gridlockd

Why should it be flagged?

People need to understand that this scenario is entirely plausible and could have happened even in the US and many research labs around the world.

Gain-of-function experiments and engineered viruses are not the stuff of James Bond stories, they are ordinary scientific work. They aren't necessarily that dangerous, but even extremely dangerous pathogens have leaked from labs numerous times.

The origin of the virus is unproven, yet somehow the "lab origin" story is a conspiracy theory while "zoonotic transfer through multiple hosts in an unlikely area (Wuhan)" is the dominant narrative. Either hypothesis has, at best, circumstantial evidence going for it.

> Not only that, but Miles Guo claimed that the virus was intentionally released by China...

If that is true, your source doesn't show it. It says that a media outlet owned by Guo reported that "the Chinese government prepared to admit that the virus came from a lab".

Not that it was engineered, not that it was intentionally released and certainly not as biologicial warfare to defeat the US (somehow by releasing it inside China).

That's worth noting, but if we were to apply that metric to dismiss a piece of scientific work, we would also have to dismiss anything coming out of Chinese state-controlled research labs for being biased. After all, who would fund such research? Certainly not a pro-CCP entity.

There is no such thing as an unbiased source, especially with anything concerning China. If the scientific arguments presented hold ground, it shouldn't matter who authored them, and if the authors are so biased that they provably gave up on scientific principles, that should suffice to discredit the work.

...which is different from a browser window, running inside the actual system browser.

The difference may of course be subtle, but even obviously fake logins can work on the untrained eye.

If you open a browser window, there is going to be some things that can't be faked 100% accurately, e.g. on iOS there will be a link back to the app at the top left, there is going to be an animation, and so on.

It could be faked 95% accurately, but that's moot, because like I said, the user hasn't necessarily learned what "trusted UI" is in the first place.

It's possible to do "trusted UI" on iOS/Android by opening a browser window that shows you're actually logging into facebook-dot-com. That still wouldn't prevent these scams from working because users don't necessarily know how to tell the difference between "trusted UI" and "scam UI".

> "China is going to hate it"

The upside is that when mainlanders are upset, they can use their smarts to push forward RISC-V.

> South Korean chip industry officials and experts said that Nvidia’s Arm buy would intensify Nvidia’s competition with Samsung, Qualcomm and others in self-driving cars and other future technologies, while raising concerns that Arm could hike licensing fees for competitors.

Oh no, more competition! Maybe Samsung can ask its little brother, the South Korean government, to intervene.

I am lazy and I reserve the right to be stupid.

N=1

The plan still does not make economical sense without massive reductions in the cost of hydrogen or massively more valuable carbon credits. However, if carbon credits become more valuable, synthetic gasoline will become economical as well.

Those are all big ifs. As far as I can tell, Nikola is bringing nothing to the table but hot air. No breakthrough in hydrogen production nor batteries nor engines, nothing that existing car makers do not already have.

As an individual welfare recipient, my "ownership and control" of the welfare system is effectively zero.

The majority of people, who happen to have a job, who don't want to pay for people who do not have a job, but who also have no interest in more competition from the bottom, are effectively in control of the welfare system, immigration law, and many other regulations that prevent people from exercising their right to work. It's a racket.

This is a premature judgement.

If NVIDIA treats ARM poorly, that benefits alternative ISAs and may ultimately undermine NVIDIAs investment. If NVIDIA treats ARM well, then that benefits the platform as a whole. The reality is going to be somewhere in the middle.

Market equilibrium does not imply maximum benefit for any one interest group. "Consumers" or "end-users" are often conflated with "society".

Let's be honest, if there's no second wave that's stronger than the first wave during winter, there's no rational reason to not go "back to normal".

All the data we have now shows that even unmitigated COVID-19 spread is not dramatically worse than a strong flu season, with the difference that COVID-19 kills far less younger and otherwise healthy people.

Even the argument that "we have a Influenza vaccine!" doesn't really cut it, because those vaccines are only 50% effective on average.

Of course, there are plenty of irrational reasons not to go "back to normal". I wouldn't be surprised if these were to prevail.

Governments around the world have just been handed powers they never knew they had, and I'm not talking about the power to do lockdowns.

I'm talking about the peoples of the free world demonstrating that they can easily be scared into compliance, that they will follow the dominant narrative, that they're ready to denounce their neighbors for infractions of rules "for the common good" - anything you would expect in a totalitarian regime works just as well in liberal democracies.

One thing is clear, you can't have it both ways: Earn a SV salary without having SV living expenses. Someone with lower living expenses will do your job for less, even if it's not someone from outside the country.

> The reason these restrictions exist is to address the inherent power differential between the contractor and the contractee.

Being effectively prohibited from working on my own terms - even if the best terms I can negotiate are poor - doesn't give me any power.

It makes me a subject to the crappy welfare system, which now has far more power over me than any employer would have ever had.

I'm kinda disappointed, these aren't much larger than the giant isopods that you can buy at a well-stocked Asian grocery.

The actual chances for guessing the 4 port combination are closer to 0.000000000000000000001%, about as likely as winning the lottery three times in a row. If you're trying to brute-force me with those odds, I'll take my chances.

Having two ways to quote is a useful feature, not just one way to do the same thing.

