Strom

Valve is not a public company and Gabe Newell seems pretty happy with Valve. I can't really see him wanting an exit.

Force push works just fine for changing timestamps.

It's really easy to detect whether the word was used. It's orders of magnitude harder to determine intent. I think it's just a case of optimization. The anti-worders view that they have so many people to correct that it's just not feasible to figure out intent. Better to just slam everyone and move on to the next target.

It's definitely not a just strategy, but it might actually be a fairly effective one.

> Is it? Because your reply is again filled with pathos, tribalism and narrativization.

I refute these.

Where is the pathos? There certainly wasn't any intent of emotional appeal, I never do that. Would be good to know which part of my comment triggered an emotional response.

What tribalism? Mentioning that HN has better commentators or mentioning that pro-vax tribes exist? Please do let me know, what part of my comment constitutes tribalism.

As for narrativization, well this is a HN comment not an Excel sheet. All comments here are narratives, including yours. So not sure what to make of that. Seems like a red herring.

> people who mistake infotainment for science. There is no attention paid to the actual claims

More than anything, this is what I generally promote - focus on the actual claims. I personally try really hard to ignore someone's character and address their core points instead. I think this is generally a good principle. Although it can be exhausting on random non-HN internet discussion boards, where nuanced replies and principle of charity are drowned by zero effort parroting.

That is unfortunately a common theme with most reporting I've seen of this drama. The stories contain vague statements like "misinformation about covid" but no actual claims are pointed out and then refuted. It's like these outlets are so afraid of this misinformation that they think even mentioning these claims would be harmful. The less charitable interpretation would of course be that most outlet reporters haven't even watched the podcast.

> there is an exclusive focus on individual personalities, appeals to authority and storytelling

This is a strategy heavily promoted by pro-vax tribes. Don't listen to random influencers, listen to doctors. It's also something that has been used heavily against Joe Rogan. Criticism that he has non-experts on the show talking outside of their expertise. Now when Joe Rogan got an actual MD on his show, whose life work has extreme relevance to covid - well the appeal to authority story has suddenly vanished. Most coverage of this drama doesn't list Malone's achievements at all, probably because then they couldn't get away with just handwaving away what he says. Most stories focus on Joe Rogan personally, as if he's the one making the statements.

> So is Malone right [? ...] Do you personally believe these things?

He's probably right about some things like corners being cut against protocol with the Pfizer approval. He's probably wrong about vaccines making infections worse. However I don't really have strong opinions on the points Malone is making. I'm participating in this discussion because of the bigger picture.

What I take issue with is the manufactured and/or sloppy coverage of this. Malone's achievements shouldn't be pushed under the rug. His expertise shouldn't be hidden. If he has gone crazy in old age, so be it. However that case should then be made in strength. Instead the narrative is that Joe Rogan spreads misinformation and Malone is just another garden variety conspiracy nut.

> Why can you safely assume that?

Based on his achievements. His achievements are extremely rare. Even most MDs (medical doctors) don't have groundbreaking research to their name, doubly so on specifically the topic they're discussing.

> more interested in what his equally credentialled peers are saying, which is that he's full of shit.

That interests me the most too. Unfortunately all the coverage I've seen thus far doesn't have any takes by equally credentialled peers - that is peers who have spent decades researching mRNA. Most coverage doesn't even have takes by MDs, nevermind equally credentialled.

React with TypeScript. Very popular and unlike Go's templates has proper type checking.

From my observations most people don't even know that Malone was on the show. Most criticism that I've seen during this latest drama is targeted directly at Joe Rogan himself. It very much feels like a bandwagon against "bro science", even if wildly misjudged.

> why do you think some people trust celebrities like Rogan over a medical expert like Fauci or, literally, the creators of vaccines?

You seem to be somewhat misinformed. It's not what Joe Rogan says that is under fire, it's what his guests say. Rogan mostly says stuff like "wow" and lets his guests speak.

To make things even more interesting, this latest drama is because he had Robert Malone [1] as a guest on his show. Malone is not just a doctor, but he is also a scientist responsible for the early work on making mRNA vaccines possible. That's what's extra crazy about all of this. It's not even some random comedian talking out of his comfort zone. The guest is one of the most informed people about mRNA in the world. The guy literally made his career on mRNA. Yet what he says does not align with the most widely propagated take, so he must be silenced.

I personally don't know enough about mRNA to have a say, but what I can safely assume is that Malone knows more about mRNA than most people who are saying he is wrong.

--

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Malone

PS. Another great HN comment about this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30219457

I'm pretty sure the date shown in admin.google.com is incorrect. For me it also shows March 2013, but in reality I've had it since 2010 - and I've got e-mails still in my inbox to prove it.

The more disturbing part is that I, like you, haven't received any notice from Google themselves.

I haven’t verified this myself, but I’ve seen a bunch of people on reddit claim success with the following combo:

* Movies and TV player

* HEVC extension

* Dolby Access app

* Dolby Vision extension

Additionally Dolby Vision works on Windows with a few big budget games. Thus the pipeline exists and can be used. It’s just obscured by proprietary secrets.

