deadbeeves

If the argument is "the data controlled by this company could be used by an incompetent judiciary system to punish innocent people, therefore this company shouldn't exist", then you should go live in the wilderness away from society, because there's any number of ways that the illegal actions of those around you could have you accused of a crime you didn't do. Personally, I prefer to recognize that I live with an imperfect system and gamble that I'm more likely to find stability and happiness in spite of that system than completely on my own.

Exactly, so I'll reiterate: if all you know is that setting A is opt-out and that user B has that setting turned on (i.e. in its default value), it's incorrect to say that the user has opted into the setting, because you don't even know if the user knows the setting exists, and one can't make a choice about something one doesn't know exists. The most you can say is that the user has not opted out of the setting.

That jury would have been equally swayed if the sample had come directly from me.

>pretty bold claim

I don't think so. How would that even work? It's not much different from framing someone of a crime just by knowing their blood type.

>we likely wouldn't hear very loudly the stories of innocent folks with cases mishandled by a law enforcement bureaus that were enabled by 23andme or similar services

Nah. Let's suppose that someone made a typo and Mr. Buttle is accused of committing the crime Mr. Tuttle, who deposited his genetic material, committed. While the Buttle-genome link is a useful piece of evidence, it's on the judge to request a saliva sample from Mr. Buttle to ensure a trustworthy source of information. If he doesn't, well, it sucks for Mr. Buttle that he got a lazy judge, but it's not on the company. The person who wrote down the name could not have known that information would at some later point be misused to lockup an innocent man.

I might be wrong, but I don't think a genetic sequencer is something that's easy to build in your garage without anyone knowing. So if loose hair is not PHI but the information that the owner of that hair has or not a genetic disorder is PHI, we could say that the PHI starts once the genome of a human is sequenced from a tissue sample. So, yes, anyone who has a genetic sequencer must have the same level of security as a doctor's office. That doesn't seem like a terrible requirement.

What a strange thing to say. If you committed a crime and the genetic information you gave to some company leaks, and someone is able to use that information to prove you're guilty, what sends you to jail is the fact that you committed that crime. The existence of this company and the leak enabled this particular way of proving you guilty, but you were still guilty, so you might have been successfully proven guilty by other means. But most importantly, you're guilty. You're going to jail because of your actions, and for no other reason. It's not like there's someone out there using this information to frame other people of crimes they didn't do.

That's a misuse of those terms. If you're presented with a switch that's in the the on position you don't switch it off, it's arguable that you've opted to leave it on. If you never realized the switch existed it would definitely be incorrect to say that you've opted to leave it off, since you can't make decisions about things you don't know exist. Yet, both cases would appear the same if all you know is which users had an opt-out setting in the in position.

This isn't an architecture, though. It's an instruction set.

What if the JIT generates new instructions dynamically and initially there are no AVX512 instructions but later on in the process' lifetime there are?

Well, but what if it doesn't? Also, who's supposed to set that bit? The programmer, or the compiler? In either case it's possible to set it wrong.

Because the binary might contain a JIT, or even more simply, it might load a DLL with new code.

In reply to your other comment that was flagged:

Well, the reason why the Holy Grail killer rabbit is funny is precisely because a rabbit could never jump onto a man's neck and nibble his head off. If killer rabbits were actually a serious yet somehow obscure danger, maybe you'd find it initially funny, but you'd find it much less funny once you've found out many people are losing loved one to the buck-toothed menace. If you hear two people in white robes talking about how they lost a patient to cancer earlier today and how devastated the family was, and you laugh when you find out they're talking about a cat, what does that make you?

When I'm aiming for elegance, I like to define NAND as an N-ary function:

nand() = false

nand(x, ...) = !(x && !nand(...))

That eliminates the problem of needing arbitrary constants.

I was thinking the same. Reading about von Neumann is humbling.

I don't think Einstein is overrated. The ideas he put forward were pretty out-of-the-box. von Neumann was for sure a more diverse thinker, but it's hard to argue that his contributions were more impactful than Einstein's.

I think you're missing my point. I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to give their incentives higher priority. They should be more tightly scrutinized so that their incentives don't matter.

Note that I didn't say that either didn't make sense or was grammatically incorrect, just that it sounds very strange.

I don't think your examples are that great, since you're listing requirements that "you" must meet to call for a ride, not things that disqualify "you" from calling for a ride. Also, using both "and" and "or" with lists of two items is common. Both "don't drink and drive" and "don't drink or drive" are plausible pieces of advice. "Twelve hours prior to the surgery don't drink, eat, and take any medicine" would be a very strange indication; it almost sounds like I'm being not to drink or eat, but to take any medicine of my choosing?

That's not a list of prohibitions, though. It's a single prohibition: drink and drive is the one thing you shouldn't do.

"Any" and "all" do have similar meanings, but you can't always simply replace "any" with "all" and retain the same meaning every time.

"From any floor, you can use the fire escape to reach the ground" -> "It is true at all floors that you can use the fire escape to reach the ground". In this case you can replace "any" with "all" without changing the meaning; hypothetically one could interpret that to mean that while occupying all floors simultaneously you can use the fire escape to reach the ground, but since that's impossible (unless there's only a single floor) no one would interpret that sentence that way.

"Ensure we have proper licensing for {any|all} software we depend upon". Again the meaning is preserved, because in this case "for all" is actually the more correct form. Every one will interpret "for any" correctly (as "for all"), but it could alternatively be interpreted to mean that you must have the license of at least one of said software.

"Press any key, 3 times." -> "It is true of all keys that you can pick it and press it three times. Do so for one." Obviously the meaning changes if you just replace "any" with "all". A more subtle nuance is whether you're being asked to [press three times] [any key] or to [press any key] [three times].

