mmooss

Not to take away from your comment, but to clarify: That's not the paranoia the Nazi scientists meant. They meant fear of the SS, being spied on, being stabbed in the back by a co-worker in a power struggle, fear for the families, etc.

Relatively recently, recordings were released of conversations between captured Nazi scientists held at a house in the UK (I think I saw it on HN). They were housed together and the house was bugged purposely to capture casual conversation for intelligence purposes.

IIRC one conclusion they/some of the scientists drew was that the culture of the Nazi regime - the paranoia, fear, and violence - made a project on that scale impossible. Enough talented, high-ego people could not work together on project that large and demanding.

Also, IIRC, when the Hiroshima bomb was announced, many couldn't believe it. They had been working on a power generation reactor as a first step - though I'm not sure the OP fits that story?

Also, maybe Heisenberg didn't want to succeed? Has that ever been resolved to some degree?

Here's the most important thing (if I may say so myself :) ):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50408802

The ship hasn't sailed at all. You're mid-20s are gone, of course, but don't waste your 30s worrying about your 20s; fully embrace this moment and this phase of life (not that phases are so tightly tied to age), even the sad parts.

The best comment of the day; thank you. For those comments wondering how to do it, the first step is to see, know, and love yourself. Nobody else can know you if you don't; nobody else can love you if you don't. And once you do know and love yourself, you'll find the other people are not threatening - they can't really hurt you; you'll want to know and love them.

And if you think you know yourself, this is silly, it's easy, you don't know even what you're missing. I once thought that. Now I see that nobody really knows themself completely.

Your comment is far outside the culture here. If you don't like someone's comment, read something else; click the minus sign (collapse thread) if you like. HN pages are not paper; we're not running out of space, and this thread has only 64 comments.

Also, have some empathy. You're talking to a human being.

I think their comment is the most beautiful thing I've seen today; I'm so glad they left it here.

That's an attempt at dismissing a priori the issues outlined in the GP, completely avoiding addressing them. These are very serious issues with very serious consequences; dismissing them won't change the outcomes.

Assuming you also don't want these horrible outcomes, it doesn't make sense to dismiss the risk. The people who advocate dismissing it are the ones who don't care about or seek those outcomes and are trying to remove obstacles.

> catching up is usually much faster than doing something for the first time

Yes, absolutely. You can see many places have followed that path; you can skip the economic policy and technological R&D and just use mature solutions - South Korea and Taiwan, for example.

The 'cheating' - I assume you mean about IP - is nonsense to me. Who made the rules? The people who want to preserve their IP, and they would make different rules if they didn't have IP themselves. China didn't make those rules.

Thank you, that helps. Still, why not Free and/or Libre, used for decades - "public resources that anyone can access or use without money changing hands or the negotiation of cumbersome licensing agreements."

And that terminology comes ready made with more nuanced ideas like 'free-as-in-beer' and 'free-as-in-speech' (from a less formal tradition).

I'm not criticizing it; they must know the terminology and concepts I'm referring to. I'm curious about what distinguishes their ideas from the commonplace FLOSS concepts.

(Are you an author?)

The Nazis did do a lot of damage - far more than any benefits from the science would balance - and the 'science' contributed to it. The Nazis and many other racists have long argued that they are just being objective and the other side is biased.

How will you prevent that harm from recurring? Ignoring it hasn't worked, and doesn't distinguish the program you propose from a long line of racist programs and propaganda - that is, nobody can tell whether it's sincere or just another cover story.

But people can tell that it's not responsible, which is a clue about the thought behind it. We can't wash our hands of the consequences of our actions. If you don't prevent the next racist catastrophe, who will? Will you just do it and leave the consequences for others to clean up (and suffer from)?

It's not so gentle, but lawyers in the US have told me that their malpractice insurance requires them to have practice management software - calendar, document management, case management, customer management, billing and accounting.

Find a web-hosted practice management system, start with the piece she finds most valuable and easy to use (maybe a calendar?).

Thanks for the research. Have you looked into how to secure / disable the subsystem?

(I hate that a discussion on the OP has been hijacked by a discussion on AI writing; the substantive questions are all at the bottom. I wish mods would 'detatch and move' the AI subthread.)

I expected the article to address that. Maybe it's obvious?:

Disable the daemons, delete the directory, lock down permissions to the database files / directory, lock down the daemons' permissions, delete the daemons, ...

I'm not recommending those things - I don't know what the consequence is for the system - but that's where I'd start.

I did say China seems to do well in those respects.

But it's difficult to leap ahead from step 0 to step 3, as you need the gains from step 0 to achieve step 1, the benefits from step 1 to achieve step 2, etc. Some of those benefits are food, shelter, healthcare, education (hard to have engineers without it, for example), physical infrastructure, finance, honest and skilled government, etc.

I agree that those are challenges. Maintaining competition in markets is well-studied; I wonder what has been found - what can be done, how can the scope be limited without failing on the outcomes, etc.

