claudius

Why would you run untrusted programs? And if you do, why are passwords so much more sensitive than your entire browsing history, all your emails and e.g. all your not-passphrase-protected SSH keys?

Well, either buy a car which doesn’t poison your neighbours or walk?

While individual donors and foundations may play some role or another, nearly all risky outliers with new ideas are funded by taxes, not random individuals. The number of private research institutes is extremely limited (in particular in Europe, slightly less so in the US). Once ideas are less risky to pursue, industry is very happy to adapt and fund them, but the initial kickstart is nearly always paid for by public money.

So you’re upset that your tax evasion scheme is now no longer possible and you have to pay taxes?

Kids under 7 cannot enter into contracts at all. Kids between 7 and 18 can enter into contracts, either if those contracts are entirely without duties to them (e.g. they can accept gifts) or if their contractual duties are somewhat negligible (e.g. they can buy sweets from their pocket money) or their guardians agreed to them being able to enter into such contracts. All other contracts are provisionally void (?!, "schwebend unwirksam"), i.e. can become void as soon as their guardians disagree with the contract or can become fully valid once their guardians agree.

Well, 'is' is singular so it can’t be the correct verb associated to 'sailing ships' if the latter means multiple sailing ships rather than the activity of sailing ships.

swot seems to be restricted to places of higher education, leaving out research institutes, such as the MPG association in Germany or the national labs in the US.

If you, however, want to get back to work as quickly as possible if one of your calculations erroneously uses too much memory, having swap will prolong the system-is-frozen period before the OOM killer solves the problem.

arxiv.org? I’m not sure they take individual donations, though.

> Breaking the equations means that they do not model correctly the real world

This is wrong. We already know that these equations do not model correctly the real world. No model correctly models the real world and every model breaks down eventually at one point or another. Showing that a certain set of equations leads to non-unique results under certain conditions means nothing, unless you also show that those ‘certain conditions’ are true in cases where we previously assumed the model to hold. If you only show that in cases where we previously also assumed the equations not to hold, they actually output nonsense, this may be a mathematically curious and nice result but of no physical relevance.

So far, this result looks more like realising that Newton’s gravitational field diverges for a point particle of nonzero mass, which is not really any indication whatsoever that it doesn’t correctly model the real world.

Not really. We know that the idea of a "fluid" has to break down eventually (at least due to finite particle sizes, possibly due to discretisations of space or whatever). An equation which describes "fluids" at sufficiently low resolution and breaks down once a resolution is reached where the idea of a "fluid" breaks down as well is then perfectly sufficient and, combined with the idea of a fluid, gives us as good model for reality.

Contrary to what the article claims here:

> the exact same fluid from the exact same starting conditions could end up in two distinct physical states, which makes no physical sense

it makes quite a lot of "physical sense" to get two possible outcomes out of one initial state, though we would not expect the Navier-Stokes equations to describe that situation.

The article is simply wrong in arguing that because we expect classical fluids to behave classically and because Navier-Stokes may break down in certain limits, NS may be a bad model. I actually struggle to put together a coherent sentence which comes close to what the article tries to say regarding the relation between "physical sense" and our expectations for the results of Navier-Stokes.

It was Starbucks’ wifi provider, selected by Starbucks and operating under Starbucks’ supervision. This is 100% on Starbucks, not on anyone else.

Tensor networks, as in the condensed matter theory sense - i.e. matrix product states, DMRG, time evolution, many different physical systems, some different tensor network topologies etc.

Unfortunately closed-source (though open for collaborations), otherwise there’d be a link here.

Postdoc in HPC/numerical physics here. Somewhat rarely for my field, my supervisor gave me a lot of freedom during my PhD to `do things properly’ (instead of pushing me to get things done yesterday). While I don’t have 100% test coverage in my (by now) 40k lines of C++, the overall design is sound, documentation exists and covers everything necessary, some tests exists and it is clear that the entire thing is very flexible and new things can quickly be implemented in it.

So far, this approach has paid of tremendously both for me as well as my supervisor, as the reuse value is quite high and performance very competitive, resulting in many projects both within the former chair and also with external collaborations.

They are cross-language though, something I (as a user) personally value much much more highly than a cross-platform package manager which also supports a bunch of random platforms which I don’t care about at all. For developers/software distributors, this may of course look very different.

