halter73

Sure, but the article also states:

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last month decided it would allow sales of the IQOS device in the United States after a two-year review process in which Philip Morris repeatedly assured the regulator that it would warn young people away from the product."

I'm sure Phillip Morris made the FDA well aware of their "self-imposed" age limit when pushing for FDA approval. I doubt Phillip Morris introduced this age limit because they suddenly found their moral compass or started to hate making money. I'm sure they use it to get regulators off their back, so this definitely isn't a good look for them.

Let's stick with facts instead of fear mongering.

I dislike Ajit Pai as much as the next person and wish he had heeded NASA's request to delay the 5G role out. That said, it's not a forgone conclusion that 5G will significantly interfere with let alone eliminate the ability of radio spectrometers on weather satellites to measure water vapor using the 23.8 GHz band.

The new FCC UMFUS regulations that govern 5G require require signals to use a set of frequencies all of which are greater than 24 GHz.

That said, of course NASA is concerned about malfunctioning 5G transmitters leaking into the 23.8 GHz spectrum. Hopefully out-of-band emissions don't become a problem. It's the FCC's job to ensure that it doesn't, and the lack of carefulness so far in the process doesn't inspire confidence.

Kudos for quickly adding an anti-csrf token to logout, but I agree with the grandparent that hosting arbitrary user content on the same TLD as the management interface is still problematic security-wise.

See github.com vs github.io[1], amazon.com vs. elasticbeanstalk.com, azure.com vs azurewebsites.net, etc... Every major company I know of that hosts arbitrary user content dedicates a TLD to it that's not shared by the management APIs.

[1] https://github.blog/2013-04-05-new-github-pages-domain-githu...

Armed conflict doesn't necessarily mean all out war.

> I'm building an "intentional system". The idea's that you just tell the computer what to do, and it does it the best way possible. This includes figuring out what you told it to do, how to do that, how to optimize it, etc., in a provably optimal way.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to achieve, but to me, this sounds prohibitively difficult for even the largest most sophisticated organizations at this point in history. It's just way too general. Like general AI kind of general.

If they don't own or control the satellite, it's not really their infrastructure when push comes to shove. China might have contracts guaranteeing bandwidth, but I doubt that matters much in an armed conflict.

I just found Browsh[1] which seems to be basically this but with Gecko. It seems they don't need to do OCR which makes sense thinking about it more. Cool stuff. Haven't gotten to try it yet.

[1] https://www.brow.sh/

At this point, the easier route to getting a text-based browser to support something like this would be creating a new one based on WebKit/Blink.

It would probably need to get the engine to draw to a fake screen buffer and run an OCR algorithm over that. And even if the OCR and layout worked well, there would be a lot other work necessary to get reasonable text based interactivity, though that's probably partially solved by projects like Vimium. Some interactions like dragging would likely never be supported.

Not easy at all, but somehow more reasonable than updating lynx to support all of today's new technologies. I wonder if anyone's already tried something like it.

I heard the MCAS was required to avoid a situation where the MAX, after reaching a certain pitch, would continue pitch up into a stall even if both pilots released the yoke. I don't know if that's considered "inherently unstable", but this is against FAA regulations for any commercial airplane from what I heard. That's probably a big reason why Boeing made it so difficult to completely disable the MCAS system.

My understanding is that MCAS altered fight characteristics not only to match older 737s and avoid additional pilot training. MCAS altered fight characteristics so the FAA would approve the MAX as a commercial aircraft period. The fact they could match older 737s flight characteristics for a more speedy approval from the FAA was just gravy.

The former. Google the "spoils system."

I would think so, but if the non-compete deal was made as part voluntarily splitting up the company, I could understand the argument that there's no net harm to the consumer.

In my experience in the US, grocery stores have way more competition than stores in most other retail sectors. It's also one of the few retail sectors in the US where regional brands tend to outcompete the national brands. I'm not sure the main cause of that, but I'd be interested to find out.

This was a while ago, but when Steam was first introduced on macOS, it did not play nice with my case-sensitive HFS+ partition.

When I first set up my Mac, I thought case-sensitivity would be a good idea just in case I ever had to copy files from another case-sensitive file system. I never did need the case-sensitivity, but I did have to repartition to get Steam working. It thought me a good lesson about switching away from defaults "just in case."

Thanks for pointing this out. I've always thought about the initial singularity as a point in both time and space. Is it still correct to say all the matter that makes up our observable universe started out at a single point in space? Since the singularity was infinitely dense, this at least seems possible.

For Channel<T>, you can take a look at https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/tree/v2.1.0/src/System.Thre...

In this case, the supposed hostage taker was the 911 caller.

What's your point? Synergy has real meaning as well. The problem is when concepts like leverage or synergy become goals in and of themselves. That might be something you'd expect from someone who's read a lot of management books, but you'd expect engineers to see these as means to an end.

But couldn't ask the same question of the VPN that the grandparent post asked of the cloud provider? Namely, won't they turn your info over just as fast as an ISP?

