dataflow

> If the defendant can force a jury trial for a misdemeanor, which is in fact quite costly for prosecutors, then the response is to raise the stakes with felony charges.

I'm not quite understanding this. What is there to be gained by raising the stakes? Doesn't it make defendants even more determined to seek justice?

Can the DA's past history be used as evidence in future cases to show they're not credible?

> That’s like blaming white hat security researchers that want to be paid for finding vulnerabilities, for all the bugs that have been found.

Last I checked, white hat security researchers weren't making their livings selling superhuman hacking tools to unknown entities as part of ~$1T businesses desperate to offload their shares onto the public before a potential bubble pop.

If you want to argue what they're doing is fine regardless, be my guest, but using this comparison as the justification is a little ridiculous.

Is there a curl command I can use to test if the vulnerability is fully patched on a server (not merely mitigated) without causing any harm?

Note I want it to work with the backports too, not just the latest version.

Is PHP 7 essentially going to be dead and unusable for everyone then? Or will it get fixes?

Got it, thank you!

If I have a PHP site that doesn't require uploads, how exactly do I disable enough of multipart/form-data POST handling in PHP to mitigate this?

> where the host hands them out and takes your phone as collateral

You got me curious... what kind of parties do you go to where everyone trusts everyone else with filming and the privacy around it, but the host doesn't trust guests to return the glasses?

> I see a lot of arguments that she was only doing “fake it till you make it” like every other startup from people who don’t understand what that phrases means (it means you present yourself as a bigger, more established company to overcome resistance to being a small startup, not that you literally fake that your product works)

Not disagreeing with the rest of your comment, but regarding this tangent: haven't there been a ton of (say) "AI" companies that quietly used humans in the background and gave the impression AI was doing the work, because their vision was that that was the future?

Not that I think that would excuse this case in any way regardless - just mentioning because of the drawn comparison.

> There is only one reason you can fail from that point: You're a complete social inept. A double PhD from Oxford will not save you if you can't hold a conversation.

I imagine for a lot of positions this is true, but surely not every position is like this? Like say, at an HFT firm/hedge fund/etc. -- if you can make people ridiculous amounts of money, they'd be insane to turn you away just because you're socially inept. They would just give you a room to do your thing solo and make everyone rich, no?

> Still, if you had the authorities to announce a product of large primes - whatever that means - how do you know they announced the correct primes and not something they made up?

Note, obviously I was not attempting to detail a cryptographic voting system here. My only point was that I don't see what you said as being obviously true, if it is true at all. For the purposes of that point, even an incorrect scheme that isn't trivially disprovable would prove my point.

That said, to answer your question as I think through the details right now...

- Authorities preassign N-digit primes to everybody, one per option on the ballot.

- Find a way to validate the total number of ballots cast in the election. (Assume for simplicity that every question has exactly one answer selected.) Exercise for the reader on how to do this; this ought to be easy. This is important to know how many digits to expect in the product(s).

- You "vote" by submitting the primes corresponding to the option you select, one per question.

- Authorities announce the products of primes corresponding to each option.

- If your prime isn't included in the product, then it's obviously trivial to prove it... you just reveal your number and show the result fails divisibility.

- If they included extra fake primes, then this is harder to prove, but I think you can catch this by looking at how many digits are in the result. I think you can make the error margin arbitrarily sharp by making all the primes lead with 10000000000..., for example, adding however many zeros you need to make sure a single fake number adds a detectable number of digits to the product.

This is just a sketch; fix & fill in details as appropriate. The biggest flaw I see right now is that it's susceptible to whatever eventual algorithm (quantum or otherwise) ends up breaking factoring and leaking everyone's votes. But otherwise, it sounds plausible to me, and there's probably another trapdoor function that can mitigate that better. And as mentioned initially, if you can't easily prove it's impossible to make it work, that's sufficient for my point, even if it is in fact wrong.

Usable similarly to how it was at the time of first sale?

Everyone is talking about the slaughter method in the other threads...

Anyway, even in that case, I can't make sense of this logic. You're expecting people to condone cruelty on their own front porches in the city that their government has full jurisdiction over until they tackle the cruelty of industrial agriculture in other jurisdictions? I guess they can't tackle homelessness in their neighborhood either until they feed and shelter the children in Africa? Otherwise they're hypocrites?