Just moved the MUD I used to play in around 2007 to "my" server because the old one was crashed. Absolutely tiny playerbase, but the content is still there :)

Fair use applies to citations (not of the whole work), parodies and similar creative processes. Similar requirements in Germany include some creative input by the person claiming fair use which usually should exceed the creative content taken from the original work. Simply re-compiling the LaTeX source is certainly not creative work sufficient for a fair use exception. Checking the other limits of copyright law in e.g. Germany ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schranken_des_Urheberrechts ) nothing remotely applies to this site.

Could you clarify why you think that this site does not require a valid license to re-host and re-compile papers?

Thank you for your reply. Ideally I’d prefer for you to respect the license associated to each paper and only re-compile and re-host if the license actually allows you to do that (i.e. CC0, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA and maybe CC-BY-NC-SA, depending on whether you think you act commercially).

I also don’t want to keep tabs on every arXiv rehoster and inform them manually by e-mail every time a new paper goes up.

May I ask why this was not done together with the arXiv itself? I.e. have the infrastructure run there, let authors check the HTML render at the same time as the PDF render and then, if the author thinks they look ok, have them show directly on the abstracts page? This would even avoid all your license problems, as the arXiv already has the corresponding license!

Each arXiv paper has a well-defined license linked-to from the upper right hand corner "(license)" link below the PDF and source downloads. If they only re-hosted and re-compiled papers for which they have a license to do so, I wouldn’t complain at all, but re-hosting and modifying content without a valid license is clearly illegal, no?

I have to admit I am not impressed. My first paper, which I tried to render, does not work properly; references are removed and rendered poorly, figures are misplaced and tables incomplete. Given that not all arXiv papers are under a permissive license and you do not have permission to do this, I would much prefer if you at least made sure that arxiv-vanity rendered papers do not show up in search results, e.g. by offering a suitable robots.txt and with a bigger link to the author-endorsed version of the paper.

Edit to clarify: If people want to use or develop a broken sort-of-PDF viewer, that’s fine. However, if someone searches for a paper of mine, I would like them to only find the version where I at least had a chance to see that it renders correctly and is complete. In particular, I do not want to be "responsible" for broken rendering on random third-party websites. This website actually operating illegally does not make me more inclined to support it.

Hopefully it will stop people implementing their own date/time pickers which only allow changing that date/time by clicking up/down arrows. In particular the Munich transport website (mvg.de) is guilty of this and I absolutely hate it with a passion.

We could also have lots and lots of deformed and/or dead babies then. There’s a reason these regulations exist and are updated often to keep up with current best practices.

At least in Germany, most common cold remedies are not paid for by insurance companies but private people (since they have not been proven to work etc.). So insurance companies would only save the additional costs once the cold develops into something worse, which is relatively rare.

Ah, ok, thank you, that explains it a little bit at least! :)

That’s like saying that prior to introducing seatbelts, we should have allowed for a period of time to glue people to their seats because it is preferable to have a mitigation they can apply themselves than a fix the manufacturer has to put in.

If you don’t limit mitigation to "a config setting" (and why would you?!), a patch/new version is the best mitigation you can get.

Either there is a possibility for patches to be prepared during an embargo or there is “no client-side mitigation”, you can’t have both. From reading the rest of this thread, it appears that it is quite possible to patch this on clients such that, if you are using a patched client, you are safe. Disclosing earlier would have lead to more people having patched clients earlier and hence being safe.

The researcher’s lack of full disclosure may have lead to this vulnerability being discovered and exploited by other people.

Side remark: One twelfth of Mozilla’s annual revenue goes directly to its highest-paid employee? Talk about 10x programmer, that lady must be a genius.

It doesn’t really stifle innovation in any way?

The add-on could tell Mozilla which files to keep because it saved the decryption key for those files. Mozilla could then select those files to decrypt, e.g. to prove to authorities that its file-sharing service was not used for illicit purposes. Alternatively, the add-on could filter the IP addresses used to upload the files for potentially sensitive blocks and then tell Mozilla to decrypt the files uploaded by people from such blocks, e.g. in an attempt to engage in corporate espionage (of course one shouldn’t use third-party services for sensitive files in the first place, but if you have to use a third-party service, certainly an ‘open-source’, ‘private’ and ‘encrypted’ one from such a reputable company as Mozilla, right?)