There’s good recent progress in that Matroska (mkv) can now contain Dolby Vision metadata. There’s also progress with public tools that can process some of this metadata and convert between Dolby Vision profiles, say from profile 5 (hardcoded bitstream) to profile 8 (enhancement bitstream) so that you can have HDR10 fallback for scenarios where Dolby Vision won’t work.

Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be any PC playback progress yet. However in addition to the Nvidia Shield there are Chinese devices like the Zidoo Z9X [1] which show that the work can be done. The PC space is still waiting for a champion though.

—-

[1] https://www.zidoo.tv/Product/index/model/Z9X/target/VEMg6VRC...

The US also has a lot of debt. Thus debt does not seem like a valid counter-signal here.

Your point about the visual keyboard is important. As long as they have a repeatable 1 bit worth of output, you can extract any number of bytes. You can have a keyboard where they can see it, move your finger from one letter to the next, and then when they do their 1 bit of output (e.g. blink) that locks in the letter. For the film lovers out there, there's a great dramatization of this in the 2007 French movie The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. [1]

--

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0401383/

> is there really fast enough implementations available to the browser

Browsers have pretty good support for surfacing native code SHA family hash functions which you can use to speed up PBKDF2. It's called the Web Crypto API and it's available even in Internet Explorer 11. [1]

If you're willing to drop support for IE11 and 10+ year old phones like the iPhone 4S, then you get access to WebAssembly. With WASM you can get a bunch of custom algorithms to be quite fast. The Argon2 browser WASM library claims to be only about 10x slower than optimized native code. [2]

It's not perfect, but it isn't as bad as it used to be with just pure JavaScript.

--

[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Crypto_...

[2] https://github.com/antelle/argon2-browser

That was the main giveaway for me too. Sure there are lots of technical things that give it away, but this man couldn't act to save his life. When he first reached the tree with his parachute, I couldn't help but burst out laughing at his "anger".

OG refers to precedence due to age. It also tends to correlate with short names, but that's just because people like short names - and so short names are registered earlier and thus are older.

> You might as well be using Facebook at the point.

There is a lot of illegal activity being organized on Facebook too. Especially in non-English. In the short term and at scale, that is as good as encryption.

I think there are two fundamental issues that need some addressing:

1) Either the decentralized software system can't easily be updated without true consensus - which will make it slow and cumbersome (like bitcoin) or there will be a central authority that can just change the rules at any point - which will make it centralized (like Ethereum Classic vs Ethereum fork). Every web 3.0 related tech that I've peeked at looks to be like the latter - it claims to be decentralized, but is actually controlled by some central authority that is authoring the whole thing.

2) Governments aren't going to stop enforcing laws just because the activity moves onto a blockchain. Governments will most likely be slow to react, sure - but ultimately all these decentralized encrypted bits flow through a cable that the government can just cut. Wireless signals aren't an answer either, because the signal can be located and the antenna owner introduced to a wrench. A lot of web 3.0 promises that I've seen seem to either implicitly or even explicitly promise freedom from government policy, which I think is naive at best.

I'm sure it could be used, however that would probably be a similar problem. Microsoft has internal libraries with all sorts of licenses. Replacing the actual licenses with a template wouldn't be the correct move there either.

How is it not intentional? To me it seems very clear that someone designed this bot to specifically alter the LICENSE file so that it matches some sort of predefind Microsoft file.

Edit: To give a bit more nuance, I would guess that the actual bot changing the LICENSE files is not a mistake, but working as intended. What could, however, be a mistake is thinking that licenses can be legally overwritten. It wouldn't be a "rogue engineer" kind of mistake. Certainly several people at Microsoft have signed off on this.

I've also read this book, but unfortunately I found that whenever the authors talk about things beyond their immediate research - it gets bad.

The good parts are the descriptions of their research and discussion of the findings as far as it directly interacts with their research. Fortunately you don't have to read the whole book to get to the good parts. There is a 40 minute presentation/talk on YouTube that covers the good parts. [1] This talk is what originally got me to read the book.

The bad parts are where the authors take their AI algorithm quirks and jump to insane conclusions, going as far as to claim that setting goals for your own life is a bad idea. The fundamental misstep that the authors take is that they conflate goals with measurement of goals. They keep giving examples of naive ways one could measure progress towards goals - basically the functions they write for their AI program. These functions suck. Instead of just admiting that the functions they wrote suck, the authors conclude that one shouldn't have goals at all, because they couldn't come up with a good way to measure progress.

--

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXQPL9GooyI

> "adversity builds character" type of advice is a backwards rationalisation at its purest. no, adversity does not build character but merely reveals it

This seems like the classic fixed vs growth mindset situation. There are those who think that we are born with all our capability and then there are those who think that we can gain new capabilities through experience.

If you're truly set on believing that everyone is static, then fine. However if you have some curiosity, then a pretty good gentle introduction to growth mindset can be seen in this short 10 minute summary of an RSA talk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl9TVbAal5s

The problem with web apps is that the user doesn't really have any control over updates. With a regular app you can verify a version and stick to it. The web version can change at any point with no notice.

