Thorrez

It's a tech news site.

It might be the case that the designers of email and the designers of ATProto and the designers of AP all assumed the owner never changes. But I think the actual behavior of the protocols in the event of a change is different.

For email, if the owner changes, the new owner gets full control. This is nice for the new owner, but maybe not so for the old owner, because now any emails meant for the old owner can be read by the new owner.

For ATProto and AP, it sounds like in the event of an owner change, things kind of break. This protects the security of the old owner to some degree, but means the new owner can't really do much.

I think you meant to link to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y23nfAOiXQ

The study found that despite EVs being heavier, they produce less total tire and break dust. They produce more tire dust, but less break dust.

>EV's produce 38% less tire & brake dust than ICE vehicles.

>non-exhaust emissions on an ICE vehicle are roughly 1/3 brake dust, 1/3 tire dust and 1/3 road dust. EV's have almost no impact on road dust, 83% lest brake dust and 20% more tire dust.

https://electrek.co/2025/05/27/another-way-electric-cars-cle...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46219820

I have little RFID cards from 2 charging companies that I can tap to their chargers to charge.

Also, many chargers support tapping a credit card on them to charge.

There are many cases where pure mathematics became useful later.

https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/dfw3by/is_there_any_e...

Is there a consensus among art historians about whether it's a work by Mondriaan or not? Christies seems to say it is: https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-6435483

The before/after box is not well designed. How am I supposed to tell which side is before and which side is after? They're apparently color-coded based on the color circles next to the labels, but the actual content doesn't seem to have anything matching that color code, so I can't tell which label goes with which side.

I'm not saying we should say the company is overall good. Just that the decision to backtrack was good.

Similarly, we wouldn't say that Anon is overall upstanding, just that the decision to not rob that bank was good.

My point is that we should treat the company better if it backtracks. And similarly we should treat Anon better if he doesn't rob the bank. It doesn't make sense to give Anon the exact same punishment whether he robs the bank or not. If we do that, he has no incentive not to rob the bank. "If I'm going to jail either way, I might as well actually rob the bank."

>They should improve because it's the decent thing to do. By doing the decent thing, the praise would have been tenfold, which is the best incentive.

Those 2 sentences don't really align well. Should they be motivated by the tenfold praise? Or should they be motivated by doing the decent thing? If they should be motivated by doing the decent thing, why mention tenfold praise?

>Rewarding them for "reluctantly" improving won't change their bad behavior.

I don't see why not. They see that good behavior gives a better outcome. They'll do good behavior in the future.

The massive amount of bad publicity on the initial bad decision is a disincentive to not make bad decisions in the future.

The medium amount of good publicity on the course correction good decision is an incentive to make good decisions in the future, both initial good decisions and course correction good decisions.

TOTP is not SOTA 2FA. WebAuthn is SOTA 2FA. TOTP can be phished. WebAuthn cannot.

Even if they don't want to improve, and just do it reluctantly, it's best to reward them for doing something good, because otherwise they'll have no incentive to do something good in the future.

> // translate will replace all instances; only need to run it once

That comment is not helpful, because it's wrong. The translate() function just is some sort of lookup. It doesn't replace anything. It's the stringToReplace.replace() call that replaces all instances.

Doesn't work with a lot of subreddits though, which ban posting links to your own site.

What if multiple people discover the same vulnerability. What do you do?

Do you pay out to all of them? Do you make them sign an NDA without guaranteeing you'll pay them? Do you tell the 2nd etc discoverers to go away and hope they don't reveal it?

If you pay out to all of them, there's a strong incentive to leak info and collect multiple bounties for the same vulnerability.

Fixed table formatting:

    City   | Median Wage | Median House Price | Ratio
    SF     | 104k        | $1.5m              | 14.42
    London |  67k        | $890k              | 13.28
    LA     |  73k        | $1.1m              | 15.07

Isn't that basically what Ghostty is doing also?

Ownership of digital files is a murky domain.

When you say you have the rights to it, you might only have the right to read it, not to give it to anyone else. What was the license text when you bought it?

Sorry, I don't understand. You're comparing 2 things. For the 2nd thing, are you including the cost of later recapture or not?

If you're not including the cost of later recapture, then it's not a fair comparison.

If you are including the cost of later recapture, why is it cheaper to recapture later than to do so immediately?

MAME emulates both CPUs?

So that means there are 2 ways to crack it. Emulate both CPUs, or rewrite the code from the sub CPU to work on the main CPU.

I wonder what percent of appointments are cancelled by that system. And I wonder what percent of appointments are no-shows now, vs before the system was implemented. It's possible the system provided an improvement.

There is definitely room for improvement though. My dentist sends a text message a couple days before, and requires me to reply yes to it or they'll cancel my appointment. A text message is better than a call.

Yeah, I wonder why parked domains are included. Are there not at least 1 million actual websites?

Viasat is still doing it.

Good point that more miles driven might increase both accidents and premiums and thus increase insurance company profit.

However, how many more miles will they drive? Double? If there's a 90% reduction in accidents as KellyCriterion alluded to, then the total number of accidents will still go down. That means total premiums will go down, and total profit will go down.

Insurance companies aren't a monopoly. They're in competition with each other to offer lower rates. So if there's a reduction in paying out, they'll need to reduce their premiums to stay competitive with each other.

That 1st link is the CA government, not an insurance company. Also, it doesn't seem to be a regulation requiring people to do something. It's something people can optionally do, and if so, get a discount on insurance. That's not insurance companies pushing for regulation, it's insurance companies offering a competitive price to both high-risk and low-risk houses, similar to how car insurance companies base their rate based on how risky of a driver they estimate the person to be.

But fire insurance is different from auto insurance. Insurance companies want uncorrelated risk. Insurance companies want a high rate of car crashes, but the exact same rate of car crashes each year, because that makes planning easy. If there's a risk that in a some years way more crashes will happen than other years, that's correlated risk and makes planning difficult; they don't want that.

For cars, there's not much correlated risk. For fire insurance, there is correlated risk due to wildfires. So to reduce correlated risk, insurance companies do likely want to reduce wildfires, while still wanting to increase non-wildfire fires.

Self-driving cars will increase correlated risk, because there could be some software update with a bug that's pushed out and causes a ton of crashes. (That risk does also exist with cars today, due to the various software in cars, but self driving increases the risk.)

The 2nd link is an insurance company, but it as well doesn't seem to be advocating for regulation.

I believe in CA, the reason for pulling out is that CA limits the amount the companies can increase premiums[1]. So less crashes is one way to bring them back. Allowing them to increase premiums more is another way to bring them back.

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1c7lm5b/...

>If you are today a big insurance like Munich Re, and you see already today that self-driving produces already much less accidents (90% or so I read days ago?), and the tech is really new & "not 100% reliable" and you believe that this tech will be rolled out - one day you will start lobbying politicans that manual driving needs to be forbidden, except some rare cases.

Why would insurance companies lobby for that? 90% reduction in accidents means 90% reduction in premiums, which means 90% reduction in profits.

Do insurance companies have a history of lobbying for safety regulations?