amalcon

Absolutely. The Quebec secessionist movement is relatively much older and much stronger than the Alberta one, but they are not natural allies of the Trumpists. Or at least that's my understanding, as someone who's not Canadian but has some family there.

I don't remember people thinking HW Bush was dumb. Or McCain, or Romney, or Ryan, or McConnell, or even someone like Gingrich. Quayle, Palin, W Bush (very incorrectly, dude was wrong and/or lying about a lot of stuff but he wasn't dumb), and Trump, sure.

The thing those people have in common is that they have unorthodox public speaking styles. Especially Trump. It's kind of a pro wrestling adjacent style -- lots of performative bombast, specific tropes referencing cultural touchstones, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind on any substantive issue. I'm just trying to put myself into a particular box in the viewer's mind. It can be effective, but when it's not, it comes off as buffoonish.

Some of these video codecs have pathological cases that might be maxing out your video while doing the decoding. If you're only using it as a media server, that might exceed the (possibly age-degraded) capacity of your power supply. Replacing the power supply might help in that case.

It's also possible that something in a particular frame is triggering a bug in your driver and crashing that way. In that case, your best bet might be to transcode the video to a different codec or something.

Maybe your particular video download is from an entirely trustworthy source, but it's not unheard of that untrustworthy folks will modify a file with the intent of causing this to happen.

I don't think it's that independents in general are embarrassed republicans, but that independents who constantly talk about being independents are embarrassed republicans. I know some independents who are to the left of democrats on most things (Sanders types), for example.

I've always found it interesting that these tech infra companies' stock tends to rise in the immediate aftermath of these outages. My best guess is that people see the effect of the outage and say "Hey, this company I've never heard of sure seems to have a lot of customers!"

To be fair I've benefited from that in the past; this is an observation of my own that doesn't represent the views of any of my current or former employers.

I mean, sure. The problem is that ignoring Republican agency is seemingly incubated by both parties' philosophies (such as they are). It's a common "conservative" vice to blame problems on those you identify less with (right now, Democrats). It's a common "liberal" vice to put the onus to fix a problem on those you identify more with (also Democrats). Therefore, most people's solution to any given problem involves putting pressure on Democrats. Putting pressure on Republicans "doesn't help", either because they have nothing to do with the problem or because they obviously will never fix it.

Part of me thinks this is fundamental to the human condition, but most of me thinks it isn't. This doesn't seem to have happened in the FDR era, or the Nixon era, for example. I think it's just fallout from the post-Reagan coalitions in the US political system.

Others responding to my speech by exercising their own rights to free speech and free association as individuals does not violate my right to free speech. One can make an argument that corporations doing those things (e.g. your Play Store example) is sufficiently different in kind to individuals doing it -- and a lot of people would even agree with that argument! It does, however, run afoul of current first amendment jurisprudence.

Either way, this is categorically different from China's policies on e.g. Tibet, which is a centrally driven censorship decision whose goal is to suppress factual information.

This is a failure of imagination. There are plenty of things that are more unjust than that.

This argument has always seemed odd to me. The 17th amendment first took effect in 1915, and the whole Senate had been directly elected by 1919. Are we really going to claim that the late 1910's are when things really went off the rails? For example, to your specific point here, it seems unlikely that this made amending the Constitution harder. Excluding the Bill of Rights and the 27th Amendment (each a special case for its own reason), there have actually been more amendments in the fewer years after the 17th was enacted.

It's also unclear why one would expect that the Senate would be less partisan if its membership were selected by state legislatures. State legislators have a lot more partisan loyalty than the rest of us, both because they tend to be more ideological and because they are deeply dependent on the party for future career prospects.

It doesn't really matter if they're doing that for this purpose, though. Cloudflare (or any other AS) has no fine control of where your packets to their anycast IPs will actually go. A given server's response packets will only go to one of their PoPs. It's just that which one will depend on server location and network configuration (and could change at any time). Even if multiple of their PoPs tried to fetch forward from the same server, all but one would be unable to maintain a TCP connection without tunneling shenanigans.

