that I can see. Just Launch. Please step me through clicking the top right Unity button to see all apps, then removing Amazon via the UI only.

The default in Ubuntu is to send crash reports: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Apport