> If you think about it for a second, the requirements of a secret ballot (meaning it's not possible to know who voted who) and the fully verifiability you are asking for are mutually exclusive.

I might be missing something obvious but I'm not quite seeing the logical inconsistency between their two goals. Note they're only asking to verify their own vote, not to verify every other person's vote. For that, isn't it enough for authorities to announce a product of large primes, letting each person verify that their own prime was in the set? At each stage, the machines only report the product of primes up the chain, not the individual ones.

It seems to me the difficulty is with the fact that we have so many places to hide malicious things with modern technology (tiny electronics, firmware, etc.), not a logical incompatibility between the goals. If you had some sort of abacus that did all this mechanically without reprogrammability... or a large computer whose logic was fully verifiable... then everyone could inspect the machine and verify that it behaves correctly prior to elections, and e.g. a camera/observers/etc. can ensure no tampering occurred with the machine until the tallies were conducted.

Anybody know how MSVC plans to implement this, given their __forceinline still doesn't inline in debug mode?

There's nothing strange about this. You're just failing to recognize the obvious.

Would you seriously have the heart to, say, kick, injure, and torture a calf or lamb that you know was heading for slaughter and was going to end up on your plate?

Do you also fail to see why people ban torture despite still permitting killing in circumstances like capital punishment or war or self-defense or whatever? Would you be okay with getting tortured during your life if you were sentenced to death?

Just because society blessed your excuse to kill a living being, that doesn't make it strange or illogical to oppose your cruelty or their torture during their life. I'm not even taking a position here; this is so obviously not hard to comprehend. If you're looking to point out hypocrisy, this is not an example of it.

Fascinating, thanks. Sounds to like they must not have tried hard enough if that's the case. Surely they could enforce it through audits/inspections/fines/etc. if they really wanted to?

I would say that's not common but in fact I don't think I've ever seen both push() & pop() be used to refer to those operations on FIFO queues in any language. (And LIFO is a stack, the exact opposite of a queue.)

The terminology I've seen people use for FIFO instead is enqueue() and dequeue(). Or push_front(), pop_back(). Etc.

Why can't they pass legislation to get the horses treated better instead of banning them?

Well you can't legally penalize someone complying with the letter of the law, so the law just needs to be tight.

I wonder how many companies are going to trivially get around this by connecting you to an operator that makes you wait to be connected to the other department because they can't handle anything and only route calls.

How does the average customer even get a hold of a human in the first place? The bots are so aggressively unwilling to connect you that I sometimes fail.

The bit about contracts not being input valuation is no different than the case for assertions. It's basically saying that if assertions were inappropriate, so are contracts. So if you find that like blurry, the blurriness predates contracts.

That said, the distinction is generally pretty clear: an assertion failure (and therefore a contract failure) indicates a bug. It must never happen, and therefore it must always be OK to suppress the validation. If you see it fire, that's a bug report, and your code needs fixing. And if your contract to the caller is that you will enforce some constraint on them (as opposed to assuming they already took care of ensuring it), then you need the validation in your runtime code.

It's not even clear what happens with Google Password Manager. It might go into your Google account or your local device. I somehow ended up with a mix of both.

What is Word used for (or who uses it) nowadays? I don't remember the last time I typed anything on it.

You exclude the CEO from this?

Any idea what sort of percentage the sentence

> supported by a clear plurality of respondents

was referring to?

> No point staying alive if you're not healthy.

Maybe not for you, but others would beg to differ?

Darwin apparently had debilitating illnesses at 72 (one year before his death) when he published a book on earthworms and their role in forming soil. And Pasteur was apparently paralyzed at 63 when he developed the rabies vaccine. Etc.

Should they have just kicked the bucket when they lost their health, because of the pointlessness of living past that?

> Publicly funded maths research should continue, even if some taxpayers feel it's a waste of money.

Note, I think the debate is mainly over what research should be funded, not whether any research should be funded.

ACH? Like, real-time ACH takes money out of your bank account on a holiday weekend at midnight? Or delayed ACH delayed to working bank days with the hope that you have the balance at that point?

Or do you mean debit cards?