Tunneling shenanigans are fine for ACKs, but it's inefficient and therefore pretty unlikely that they are doing this for ingress object traffic.

I used to have so much trouble with pants (I need 30-34 in inches, 86.4cm long and about 76cm waist). No store had that size. I once got to the point where I considered leaning into my Scottish heritage and just wearing a kilt.

The internet has alleviated that for me, but if it hasn't for you -- look for pants with a large hem, and learn some basic sewing skills. It's occasionally possible to add an inch or more of length with the right pair.

Well, it can be annoying to limit oneself to a smaller under-seat bag. Taking the bigger bag out during the flight uses up even more of the available space. I've generally got nowhere to put it except behind my legs (which cramps things a lot): on my lap doesn't work if I want to actually use anything in that bag.

It's easier to just pack my laptop (plus anything I might use during the flight) in my overhead bin carry-on. It's a real pain to actually get anything out of there, but a paperback book or ebook reader will fit in a coat pocket or small handbag -- and that's all I truly need on the plane. Plus, the airline won't be able to force you to check your overhead carry-on that way since the laptop has lithium batteries in it.

Yes, it's usually called "premium economy" or something like that. I was resistant for a long time, but eventually decided that being able to walk the next day without pain was worth the extra cost. That said, they tend to fill up quickly -- so not always an option.

Those few degrees matter if your knees are already brushing the back of the seat in front of you. It matters how tall you are, how much of that is in your legs, how big your feet are (the more you need to bend your knees, the higher they will be), and it also varies depending on seat design and layout.

For others like me, one trick is to at most minimally use the under seat storage: small handbags only. No backpacks, briefcases, or anything else big enough to hold a laptop. Then, you can put your feet in that space. This lowers my knees by 1-2 inches depending on the plane, which really matters. It's the only thing that helps significantly, aside from paying for premium economy. Doesn't help with the claustrophobia, but there's not much to be done about that.

The other things I've tried (that don't reliably work) are leaning forward from the seat back (to pull my knees back) and slouching slightly (so that the inevitable recline compresses the seat back into my knees rather than bashing them). The former saves my knees, but sacrifices my back. The latter kind of helps during the flight, but walking will still hurt the next day.

The physical requirements are an issue for a lot of people. E.g. a tall senior citizen, anyone flying with a small child, anyone with a visible disability (temporary or otherwise).

To be fair -- there are a lot of people in the southern US who do the same thing to various demographics that HN users are likely to belong to. You can actually see serving politicians do that on TV, and have been able to see that for a long time. Not everyone does it, but not everyone on HN does it either. Indiscriminately doing the same thing back isn't good, but that kind of ugly seems to just be human nature.

Basically anyone with access to Wikipedia can design and build a nuclear bomb given raw materials. Not to go into too much detail (both because I'm not really an expert and because it's a dangerous activity even without involving uranium), but the Little Boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima was mechanically very simple. The one dropped on Nagasaki was a bit more complex (still within reach of a skilled machinist), and modern fusion bombs more complex still. Either way, all a relatively weak (but still city-killing) bomb takes is enough uranium-235 and access to a hardware store.

The hard part is getting a sufficient quantity of pure enough uranium-235 (or a few other materials, but that's the easiest one) to support a chain reaction. This is why there's been so little proliferation since the end of the cold war: it's not about the knowledge, it's about resources. Uranium mines and processing facilities aren't exactly subtle.

Saddam Hussein was also a brutal dictator; it didn't make the Iraq war a good thing.

I have had several things over the course of my career that:

1) I was (temporarily) the only one still at the company who knew why it was there

2) I only knew myself because I had reverse engineered it, because the person who put it there had left the company

Now, some of those things had indeed become unnecessary over time (and thus were removed). Some of them, however, have been important (and thus were documented). In aggregate, it's been well worth the effort to do that reverse engineering to classify things properly.

