macksd

This isn't always true. Using a SaaS is outsourcing these concerns, and sometimes you're outsourcing them to someone who will do better than you would and sometimes worse. I've worked on a couple of SaaS where security was absolutely not top priority. Especially in Silicon Valley, organizations often value growth over sound processes, fully staffed security teams, and managing tech debt. Many a SaaS has leaked customer data and survived, so many think they CAN allow that risk.

There's the perception, yeah. I've also been told that I was so productive in my current role, they saw it as a loss to move me to my target role. Of course, they lost me entirely...

There's a place for that: just because someone's a good engineer doesn't make them a good leader or manager, for instance. But such stiff attitudes really hurt an org, IMO.

I sympathize with where you're coming from, but the phrase "unimportant things" bothers me. I'm always seeing clients deploy alpha or beta software in production. I see tech companies accumulating tech debt like nobodies business. None of that should happen. And often disasters involving tech get traced back to a cascading failure that started with something considered unimportant.

I love that software is an accessible discipline to hobbyists and that it empowers people. But it needs to be a discipline, top to bottom. We need deep understanding with security and robustness as fundamentals, good practices, and all of that baked into our tools.

Correct. If we could magically end the rape of children and stop the propagation of images of such, I think we'd all be on board. But when a system would realistically just push most of it elsewhere and violate a bunch of innocent people's privacy, people get nervous.

It's like being asked to have an invasive, detailed scan of your body shown to TSA personnel (and recorded) when you fly. The motive is apparently to prevent violence. But there were still incidents on flights when that was being done. It wouldn't have caught the box cutters on 9/11. The stated motive ceases to be part of the equation for me.

The whole point of GANs is to train a model until it can defeat detection by another model. Virtually any technique for detection that can be reproduced could just be incorporated into the training loop and rendered almost useless.

Except for any laws or restrictions against decompiling, it would legally be no different than the GPL case. Although personally I think since co-pilot is capable of redistributing the code, the question of whether the GPL permits the specific usage is still unclear.

Not necessarily. If you were running a casino and someone was able to significantly beat the odds on 34 of your 36 tables, would you assume they cheated at all other tables but not those two, or just that other players at those tables were really good?

It could be that 2 of those systems are actually better. It could also be that the state of the art in deep learning just isn't there yet for radiology. But this is a strong suggestion that research is being dramatically overstated, so I would get real careful with my investments in this area overall.

I was a bit confused by exactly what the percentage in the headline was, so here:

>> In two of the largest retrospective cohort studies of AI to replace radiologists in Europe (n=76 813 women), all AI systems were less accurate than consensus of two radiologists, and 34 of 36 AI systems were less accurate than a single reader

I'm still a little unclear how you measure the accuracy of a consensus of radiologists, without relying on the consensus of other radiologists. Maybe just a bigger consensus, or by using known end results but looking at imagery that could have been an early warning?

It destroys the idea that you can only get an education that meets their standards from their teaching.

That doesn't seem to jive with their tests, like doing it on-demand, extending focus range beyond normal limits, or the brain activity.

Why would you want to raise your cholesterol?

I believe this is what is done for a lot of old games (you know, the ones that would ask you to enter page 7, line 3, word 4 from the manual, etc.) If you buy them from Good Old Games or something, you simply enter any answer for the copy protection and it let's you in.

They may be referring to the fact that the two parties will often join forces to protect the status quo. Where you see support for things like ranked choice voting, or easier ballot access for third parties, you see less support from the established party leaders because the status quo is their best case scenario. It's all about democracy as long as you have the majority.

While in actual votes the parties may differ, in principle I often fail to see any clear difference in philosophy. Someone running against the incumbent will slam them for abuse of executive orders and support for the Patriot Act. Then they'll get in office and sign a renewal of the Patriot Act and issue more executive orders than their predecessor. In that way I see them as a uniparty on many issues.

In other ways Republicans are just anti-Democrats and Democrats are just anti-Republicans. They seem to use the same arguments on different issues depending on what happens to suit them or what politician they're defending. I've seen Republicans slam Biden for his failure in Afghanistan and failing to get Afghan nationals that helped the US military evacuated. But watch them do a 180 as soon as any of those Afghans arrive here. Which party believes you have absolute autonomy over your own medical decisions and that doctors need to treat you according to your own wishes? Well it depends on the treatment we're discussing. It doesn't depend on any consistent principle.

Call it a uniparty or not - I just don't trust either to be sincere about any democratic principles anymore.

Okay but when I was asking questions about why we didn't expect booster shots from the mRNA vaccines, that is the opposite of what and immunologist at my local hospital told me. So I'm not sure it is obvious.

Except it was widely reported that natural immunity lasted 3 to 6 months and that the vaccines would last 2 years (at least Moderna), and the nuances there I think would be lost on a lay person. I even had an immunologist explain to me in detail why the immunity from the vaccine would be way stronger than acquired immunity. It doesn't really build confidence in science if, while we're finding new things, everyone pretends that the conclusion du jour was always obvious.

Well if I notice it, I'm not paying $3k for it, I'll tell you that. If most customers wouldn't notice, they should have no problem "refurbishing" it, should they?