Additionally, a regular app can be signed by a key from the developers that you can verify. With a web app you don't even know if it comes from the developers or if you're being MITM-ed because someone managed to get a SSL certificate for your domain. The certificate isn't the only angle of attack either, your CDN or hosting provider might be hacked. Yes the CDN that hosts the regular app can also be hacked, but that will only work against brand new users, because existing users can already know the signing key and the hacked binary won't have the correct signature.

I've done the same for more than a decade now. It's pretty nice indeed, especially the sleep without an alarm.

I've also found that just directly making myself happy, by following urges and wishes, is a local maxima. I get a lot higher peaks of happiness by helping others. Thus a great factor in improving my overall happiness has been spending a bunch of that freed up time on altruistic work. Usually unpaid, just wanting to help others with those same skills that allow me to spend so little time working on my career.

You need to think more outside the box. Think more cut costs than be rich. Costs can be cut radically, you can just move to the middle of nowhere and work remotely. Of course everyone's situation is different in regards to where their friends & family are located etc, but the point is that there are a lot more options beyond just being rich.

> turns out the same values take different actual effect depending on the type of source you identify it as and "PC" is not what you want

That is a subtle pitfall indeed. LG also has this, where you can configure the icon (a small image) of your HDMI inputs in the UI. Turns out changing the icon to a PC will also change the signal processing algorithms.

As with any tech, you can't trust marketing if you plan on pushing it to the limit. You need to either test it yourself, or in some rare cases there are reviewers who have already tested it. Most "reviews" for tech are extremely superficial though and certainly won't be testing HDMI inner workings.

For HDMI 2.1, there are a bunch of monitors being sold under that banner that don't have the full 48 Gbps bandwidth. For example the Gigabyte M28U is limited to half of that at 24 Gbps. [1] Gigabyte certainly doesn't want you to know this. On their specificaion page they just list it as HDMI 2.1. [2]

Similar nonsense was going on during the transition from HDMI 1.4 to 2.0. I really wanted HDMI 2.0 output on my laptop and held off on a purchase until that was possible. I finally bought an ASUS Zephyrus GX501 laptop. It has a Nvidia GTX 1080, which does support HDMI 2.0 output. The marketing for this laptop also seems to suggest that they're utillizing this potential, with claims like "You can also run a large ROG gaming monitor with NVIDIA G-SYNC™ via DisplayPort™ over Type-C™ USB or use HDMI 2.0 to connect 4K TVs at 60Hz." [3] The specification page mentions the HDMI 2.0 port. [4] However in reality I found out that this HDMI 2.0 port is limited to HDMI 1.4 bandwidth. It supports HDMI 2.0 features like HDR, but not the bandwidth. 4K @ 60Hz is possible only with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling and you're limited to 8 bits, so no HDR.

I'm not the only one who found this out either. There are plenty of others on the ASUS forums. [5] Hard to say whether this was intentional misleading by ASUS marketing, or whether engineering messed up, or whether the feature ended up being cut due to time constraints. In any case, they still haven't adjusted the old marketing pages for this laptop that never shipped with HDMI 2.0 bandwidth.

Reviewers don't tend to check things like this either. For example The Verge reviwed this laptop [6] and wrote: "Asus has a nice array of ports on the Zephyrus — four traditional USB 3.0 ports, a Thunderbolt 3 USB Type-C port, HDMI, and a headphone jack." They're just regurgitating the marketing material. There's no depth to it, the claims aren't verified. So people end up buying the product and then get confused why it isn't working.

--

[1] https://www.rtings.com/monitor/discussions/q-D1CBeE2EiGMYgn/...

[2] https://www.gigabyte.com/Monitor/M28U/sp#sp

[3] https://rog.asus.com/laptops/rog-zephyrus/rog-zephyrus-gx501...

[4] https://rog.asus.com/laptops/rog-zephyrus/rog-zephyrus-gx501...

[5] https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?96916-GX501-Zephyr...

[6] https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/25/16201656/asus-rog-zephyru...

> What are these people even getting out of it? Is it just having their name on a board somewhere?

Based on my observations (during 20k+ hours of playtime in multiplayer games), I don't think a leaderboard is even necessary. It often seems to be more about asserting dominance. Very simple and very primal. No deep thoughts, just imposing your will over others. It's satisfying. [1]

--

[1] Of course there's a spectrum of reasons one might have to cheat. Some might be temporary cheaters who are just curious about the possibilities, others might be aiming for a specific prize in a contest. With the dominance angle I'm characterizing a certain kind of obsessive regular cheater.

Now when you say want to play the game, do you mean getting instantly killed on spawn by cheaters?

More specifically, given that you want the game to be playable without anti-cheat, do you imagine that the cheaters will just agree not to cheat?

I think it's pretty clear that the choice in popular games is between a strong anti-cheat vs a strong cheat. For some types of games a lot can be enforced by the server (think chess), but for other types of games it is just inevitable that there is an arms race at the point of input. Nevermind rootkits, soon enough we'll have mandatory webcams monitoring that you're actually physically moving your mouse in a way that matches the signal coming out of your mouse.