Or C) deploying machines to do almost all of it (developing said machines if necessary). Which is more likely to actually happen than either A or B, even though the current regime is making it difficult. It also won't create very many jobs.

The claim I think you're referring to is in two parts:

1) They were willing to sell DDoS protection to DDoS services

2) This decision was made specifically because the existence of DDoS services increased the value of their product

This was always a weird claim, because the first part is 100% true -- while the second part was always unfounded speculation. The conclusion is thus most likely false. They just didn't want to incorporate that sort of thing into their ToS or vet their customers in that way, for various understandable reasons.

You jest, but this actually does exist. Multiple CDNs sell multi-CDN load balancing (divide traffic between 2+ CDNs per variously-complicated specifications, with failover) as a value add feature, and IIRC there is at least one company for which this is the marquee feature. It's also relatively doable in-house as these things go.

It's also not exactly the least common way that this sort of huge multi-tenant service goes down. It's only as rare as it is because more or less all of them have had such outages in the past and built generic defenses (e.g. automated testing of customer changes, gradual rollout, automatic rollback, there are others but those are the ones that don't require any further explanation).

So-called "sanctuary cities" have made the judgement that their law enforcement apparatus will be more effective if people who fear immigration authorities are willing to interface with it. They can't and don't stop enforcement actions by federal authorities (see Chicago, right now) - but they view active cooperation with those efforts as detrimental to other law enforcement activities. You might disagree with that assessment, but it is a straightforward exercise of the municipal power to allocate its own resources.

Claiming that they are "there to shelter people who enter the country illegally" is disingenuous at best. In reality, that is neither the goal nor the effect.

The earth also doesn't care about national borders, so why are national numbers more useful in this regard?

That was very bad, but it was plausibly authorized by Congress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...).

There is no comparable authorization here. There is, to my knowledge, no allegation that these Venezuelans had anything to do with Al Qaida or the Sept. 11 attacks.

Before Trump, a lot fewer. There is a well known phenomenon of GOP governors in deep blue states (e.g. Christie in NJ, Schwarzenegger in CA, Baker in MA, Scott in VT). This is a lot rarer in deep red states. There are a lot more red states than blue ones, but it's still harder (not impossible) to find recent democratic governors of those states. Senators are a bit more proportional, mind you.

Trump has sort of killed this phenomenon - partly because his brand has rubbed off on other Republicans, and partly because they have been running more extreme candidates even in blue states. Before Trump, though, it was not even close.

Operation Warp Speed, the Abraham accords, and this new Gaza ceasefire have all met with near universal praise from the media. It's not the media's fault that the good things he does are so rare.

There are two separate issues that folks are getting tripped up on here. The first is that the most powerful AI systems do not do offline learning. There are a bunch of hard problems here: e.g. known unsupervised learning techniques have been far less successful, and inference only approaches cost effectiveness by decoupling from training. It seems plausible that we will solve some of these, though I don't know about others.

The way I have been thinking about the other bit is is that LLMs are functionally pretty similar to the linguistic parts of a brain attached to a brain stem (the harness is the brain stem). They don't have long-term memory, the capacity for inspiration, theory of mind, prioritization, etc because they just don't have analogues of the parts of the brain that do those things. We have a good sense of how to make some of those (e.g. vision), but not all.

The common ground here is that some fundamental research needs to happen. We need to solve all of these problems for AI to become independently dangerous. On the other hand, it's proving mildly dangerous in human hands right now - this is the immediate threat.

I've kept about 1/3 of my investments in a non-US index fund for years, basically as a hedge against some unforeseen event in the US (having 100% exposure to the economy that my job is in seemed suboptimal). In 2016, all that really changed was that the event was now foreseen -- my domestic investments still outperformed that portion until this year.

This year is the first time that fund outperformed the rest of my portfolio. Not massively, since I do have some holdings that benefited from the AI boom, but noticeably. Just adding 1 to n here. Thanks for reminding me to rebalance, and maybe find another non-AI-related hedge just in case.