"Aim to dress for any weather" -> "It is true of all weathers that you should aim to dress for it". This is the same case as the second example, it should have been "all". Otherwise there's an ambiguity that could be interpreted to mean that you should aim to dress for an arbitrary weather of your choosing.

I would say that "any" when used in a declarative statement (such as your first example) means that the proposition is true for all members of the set under consideration. When used in an imperative statement (such as the other ones) sometimes will mean that you must apply the action to all members of the set, and sometimes that you're free to choose any subset and apply it to those. "Wash any dog" and "wash any dogs" and "for any dog, wash a cat" all mean different things.

Can you remember a single time in your personal life when someone has given a list of prohibitions joined by "and" instead of "or"?

The thing is, almost every time when people put negative conditions (that you must not meet in order to qualify for something else) every condition is disqualifying, and that idea is expressed with "or". Which of these sounds more natural to you?

"You can have some of my pie if you don't have eggs, sausages, and bacon."

"You can have some of my pie if you don't have eggs, sausages, or bacon."

To me the second one sounds more natural. The first one sounds very unusual. I can have pie only on the condition that I don't have all three things? Okay... It sounds so strange because no one ever says that. I can't see someone using "and" there if they didn't mean it, because it's such an unusual grammatical construction.

Are you saying that it's common for store owners to be set on fire by shoplifters, or is your example inappropriate for being an outlier and not representative of what most shoplifting is like?

It seems to me that the incentives of police departments should be irrelevant, and that an organization with that much responsibility should not be able to simply refuse to give out at least certain types of information.

1. What's wrong with pimping per se? Fundamentally, a pimp is an just an intermediary that finds clients for people who sell a service. How is it different from an agency? Yes, pimping can involve violence, but the reason why is that the victim is unlikely to report the violence, as it would require them to incriminate themselves.

2. Tobacco and alcohol are legal, yet you don't see people selling to kids. It happens from time to time to teenagers, but not to young children. The reason why is precisely that children don't have the mental faculties to understand the full scope of their decisions and therefore can't give informed consent.

3. If gambling is legal there's no need for it to be underground, it can just be out in the open. Where are you more likely to get scammed, in some clandestine gambling den, or in a licit casino?

4. A protection racket is clearly not consensual. "Give me money or I'll damage your property" doesn't require consent of the victim.

>So sometimes they strengthen it, sometimes they weaken it, and so I'm not sure it appropriate to presume malice.

If you had a dog that sometimes licked you and sometimes bit you, would you let it sleep with you?

Neither NSA nor NIST can be trusted. They brought this on themselves.

>the vertical axis is literally labeled "Quality"

And the labels on that axis make it perfectly clear what they mean by "quality". It's how much of the spectrum they preserve at that bitrate. If "quality" referred to subjective quality there's no reason why the chart should stop at 128 kbps. It stops there because the fullband codecs don't brickwall the signal past that point. Instead they use psychoacoustics to compress it.

>Early Opus vs. MP3 tests were done with LAME, which is awful.

That's funny, because other commenters say LAME is currently the benchmark for MP3 encoders.

Here: https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Transparency it states that MP3 is considered artifact-free at 192 kbps, although here: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/when-is-mp3-transparent-an-a... someone did an ABX test and they could still hear differences more than half the times at 256 kbps. If I take the lower number, MP3 is still 50% less efficient than Opus.

I mean, you called PCM lossy because it quantizes the signal. What lossless recording method exists, if PCM is lossy? If the answer is none, then it seems you have a word for something that doesn't and can't possibly exist, and a qualifier that doesn't serve any purpose.

That graph does not describe codec efficiency. It's explaining how the various codecs preserve the frequencies of the raw signal at various bitrates:

Some codecs only work at low bitrates and preserve only narrow bands of frequencies. Some codecs work only at mid bitrates and preserve wider bands. Some codes only work at high bitrates and preserve only the widest bands; you can't get then to drop more frequencies for better savings even if you wanted to. Opus works on all bitrates and gradually and dynamically removes frequency bands as the bitrate drops. Vorbis preserves more or less the same frequencies as Opus at the same bitrate, but loses frequencies a bit faster as the bitrate drops. MP3 drops even faster. AAC works very similarly to Opus, but can't output low bitrate streams.

To compare codec efficiency you would need to do subjective comparisons to see how often each codec achieves transparency (when people can no longer tell if the sound has been compressed or not) at a given bitrate with various types of sounds. This has also been measured, and it's agreed that Opus is basically transparent at 128 kbps. MP3 needs twice as many bits to get the same quality, so Opus is twice as efficient.

Well, my OS lets me configure the output device and specify the sampling rate. I would think that if I configure it at 44.1 kHz and I'm playing back some ripped CD and the system tries to play a notification sound, that whatever that sound is sampled at it'll ensure to output it at 44.1 kHz. Otherwise what's the point of the setting?

>PCM is also a lossy compression due to the quantization step

No, it's a lossy encoding step. Losing at least some of the information of a performance when you record it is unavoidable. For PCM to be a lossless, when you play it back it would have to transport you back in time to when the performance was recorded and you should be able to touch the performer. You're being silly.

You won't build technical or design expertise, but I can see it being something that's easy enough to do as a side gig or as an experiment to see what it's like to publish a game on Steam or wherever. You can use that to decide if you want to invest more effort into it, while also making a bit of money. Low risk, low difficulty, low reward; perfect for learning.

To be honest, "erotic city builder" is such a novel concept that now I want someone to tackle it.

Arguably that should be even easier to make. Find a good artist who's willing to take a bit of a gamble, program some excuse gameplay, usually some sort of puzzle game, and you're pretty much set. If your audience knows what they're there for, really the game is just a vehicle for the eye candy.