halomru

>If you upgraded to the latest beta, you absolved them of all liability if they never deliver the actual product.

What kind of liability? I'm an early backer and I'm pretty sure I never had terms that gave me any kind of leverage. I got standard Kickstarter terms: I give them money, they promise by their honor to make a best-effort attempt to deliver a good product.

The seconds count 23:55 56 57 58 59 60 00:00

Counting the leap second twice is more of a quick hack used in computers, but it's not how it actually works

>I'm talking of not having to dedicate an ops team to maintain your bare metal infrastructure.

You can still build an architecture that works on any of the large feature rich cloud providers with minimal retooling, and that can be deployed on bare metal if needed (minus automatic scaling, load balancing etc.)

In the end the trick is to build infrastructure agnostic apps that work on AWS as well as on IBMs cloud

>you know your cell phone carrier already has this data right?

No, they don't. My carrier has coarse location data because they know which cell tower served me. Uber has much more precise GPS data. That's the difference between knowing that I'm in the same building as Edward Snowden and knowing that I'm in the same neighborhood.

Valve's platform full of shovelware is due to (perceived) consumer demand, not because of size or cost reasons. Steam used to be very selective in who gets in, and people complained that a lot of small developers were left out. So Valve added the greenlight system to let the community find the gems that Valve should let in. People still complained that too few games got in. So instead valve made major changes to improve recommendations and reviews and to establish a community of curators, and then opened the floodgates.

That just increases the verification costs: order ten chips, verify five randomly chosen ones. If all five are clean, the other five are probably also clean. Modify numbers for the desired cost/risk trade-off.

The US won't extradite them, but that only helps while they stay in US ground. Their vacation choices are far more limited, and visiting Black Hat or the Chaos Communication Congress is out of the question.

Sure, the FBI can legally hack anywhere in the world in the same sense that Russians can hack anywhere outside Russia: it's legal in their host country.

But if a Russian hacker leaves Russia, or if a FBI hacker leaves the US, they can be prosecuted for those hacks. That's not what most people expect as the outcome of a "legal" action.

I think "government sanctioned" is the word we usually use for these cases, not "legal".

That doesn't have to stop them. Europe's borders are also constantly redrawn, even in the 21th century. Next to the usual independence movements and annexations there's also a number of land swaps that happen due to referendums or in order to produce more sanely shaped borders.

I guess the key is that the initiative has to come from the individual states. If it was dictated from the federal level it indeed wouldn't work

You usually don't need scale and precision at the same time, but a lot of algorithms get a lot simpler if you don't have to worry about rounding errors that get worse with every operation.

Floating point errors are hard to reason about and often makes equality a very fuzzy concept. If your not starved for bandwidth or memory, large fixed precision numbers are incredibly useful.

>They are never compared for greater-than or less-than.

    if ip >= IP(10.34.12.3) && ip <= IP(10.34.12.9)
        //is one of our database servers

> They are never added, subtracted,

    if abs(atk1.ip - atk2.ip) < 16
        //same source likely, modify threshold

Netmask are useful, but sometimes doing regular math is a better fit for your problem. Adding an integer to an IP, subtracting IPs or comparing IPs all yield meaningful results.

>Net neutrality is the principle [...] treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.

Criminality can only be discerned by user or content. Both are protected under net neutrality

>CloudFlare [...] facilitating criminals

So you are against net neutrality?

If they have detailed contact negotiations with known criminals, I can see how that's problematic. But as long as criminals get the same deal as everyone else, I don't see a problem. Mafia bosses get a regular phone line too, even if they use it to conduct illegal business.

A bank robbery still has about as much in common with copyright violation as with pirating actual ships. I am not threatening anyone when committing copyright violations

A much more convincing argument could be made that theft and copyright violations are the same. Buy theft has quite low punishments (at least in California).

Because a bank robbery is a robbery, not mere theft. In a robbery, you make a credible threat to use force against another human being. That's hopefully still worse than stealing $x.

Unless terms of service start getting a lot more specific, this sounds harmful even to the gaming industry.

The status quo is that the TOS of most online games just have a blanket ban on anything that modifies the game experience, but in practice enforce this very selectively. Basically the players develop software and then the game publisher decides whether the software is acceptable. An aimbot probably isn't, something that logs the ingame chat probably is, in between there is a huge gray area to explore.

But if the worst punishment for a misstep isn't an account ban but five years in jail, people might think twice about developing anything for that games community. On that front, everybody loses.

>But when you get to their scale, it's hard to make big changes like this in a safe way

Which only makes it more baffling that AWS still doesn't support IPv6 everywhere.

