josalhor

> But we are not in a crypto bubble now

In the last year bitcoin is over 200%. Litecoin is almost over 100% (in fact, since April it is over 200%). I have no horse in this race, but I am not sure I would call it "not a bubble".

Isn't CountDownLatch [0] the same thing in Java?

[0]: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurre...

I made the same mistake just a few days ago. I believed the TrendForce article was reporting confirmed news.

Your link redirects me to a Chinese webpage. I think this article may be more approachable: http://www.trendforce.com/presscenter/news/20210113-10651.ht...

Correct, my bad.

I got carried away by wccftech's title. This link may be a better source without intermediaries: http://www.trendforce.com/presscenter/news/20210113-10651.ht...

I can't edit the post now.

Important to note that:

> Construction would start in early 2021, with factory production expected in 2024.

Right, but AMD may not gain enough market share if it loses the competitive advantage that TSMC provides.

This strategy may not play well for TSMC in the long term.

I don't think it is. However, that brings the question of why would TSMC allocate capacity for Intel. If in the long term Intel plans on going back to using their fabs, why offer them this short-term advantage?

I thought TSMC would be so overloaded that they would not be able to provide meaningful capacity for Intel. Interesting turn of events.

> If client uses deterministic salt, then whatever you send over the wire is equivalent to password and constant for every authentication. If server sends random challenge which is then hashed by client together with something derived from users password then whatever value that is stored on server in order to check validity of the response is sufficient to fake the response (and also essentially equivalent to plaintext password as it has to be derived from it in some deterministic manner independent of the random salt/challenge)

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of what I am proposing. I am not proposing this scheme as an alternative to what's proposed in the blogpost.

I am proposing this procedure as an extra protection step for password reuse. If you were to run an exploit on the server that reads its memory contents, you may find a user "Admin" that uses the password "FavoriteFood-DateOfBirth".

If you sent the original version of that password, then such an attacker will find real-world information about you. That information can be used to exploit your identity on other websites. If the password is hashed, then that information doesn't get leaked. Sure, you can fake your authentication to this server, but you have not gained real-world information about your target.

Without salt, the attacker can fake the authentication on every service where that password gets reused. But with salt, every server sees a completely different password on their end. Essentially, your hashed password with salt has become your new password in the server's eyes.

> : for security features like this to be truly secure the user has to be sure that he is interacting with the native browser/OS UI and not with something that can be intercepted by JS

Yes, you were one step further than me on this front. I do agree that communicating this to the user is non-trivial.

> Because calculating the salted hash on the client side will just substitute the hash for password and render the whole hashing useless.

I don't understand what you mean. Just in case I didn't make myself clear, I don't mean substituting the hashing on the server, I mean adding it on the client.

> Also it would require additional roundtrip to server in order to get the stored salt.

It could be salted with some constant/domain name.

> Then there is the UX problem where mechanism like that would have to be implemented on the browser level

What I am saying could perfectly be done with javascript, although I don't see why browsers could not integrate it too.

> which according to some leads to “ugly and confusing” UI.

I am completely lost, I am not sure if you understood me but I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain yourself further or provide a resource that explains this UX problem you're talking about?

I have wondered many times why we still send the password over the wire (even if in SSL). It should be hashed with a salt every time before being sent! A lot of people reuse their passwords, the user shouldn't trust the website to hash it.

Absolutely! I have been dreaming about the mirror since I first saw it! I have found this brilliant website [0] that has many of the ideas I know of. Mainly the LEDs behind the mirror [1], on the stairs [2], on the kitchen [3], and the ceiling [4]. The ceiling ones are pretty cool because they can lit up the room more homogeneously and it makes it way more relaxing and comfy. Some of these ideas help to better simulate sunlight which I find pretty stimulating.

I know of a few more that are not on the website tho! I have seen led strips on closets (ala fridge style) that light up when you open them (With something like [5]). I have also seen the opposite of the LEDs on the ceiling, on the floor. Something like [6] but in the hall is pretty cool. When you finish watching that movie/tv show and go to sleep you no longer have to choose between finding your way in the dark and getting light at your eyes.

When I get my own place, I will certainly try out all of these ideas. I find them light (hehe) years better than LEDs on computers.

[0]: https://www.lightstec.com/led-strip-light-ideas/

[1]: https://www.lightstec.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/led-str...

[2]: https://www.lightstec.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Led-str...

[3]: https://www.lightstec.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Led-str...

[4]: https://www.lightstec.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/strip-l...

[5]: https://www.amazon.com/Cabinet-Wardrobe-Switches-Drawers-App...

[6]: https://www.instyleled.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/pure...

I don't get it either. If I was to buy LEDs, I would buy them and use them around the house. I have seen what some hotels do and it is amazing. I have seen LED strips behind the mirror, so when you wake up at night you can get your way around but don't get blinded by the light.

However, here we are, with people buying RGB fans and having their desktops on the desk taking up space and making more noise (because they are closer)... I don't get it either.

There has been some work being done by the EU to make a digital euro [0]. China [1] and the US [2] are also exploring digital alternatives. I believe if these alternatives are well implemented they are going to change banking forever. Banks could become a frontend to that digital infrastructure that would only add features to the network (safety, insurance, help keep your transactions anonymous...). Naturally, everything that I am saying is 100% speculation, but I don't see a world where the current digital currencies (Bitcoin et al.) get backed by the governments.

[0]: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2020/html/ecb.pr2010...

[1]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-to-expand-testing-of-a-di...

[2]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2020/08/22/digit...

> Governments can't print more of it.

I never really understood that line of reasoning. Why would one person want to reduce the ability to apply economic policy in their country?

