enoint

No, it’s more like: who is lying, Jared Kushner or Vanity Fair? The stakes are large for both, but we’re better off compared to how the regime prefers to suppress that.

Well the 2017 prize (one year before) was for the Panama papers. No dramatic consequences for that, either.

Look up Sazan Island

Play hybrid warfare, win a hybrid reputation.

Active on HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50172041

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50166579

What about venture capital? Will they prefer companies use AI and SI in separate contexts?

I make a lot of chili. Ethoxyquin is a good reason to mix your own chili powder.

I was far from it, but ophthalmic firms didn’t know how often this diagnostic would be used. A high up-front would make it difficult to compare to the alternative (contracting per-use with a rival). So we offered a low up-front with a known, guaranteed per-use subscription.

I think the law says evidence needs a purchase or sale. Relatedly, the failure to purchase is not evidence.

I wonder if, following the US army story in August, someone might have bet on a prediction market “Danfoss refrigeration systems will defrost after suffering an already-disclosed vulnerability”.

Or the equipment is otherwise expensive up-front to a small clinic. Ophthalmology, for example. The subscription feature is cheaper than becoming a financier.

If that’s the case, then supermarkets (who are not in the cybersecurity business) should feel good about filing a claim with their insurance. The insurance company can decide whether the freezer maker owes existence-risking damages.

Part of this story is also attacks on digital price tags on the shelves. Protests in France come to mind.

Because in some ticket tracking system, some customer with the most tickets was nearly always calling for a tech to physically start a defrost. Maybe solving that accounts for 2% of support overhead. It’s best to lose that customer. Second best is telling them defrost is remotely-triggered, and then not doing it. Third best is actually triggering it.

These are the people who presume all undocumented aliens are dangerous, and that voting fraud is statistically meaningful, and that sports leagues with 0 trans players are consumed by trans players’ problems. Quietly moving quickly will probably work better than a long, thoughtful campaign of Carter-esque nagging.

They could justify a human in the cab to satisfy existing reflective triangle regulations. Provides cheap publicity to nourish their lobbyists.

I’d see it if:

- diesel prices were actually bankrupting companies. Those companies have been adjusting to daily price fluctuations, and also passing that surcharge on.

- cheaper diesel was expected to remain unattainable across the Midwest, making an E85 (or higher) fleet viable.

- can they pick up some of the fleet of closing operators without labor considerations?

Good luck with OMB. I’m glad you have the media calling you a “Good Samaritan”.

Canadian military ideas suddenly en vogue. Maybe a sequel to One Battle After Another will be on horseback.

I see that from time to time on HN. It’s hard to believe they’ve never encountered mercury or arsenic in their news.

Which uses more electricity, at peak cooling times, when wet-bulb would advantage an open evaporative system.

I’d wager that dividing evaporative water by construction water reaches 5 orders of magnitude over its lifetime.

Except for the politics

Flipping is working from home. I probably have 5 to 8 left in me.

I feel like James Cameron has never tried anything safe. He was a truck driver early on. Some dentists took a risk and financed a truck driver to make a movie.

I would assume, with a little evidence, that driving 7,500 mi/year rates as dangerous as line work.

It’s more terrifying to see anyone point a metal tool toward an open breaker panel.

Also, commuting 10,000 mi/year carries the same risk as construction alone.

> That capital owner - or his ancestor - either worked exceptionally hard or took exceptional risks to get into that position.

That’s nuts. The industrial barons of 19th century America neither worked hard nor took amazing risks. They were lawyers and bankers who manipulated stocks and broke unions.

Newtons writings were not categorized, so quantitatively I think “occult” is only the part where he ponders the chronology and lost wisdom of ancient civilizations. I don’t think investigations into obscured qualities of matter (like alchemy) would be very interesting to occultists.