There were no end entity certificates issued out of the affected CA’s - that you know of
The company’s Global digital signature certificate (DSC), eSign, and other signing services, including those in India, its enterprise PKI Solutions (emCA, CertiNext platforms), emSigner eSignature Suite, and its identity and authentication solutions (SecurePass, emAS) are not affected and continue to operate as normal - maybe to a full review of those? Are you rolling your own crypto there by chance?
"good objective feedback" - right, I think advice in general is bad because it tries to bite size a complex system, that is society/humanity. Feedback is giving someone information they can act on, along with the rest of context they have of their situation. No need for you to know them deeply, just the interaction.
There are things that can work, and things that likely won't work, and most people know these. Then there is a space of things that usually work and things that may not work, and you can't fit these into a person without knowing a lot of variables about them and the environment around them, like what and who they know, their personality, their competence (not just their resume), and many, many other variables. So advice defaults to guessing most of these variables to find some direction.
And I think it boosts advisors' ego, makes advisees feel temporarily better, even motivated, but YMMV by a lot.
This is why the good advisors also change the variables in your favor, like introduce you to their network, coach, etc. And often this costs you something. Like money, equity, whatever.
I'm wondering if they can just build an entirely new platform, onboard new users to it, and then slowly migrate old ones. Even if they don't migrate, the load would stabilize. What are the cons here?
That is what should be expected. your harness should translate write me the figures, to create a script to analyze this and produce real results, and then verify them again against source data before presenting. Not sure why you're asking normies to write python scripts.
That's fine, I am certain that if laws allowed, these projects would have been exactly as intended. Not their fault and nothing against them. They solved the problem the best way they could.
I build my own version, single binary that does every thing. While I built it, I learned I cannot make it open source or distribute, bc it might be illegal to do so, so I assume many people have built that, but you're always locked into the narrowly scoped lego pieces. So I enjoy my media now, without hassles, all the features I need, none I don't. I hope one day I get to share.
For most of my infancy the concept of money was not a thing. Not bc I was a child but because I lived in a remote village where you grew your own crops, poultry and if you wanted beef every now and then, like for Christmas, you’d find something of value, like clothing or salt, go to the farmer and exchange that. And everyone in your vicinity in the village would enjoy because obviously there were no fridges and dead things need to be consumed quickly.
You got sick and you would go to your usual antibiotics stash (if you had some farmaceutical knowledge everyone in the village would come to you as well) but people generally were just healthy period, because they walked for miles daily, went to the river to get water, to do laundry, come back by eod, kids would climb trees and catch some wild fruits to bring home, etc. insurance or financial safety wasn’t a concept that mattered. Caring for your food while it was alive was.
Today however, capitalism has penetrated so much of the planet that idk if you could go to a farmer and exchange a piece of clothing or salt for anything. So those communities may not be feasible anymore.
The fact that there is no effective path to doing that is another conversation. My point is that doing that solves the problem. And the problem is not complicated. We just gave away our power to solve it.
I think we know today that blaming everyone and their plant doesn’t actually solve the problem. The formula that does is: find the ultimate beneficiaries (shareholders) and make them lose a lot of money to, then their delegates (CEOs) and punish them with jail time. There are lots of opinions about this, but I don’t see how this does not work.
Getting roundhouse kicked to extinction woudl not be an unfun way to go. We might even be proud of having passed the torch. These would not be boring inheritors to earth.
It’s going to be interesting when they’re done going after the really serious crimes, like mass shootings, they’ll just lower the bar bc they will then get sued for not reporting people writing hate speech in diaries, planning to pirate music, vandalize a statue, plan a protest. The bar will keep getting lower because people have an unlimited supply of outrage and the companies that host all your thoughts is a perfect candidate to become the thought police.
Every danger related to technology is about the use of that technology,aka Humans. Technology is mostly inert. Again, what is he saying? Is he saying that because humans fallible, not the tech, then there is no danger? He wakes up at 6am, and by 10am this is what he thinks is worth saying?
I don't use chrome either, I am using safari as the least problematic option.
I think firefox is not even trying. It feels bloated to me, there was a recent update that added some gradient, because that is exactly what users needed from the roadmap. A Gradient.
"He attributes the incidents to poor human oversight and system design, and says they’re “totally preventable" - I know people respect him, but this sounds like someone paid to say this. Aren't most extinction risks preventable with better human oversight and system design? I mean we can have an asteroid hit us, but outside of this, isn't the point of talking about a problem that we can prevent it, and failing to leads to that? What is he saying that I'm missing?
Why is this mutually exclusive. Is this even an argument? Some people complain becuase the hard cap kicked in. Others want hard caps. There is absolutely nothing stopping both from being implemented and offered as a choice. But we have spent decades being told "we know what's better for you". As an engineer, I think we need to come back down from the stratosphere.
On Mac, a non Safari browser that moves faster, allows chrome extensions and more customizability. I stopped using it because they refused to implement DNS over HTTP, handwaving it as "use what the OS already gives you".
Is it really? Are you sure all conscious beings are aware or even care that they are? That that is a question they’ve ever asked? I think this requirement is moving the goalposts always in the direction of “has to be like a human”.
So if a group of agents, aware of this (bc now they can just read HN or the article, or get blocked the first few times) decide to collaborate and split the problem into pieces that aren't obvious to the chip, and then the agents just build a basic program that does the hacking, how does the chip handle that? I think you would have to build a network that monitors the internet fo signs (like jarvis did with ultron). What am I missing? Are we going to police the internet?
This happens. I catch claude and codex committing broken code all the time, and then stacking micro fixes on top, still broken. You can go very long if you're in a harness until you realize it's just committing everything. Sometimes if you give it a goal, or a long task, this happens too, every little argument with itself, every finding, adjustment, is a new commit. None of them make sense, they happen anyway. One line nonsensical change, 20 line reassuring comment, committed.
It’s not as if women are being prevented from competing with men - I don't know a lot about this, so I automatically assumed they are all segregated. If they aren't I have no problem, everyone is free.
and people are irrationally bothered by "the outgroup" - so is that not a problem worth solving? We just avoid it?
then they can have their own tournaments - of course, no one should actively stop them. I am more concerned that an organization managing the tournament decides to create a new category rather then putting in the effort to bring everyone to the same playing field. I mean is that not the decades long battle that made it all the way to the workplace? Should we also create female software engineering roles, and female CEO roles bc the CEO market is crowded by tech bros? If you have $1B, and you have to solve this problem, how do you split it, that's my question.
I get it, but if women feel discouraged in a sport they're perfectly qualified for and not disadvantaged in the least, creating a category jus tto accomodate anxiety or lack of interest is actually discrimination no?
Shouldn't the work of incentivising more women be outside of the tournament and not bend the tournament altogether?
Because the world is conditioned to distrust chinese models (pick your reason here), I believe this is critical for them in order to kill any arguments outside the actual merits. They probably spent a lot of time making this call and might pay off on the long run.