I'll take your word for it that it works, but I would have been skeptical. Am I correct in understanding that they essentially function is a communication medium with the companies maintaining these unsolicited mailing lists, and those companies voluntarily remove people that pay DMAchoice?

It bothered from the other angle when POTUS started pushing Twitter as an important channel to keep up on what was going on because it's hardly ideal for that. My local government has similarly been making Nextdoor a de facto requirement if you want to know what's happening or want to give feedback (especially in an era of frequent town office closures).

I tend to favor minimal government but I think the USPS was an important outcome of the Constitution to fill the need for a universal and "official" communication channel. But their budget has been butchered, I get misdelivered mail all the time and the DMV tells me I'm not the only one in my town who never seems to get their mail, but there's no shortage of wasteful junk mail. If only I was confident we could nail the execution, I would love to see the Internet embraced as basic, universal infrastructure and an official government communication channel that's more reliable and less abused.

But I dream.

A lot of people get all the way through college without ever considering the total cost of compound interest or the value of their major. Many college educations and critical thinking are not remotely the same thing.

I've always been confused by Google's reputation for pushing in-the-office work. I've met with... 3, I think, Google teams quite a few times over the years, and not once have I seen Google engineers in the office for these meetings. I even flew into the area for a meeting at Mountain View once, we got escorted in by a manager, and we sat in a conference room while all the Google engineers dialed in from their homes around the Bay Area. But yeah, everyone seems to talk about Google not being remote friendly (pre-COVID, that is).

Or a 4th option: if, as you say, most people are doing SEO tricks to get there, why not just only index stuff that has indexing-specific metadata associated with it. I don't see why this needs to be so different from an opt-in version of robots.txt. IMO this only becomes unclear when you're collecting user content en masse from non-technical users, say in a case like Facebook, etc. And IMO Facebook just shouldn't be passing on user-content from individual consumers to be indexed, especially if they encourage you to upload data that references other people.

I wouldn't say it's the most pressing privacy issue, but we can collectively focus on more than just a single priority. For instance, I wouldn't call someone's medical career useless just because they weren't working on reducing heart disease.

For a long time the first Google result for me was someone from my school posting about work I did. I didn't find their comments particularly complimentary. I wasn't wild about the idea that someone at a prospective employer would probably Google me and see that. I didn't like the idea of harassing the site owner into taking it down, but I will say a big motivator for me in open-source has been flooding the Internet with better reflections of myself to drown out stuff like that. Stuff ends up on the Internet without people's knowledge or express consent all the time. When I joined LinkedIn they already knew a bunch of people I could be connected to. I never gave them that info about my relationships. Other people did! First thing I got was a suggestion to connect with my ex-girlfriend. I hardly think I'm an anomaly with stuff like this.

edit: As another datapoint, I have a coworker who is fanatical about privacy. Will refuse to stand in group photos. Will ask you to delete photos they may appear in if they see you taking one. Gives random names on restaurant orders. No LinkedIn, no social media. I Googled their name: tons of accurate photos, an accurate phone number, school history, etc.

It's is often talked about that way: Wikipedia at least defines it as a general price increase. And that still gives you many of the same effects as a money-supplu-triggered inflation. Many annuities are worth less. The dollars in a savings account are worth less. The minimum wage becames worth less...

I didn't say they said that. It's also not my whole comment. Not sure what you're getting at.

As I said, I am not such a person. Most of the English-speaking world consists of the same.

As I said - I agree that China's government is worse. In fact my previous employer had a policy that company devices just didn't cross that border, even when traveling for work. But it's still not a factor in which devices I purchase myself.

Of the two, which government do I think is more evil? China's. Which government do I, a permanent resident of America, think could more immediately make my life harder by being able to invade my privacy? America's.

I see a lot of "this is a US-only problem" comments here lately on many topics and I just don't get it because it's usually just not remotely correct at all, nevermind relevant if most of the discussion IS based in the US, like for a US-based company. I lived in 3 different countries growing up, mostly with far more European influence than the US has now, and never at any time did most people I saw live in anything but individual houses that needed to be heated in the winter, and never at any time did my Dad not spend 1-2 hours commuting in a car every day. Yesterday someone was claiming MTV was a US-only thing. Sure, it's not universal, but claiming that it's US-only says more about their world view than any American IMO.

But aside from that, when I started being remote my social interactions went way up in terms of quantity and quality. I was free to choose where I lived, had lower cost of living, and had more time and less stress and other factors that would put me in a bad mood. Consequently, I spent more time with extended family members on both sides of my family. I played more with my children. I picked up healthier hobbies, including one where I train with a team at the gym. My social circle is far more diverse, more distinct from work. As others have experienced during COVID: I got to know my neighbors better, and we look out for each other. Having your social interaction primarily at work is very far from ideal, and in my experience and from many anecdotes here, cutting down the work interaction helps most others.

We had a similar phenomenon on MTV, which made up the bulk of the programming on channel 4, in New Zealand. Is it really that US centric? The UK has their own MTV programming too, don't they?

I'm glad you have a plan - but I hope they leave you in peace!