IPv6 is 8 years older than AWS. AWS is a decade old. Given that the inevitability of IPv6 is long known and that it's well known that as a rule changes get more difficult the bigger you get, I would have expected Amazon to start IPv6 deployment much earlier, back when AWS was much smaller.

In principle every x86 operating system has this problem. The difference is in the expectations. If a laptop is certified for Windows 10 I expect it to run Windows 10 decently. If a laptop is Qubes OS certified, I expect it to run Qubes OS securely, with decent performance.

Machine learning is a better term because it's more specific (and less controversial). But under most definitions of AI, ML is a subfield of AI, so calling it AI may be suboptimal, but not wrong.

Personally I'm a fan of the AI definition "things humans can do and computers can't do yet", but I recognize that that definition isn't terribly useful.

It's not just his definition. Many AI courses will teach you pathfinding algorithms as examples of AI, along with optimisation algorithms, genetic algorithms and neutral nets.

There is a valuable distinction in hard AI vs soft AI (hard AI being that whole thinking, emotional maschines thing that we are not really getting closer to, and soft AI being the things that actually generate money because we know how to do them)

>if we had a 100% sure way of detecting that someone's going to commit a crime, should we use it

If it was 100% correct, it seems morally justifiable to use it, as long as you are a dictatorship. For a democracy, you would need not only correctness, but independently verifiable correctness. If the algorithm is 100% correct today but can be influenced tomorrow, you are giving absolute power over the state to whoever can influence the algorithm. After all, it's impossible to proof your innocence if you are convicted before the crime.

Basically, after solving the technical problems with creating the algorithm, you also need a system of checks and balances that can replace the public verifiability of our current court system.

It's very hard to make sure that the signal extends exactly to the perimeter of the prison. If your jamming signal is weaker, some corners of the prison will have reception. If it's stronger, you are illegally blocking the signal outside your prison.

Add to that that signal strength changes with weather, and you have two solutions: either lots of expensive equipment or lots of buffer land owned by the prison. Both are expensive.

I thought strings with ISO8601-encoded dates was the de-facto norm (i.e. "20161026T2044+0200 for this comment's timestamp).

Have I been living in a bubble with the majority being less sane?

The caller still holds a pointer to the element and can free it. I would argue that delegating the responsibility of freeing the element to the caller is more performant, since that allows the code to reuse that list element and insert it into a different (compatible) list.

That's the kind of performance/ease-of-use trade-off that sounds reasonable in an open source project with strict code reviews (but in very few other places)

In my eyes that practise would be equivalent with dual-licensing your code under GPL and the (more liberal) license of your choice. This happens with some frequency.

It's a way to honor the GPL idea for the stuff you link to without having to follow GPL ideas for your new code.

>It would be nice if the pricing of Steam was adapted to the economic conditions of the country - but that then has problems of rich country users would probably find proxies in poor countries.

This is a thing. Steam games have different prices in different countries, and there is some amount of region locking going on. On websites selling steam keys you will often find Russian keys that can only be used through a proxy.

I think the bigger thing causing piracy is inequality in the same country. Steam sales are a good measure by giving patient people significant discounts, but apparently that's not enough to completely eradicate piracy.

Yeah, pretty much everyone agreed that the ISO standard for docx was nearly impossible to completely implement for anyone outside of Microsoft and that it should have never been accepted as a standard.

It only doubles the car miles if there's nobody nearby to pick up. That would mean that most people are headed in a similar direction (e.g. all from suburbs towards city). But if all head in the same direction, the lane for return traffic has virtually no humans, and car-miles on it don't matter.

So either the traffic patterns allow pickup to be optimized to do much better than doubling the car-miles, or traffic patterns are so that it doesn't matter.

(of course that's overly simplistic, but I don't see how it's a less valid simplification than yours)

Getting your money later means that your you are effectively giving out a free loan to whoever is holding your money. For you that's an opportunity cost because you can't reinvest the money for some period of time.

If your expenses have to be paid before you get your money this can also be a cash flow issue (or make a cash flow issue worse), when a peak in demand leaves you very profitable but unable to pay your bills because you're waiting for your money to arrive.

>if your cities are already gridlocked, this won't make them somehow less gridlocked

I disagree. Human drivers use roads very inefficiently: they overreact, have high latency and drive overly selfish.

Computers can drive cars closer together, can maintain higher speed with the same safety margins and without causing traffic jams by overbreaking, and they have no problems obeying traffic laws (and thus won't cause a literal gridlock).

The only reason why self-driving cars won't notably reduce road utilisation is because of induced demand