Does the cheap/free pre-issuance submission really matter when you have to spend thousands of dollars on a reexamination fee whether or not the patent gets invalidated or modified in the end?

I get that this is to help cover the USPTO's reexamination costs. But whatever the reason, it's still really expensive to call bullshit. And as the grandparent comment laments, this is a real shame given the low quality of many patents that are granted.

In this case a third party did the job the USPTO should have done when the patent was first filed by actually reading the patents citations and finding that the new patent wasn't a novel innovation on the cited patent.

Wouldn't it be nice if the USPTO paid the third party his $6000 back if they determine that he's right the patent should have never been granted in the first place?

I think you're misreading the parent comment. They're not advocating for tax funded news organizations, but instead for a stronger social safety net. They're theorizing that this would enable people to pursue journalism without fear of losing their livelihoods because of struggles in that market sector.

I'm not saying that I agree with this position. I think that without capital, the news industry would shrink and struggle even with a strong social safety net to support its journalists. Personal blogs cannot fully replace well funded news organizations.

Can you explain the semantic difference between being and doing in this context?

What I'm mostly interested in is how you can rationalize doing evil while not considering yourself as being evil. Is it based on the idea that you might do evil unintentionally or that you could be coerced into it? Are there other reasons for the distinction?

I probably put too much stock in the "As is" at the beginning of your post.

A hissy is a good description of my last comment lol. I was getting pretty annoyed at people claiming that my understanding of OOP is wrong. I don't think OOP should be this incomprehensible thing.

I now understand that you just meant that not all encapsulation is OOP. I certainly agree there. Cheers.

Since you seem confident that your understanding of OOP is better than that of "misinformed" people like me who don't think that coupling state and function is completely orthoganal OOP, can you explain what isn't completely orthoganal?

A succinct definition of OOP would be nice to combat the misinformation you're complaining about.

The description of OOP provided in the Wikipedia article on programming paradigms [1] matches my current understanding of OOP.

> object-oriented which groups code together with the state the code modifies,

Maybe that's a little too succinct, because I think it's also worth noting how [2]

> In OOP, computer programs are designed by making them out of objects that interact with one another.

I certainly wouldn't consider coupling state and function completely orthogonal to OOP though. I doubt most other programmers would either.

I guess this might demonstrate the inertia of the so-called misinformation, but when the majority disagree with your definition of a term, you might want to step back and consider whether you're the one who's misinformed.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_paradigm

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming

In the long term yes. When we switch to System.Net.Sockets it will be done with an emphasis on transport agnosticism. [1]

ATM, it looks like Sockets will be the priority since it's a cross platform API more similar to what libuv currently provides.

[1] https://github.com/aspnet/KestrelHttpServer/issues/828

It means that development on Kestrel started before work on making System.Net.Sockets cross-platform was completed. The programming model for libuv and .NET Sockets is different enough (mostly in terms of threading) to make the transition non-trivial.

Some recent basic testing show .NET Sockets perform at least as well as libuv. We are strongly considering transitioning Kestrel to Sockets at the same time we migrate from Streams to Pipelines. [1] Pipelines are basically push based Streams that require less total allocations to use. This is because Pipelines allow better memory sharing between producers and consumers.

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/corefxlab/tree/master/src/System.I...

Disclosure: In case it wasn't already obvious, I work for Microsoft on Kestrel.

From the article:

7. I have, prior to publication, submitted all URLs and malware samples to Google’s Safe Browsing team. They have since only acted upon a small portion of the sites.

Isn't it possible to decide the equivalence of deterministic pushdown automata? Wouldn't DPDAs be considered more powerful than FSMs due to the addition of a stack?

Wikipedia [1] shows there's a paper called "The equivalence problem for deterministic pushdown automata is decidable" that won the Gödel Prize is 2002. I haven't read the paper nor do I currently have access to it though.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_pushdown_automat...

Ethereum uses "gas" to quantify the computational resources a contract consumes. There is a slowly growing limit to the amount of gas a contract is allowed to consume in order to execute.

As for being hard to check beforehand, you're absolutely right. You can read about the consequence of this in one case on this reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4ghzhv/government...

I don't think this is a case of the contract containing "something in the fine print that is clearly against the intent behind the contract" though. The underwriters may not have correctly calculated the exposure of the contract, but they knew what they were selling.

From the article:

> But Max-Hervé George didn't mess with any expectations. Aviva had to expect exactly this. This is nuts independent of actuarial assumptions. Aviva knew it was offering an arbitrage at its expense. The name of the thing is "Fixed Price Arbitrage Life Insurance Contract." That just means, "We have made a horrible mistake, would you like to buy it?" The answer is yes, all day long.

When applied directly to the Soviet Union or Russia it's sometimes called whataboutism [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

A distinction without a difference. The FBI wouldn't ask for the modified software if it wouldn't allow them to easily unlock the phone.