Javascript already has this, so allowing single quotes simplifies copypasting object literals, which is a common use case.

Not true, the tube makes sure the chips stay mostly intact. The shape of the chips fits neatly around your tongue. Pringles are made of flour, they would turn to dust in an ordinary bag.

This doesn't answer the question as to why this is a good idea.

> Dumb business logic is not the point. One of the benefits of HATEOAS is that it allows REST clients to be loosely coupled with REST services, in a way that APIs can change freely change (i.e., change endpoints around, break away functionalities into other services, etc.) without requiring clients to be updated under the penalty of breaking compatibility.

There is a very limited amount of useful things that you can do here without breaking "conforming clients", at the cost of forcing those clients to implement much more expensive and error-prone logic in order to not break.

In reality, clients aren't going to conform, they're going to hardcode logic and they're going to break if you do any of the things that "shouldn't break conforming clients".

This means that in practice, on top of being more annoying to use and implement, REST APIs are more likely to break than RPC-APIs, which you can trivially extend with optional parameters or additional procedures.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily in favor of any of these foreign interventions. I just don't accept that the US gets so much blame just for being involved at some level in a conflict that they have some strategic interest in.

> The US destroyed their lives. Their communities were destroyed, their jobs vanished, and their loved ones were dead. Many certainly reacted despicably, but the US deserves most of the blame.

The US gets blamed for the deaths that occured, but it won't get praise for the deaths that may have been prevented. Consider who Saddam Hussein was, how he came to power, how he stayed in power and what his dictatorship was like.

Does he strike you as someone who can maintain a dynasty? In a country like Iraq, where the regime is Sunni despite being in the minority, where the Shia majority is being supported by neighboring Iran?

Consider what the Iraqi military could have done under Saddam Hussein to its own people, in the case of a civil war. Consider that Saddam Hussein didn't hesitate to kill over 100,000 Kurds and Assyrians.

> One of the major triggers for the Arab Spring was the US diplomatic cable leaks, and much of the military power any insurgents had was a result of US backing. Without the War on Terror, the Arab Spring would have been a completely different thing if it happened at all.

That almost sounds like your average dictator blaming all civil unrest on "foreign meddling". Sure, you can blame the US or Wikileaks for exposing these regimes, or for running a couple of covert support operations, but it also takes a huge part of the people to actually do the uprising.

You call it "harsh punishment" as if the US intended these consequences, because it knows "no mercy". That sounds like blame to me.

The vast majority of these deaths are due to internal strife, they weren't killed on the orders of the US.

In hindsight, the second war in Iraq was a disaster of course, but why blame the US for every bad part of the outcome? What about the Iraqis? What about Iran? If the US hadn't started that war, the regime may well have collapsed during the Arab spring.

As for Afghanistan, that conflict started well before US involvement after 9/11.

Moore's law has continued, but this increase in transistors stopped translating into commensurate increases in performance at every level.

I would argue that wherever performance really matters, that is, where it is measured and where the improvement is estimated to reduce cost or increase revenue to the point where the programming effort is justified, we're already near the optimum. I don't see many fields where this is the case today but won't be tomorrow.

In the past, software needed to be optimized just to run at all, but that constraint is gone forever. Consumers generally accept software that is kinda clunky and slower than it needs to be, peak performance rarely becomes the differentiator that it needs to be to justify optimization on modern hardware.

Language benchmarks only give you the theoretical lower bound of runtime, but software in practice is usually much slower than that, regardless of language. For instance, it's not unusual to see some C code with unfavorable complexity, just because someone didn't bother to bring in a data structure that would've been part of the standard library of a slower language.

Okay, let's just say the footprint of something that stores energy vertically is going to be enormously lower. For what it's worth, this "Graviticity" thing may be utter nonsense, that's besides the point.

Pylons may work, but you need to pay off everyone owning the land those lines go across. In many areas, they can't build pylons at all because of rampant NIMBYism.

It's really more diffuse than that. These measures drive down corporate bond yields across the board, giving them access to capital to use less wisely, or to operate in zombie mode, being unprofitable but never defaulting due to perpetually cheap debt.

The corollary of this situation is that the Fed must not allow debt rates to rise, otherwise an enormous wave of corporate defaults within a short timeframe would ensue.

This also explains why markets keep rising even when the economy is in shambles. The Fed will be a buyer of last resort for everything (the "Powell Put"). Yields are near zero for everything "safe", the money in the funds has to go somewhere, so it goes to assets like stocks and corporate bonds. Stock prices go up, bond yields go down. Corporations can get cheap debt to buy back their own stock.

Meanwhile, the Fed can act like there's no inflation because the CPI doesn't reflect these capital flows, at least not in the average. However, if you split up the CPI, you see significant inflation in some areas, whereas you see natural deflation (due to better productivity/technology) in other areas.

The individual or the mom-and-pop store indeed do not have access to this capital, they are footing the bill.

This an overly narrow view of the problem. The footprint of pumped hydro is enormous and you can't just put it anywhere where you actually need the power.

You generally don't have to care about maintaining "POSIX compatibility" even on non-Windows platforms, but if you are in the position where you have to, I don't want your job. Similarly, if your codebase is using tabs, I don't want your job.