Certainly, you could use Gold instead of Bitcoin as a similar investment tool, right?

Oh man, I gifted the CDs this Christmas. I listened to the entire album dozens of times before watching it... It still blows my mind

Self reply: It was early in the morning and I didn't read correctly. My comment makes no sense (although I certainly meant to ask about the purchase power relative to cost).

This doesn't account for cost of living (I mean running costs), right?

> That clearly doesn't hold for any current programming language.

To be fair, programming language != implementation. A language can be Turing complete without the implementation being complete.

> to solve the halting problem where memory size is fixed and finite

Just to clarify any lost reader: The halting problem describes halting on Turing Machines, the algorithm presented only works because Turing Machines that have finite memory are not Turing Machines.

> For me the tricky bits are where a loop terminates if and only if Goldbach's conjecture is true (or similar) - but perhaps a compiler could require an "unsafe" block for such code (in the vein of Rust).

This is for me the most interesting part of your comment and something I have also thought about. This lead me in an interesting rabbit hole: Most of the lines of code we write don't require Turing Completeness. i.e. When we do `for i in 0..10` we are iterating over a finite range of memory, we can prove we will finish (which appears to be easier than proving we will not finish). If you loop a finite set of times and do a finite set of work each time you will eventually finish.

This made me realize that if you know your input, the only regions of code something like what you are proposing would work are `while True` loops, recursive code, stream consumption (which in reality is just a fancy version of a while True), and functions where you cannot prove if the number of loops is finite (i.e Some inner part of the loop may reset the outer loop), etc...(there are some other examples out of scope).

From those, it looks to me like only the last group would truly benefit, the rest are relatively easy to spot. But notice the big caveat, all of this only works at runtime (when you know the amount of work you have to do per loop). At compile time, it only really works for really small regions of code. So as far as I can reason, this kind of static analysis would not be as beneficial as one may originally think.

I read your comment and thought it couldn't be that bad and those metrics are not necessarily representative. Then I tried it on FF and Chrome on a 4770k and a GTX 1060. I simply tried switching on the vertical tabs. I got a 0.2-0.5 seconds latency from click to feedback on the screen (and longer for the page to fully load!).

Sorry to any dev at Uno, but that's terrible.

I also have a Brother (laser, color, duplex). It literally just works. It has everything you would expect. It is a little bit too loud when printing and a minute after (after cooling it falls back to 0 rpm).

I cannot recommend Brother enough.

> Your co-workers have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their home life and family members.

I think you are overthinking it. I've seen people use it when it provides no real material benefit other than the placebo effect on the user to believe that the blur makes other people focus on their face.

I find background blur even more distracting than background replacement. It's like my mind tries to picture the person that I am seeing in a particular environment and blur makes that process messy.

But that's not always true tho, I have seen background replacement all over people's face (and yes, I seem to be the only one who thinks that's wrong).

They claim to have a competitor for the 3090 at a price 30% lower (500$ less).

Impressive claim.

I have thought about this a lot. I think there exists a finite set of properties your problem needs for blockchain to be an effective solution.

First of all, you need multiple sources of truth. i.e. Everyone can make transactions with money, therefore everyone is a source of truth.

Second, you want to solve your problem in a distributed fashion and you need to figure out the incentives for each node that contributes. i.e. Everyone wants to participate in the economy and is okay with giving a small commission for a transaction.

On top of all this, you also want to maintain some invariant. i.e. Transactions do not create money.

I have thought of more properties, but they are much more boring. These are enough to throw away pretty much all the hype around blockchain. Every time someone suggests blockchain to solve a problem ask yourself if these properties apply to the problem at hand.

Example: Someone suggests logistic company x could use blockchain in order to keep a log of their distribution. But then, you astute reader ask yourself: If a single company essentially holds all the information, there are no multiple sources of truth. How would this instance of blockchain be different from a centralized database? What values does it add?

In my experience on desktop Firefox has more compatbility issues than Chrome. On mobile, on top of that, it is way slower on most websites.

I think a lot of contention in the comments would have gone away if, instead of calling it "True Unemployment Rate", Axios had chosen a different term.

"Dependent Rate" may have been a good alternative?

I think you're both right at the same time. Discord didn't need to be perfect to gain momentum, but it needed to be better. In a way, not only was Discord better; it also added a new use case.

I have never tried Ventrilo or Mumble, but Teamspeak made communication completely dependent on the owner of the server. You couldn't communicate with someone outside of the server, they had no identity. You could do that on Skype... But let's not get started with the mess it is to add people to the call and end up with hundreds of groups.

I didn't use Skype or Teamspeak for gaming, but rather for interacting with different groups of friends. These improvements were very noticeable. From all of my communications apps, Discord is one of the ones I don't mind the least. Most of the time, it just works.

If I suggest an idea from a coworker in a meeting as if it was mine, that move would be seen, at the very least, as somewhat rude. If I got that idea from examining the competition, that would be seen as a smart move.

Sure, if attribution is a requirement then the natural thing to do is to turn it into a legal requirement. But I don't think that is the discussion here.

It comes down to how we want to treat open source. In order to encourage open source, I believe giving credit, even if not required, is courteous. Corporations are not monolithic entities that are perfectly defined. People work on these corporations.

This thread also summarizes my experience pretty well.

To take this even further: I encounter in my day to day many instances of people making claims that are easily refuted with a quick online search. I have realized that correcting people over their lack of scientific knowledge is perceived as nitpicking and inappropriate. We got our incentives backwards. If we cannot speak up over misinformation to our peers, then they will spread faster than the truth.

Sadly, I've had to accept that in order to be perceived as a much stronger source of truth, I have to correct people less.