I wonder what empirical and theoretical substance there is to the idea that the cost of living is due to lack of competition (in zero-to-one markets), and that competition is the solution to much of this.

On that basis, the 'free market' should be called the 'free, competitive market' - without competition, it has little value. Businesses should be required to compete and to opeerate in competitive markets. Anything anti-competitive should be treated harshly.

Could you give us other examples?

China manufactures many things but that's not the key part of the value chain. iPhones are manufactured in China (and elsewhere in Asia but Apple in Cupertino is the trillion-dollar company, not the actual manufacturers.

The key parts are R&D, design, intellectual property, engineering talent. The question is, how well are Chinese organizations doing in those capacities in regard to robotics. My impression is that the answer is, quite well.

The focus on manufacturing is (in many cases) a twisted approach of economics. In the mid-20th century the West did very well with mass production. It was an innovative technology at the top of the value chain. But in early-to-mid 21st century, it's (often) an old, ~commodity technology and the ROI is poor. It's also physically not good for workers in many cases. When looking for economic growth you want to aim for top of the value change, for the future, not what was done 70 years ago - it won't work the same way economically anymore. In economics, you can't return to what worked before.

I don't understand the reason for this article and book:

The idea is hardly new; it's been very well-known, widely used, and widely studied for decades, and not just in IT. For example, in the corporate world Hasbro created an FOSS license for significant aspects of the game Dungeons & Dragons back in the 2000s. And the public obviously embraced FOSS and crowd-sourcing over and over - wikis on every game and hobby, fan fiction, Minecraft, etc. What is new in this book? What is the impetus? What audience needs to be told about Wikipedia?

Also, why change the terminology from free/libre open source, crowd-sourcing, etc.?

The article seems to blame the Iran war most of all, though of course that has damaged the economy.

Despite Shor being a Democrat, it's an even-handed, data-based, information-rich, insightful analysis - easily the best I've read so far.

The Soviets certainly were a significant factor but that doesn't tell us how much Hungarians contributed. Not everyone in Hungary revolted; no doubt many cooperated.

But I don't mean to dismiss the courage of those who did revolt. Not only does it inspire others (I'm sure the Prague Spring was inspired by it, and others later), it changed how the world looked at the Soviet Union and their relationships with the Eastern European countries they dominated.

Also, schools and parents might appreciate the lack of ads.

Kagi might have a great opportunity with a cheap/free/freemium model for K-12 students.

Not only would the students become familiar with it and accustomed to the quality results, but the adults would see it and also appreciate the quality, including as an educational too.

> online libraries (which don't exist, apart from the very limited sample from these books accessible using Wikipedia).

There are many, but all short of the potential for knowledge and learning:

Internet Archive Lending Library, Hathi Trust, Libby / Overdrive, U. of Pennsylvania's Online Books Page:

https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/

There are also the shadow libraries, of course.

Note that ex-players dying last decade played ~50 years prior, in the ~1960s. It was a significantly more violent game than it is today. Look up Chuck Bednarik's famous hit on Frank Gifford, and Bednarik's reaction after - that was a highlight.

I still think it's dangerous and changes are needed, but today's players are safer.

A recent prior study - I think one of those mentioned in the article - said other studies found very little, maybe one or two brains in the samples. And that included a study of military veterans.

I wonder if it's possible to take the head out of American football, and use helmets as just extra protection in accidents - like helmets in almost every other endeavor (climbing, construction, bicycling, etc.). Make it a game played from the neck down.

You can count on people saying it's impossible, 'this isn't football', players saying 'I can't play this way; I'll retire', etc. That happens with every change, including the ones that all the players accept and play with now, and which are part of the most popular sport in the U.S. Not unlike responses to changes in technology.

Already, things like helmet-to-helmet hits, spearing helmet-first, etc. are against the rules (I don't know the exact rules). Players can control what body parts make contact with what on the opposing player - obviously: in other things in life, including other sports, you don't instinctively lead with your skull.

I would guess that blocking between the offensive and defensive lines would be the biggest change. They begin inches apart and slam into each other at the start of each play, and generally whoever gets leverage lower will win. I think it would just look different, more arms and less body-to-body.

Also, are there sensors for helmets that would pickup impacts? I think sensing the accoustics / vibrations might be sufficient.

I have no idea what happened. I expect any experienced attacker knows about remote lock and remote wipe, and their first step would be extract everything they can ASAP.

Then they can load the extracted bits onto something else and go forward from there.

> it’s not really about stopping the breaches because it’s hard to say you’re ever going to be free from breaches, but creating a system of data storage that takes potential breaches in mind.

It's all of the above; generally it's called 'defense in depth': you don't just want a hard shell, you also want to secure the internal components - data and code.

Again, you want to start with a census of what is valuable and focus on protecting those things. You don't have resources to secure everything.

IMHO NIST advice is highly reliable but it's often too complicated to be useful, which seems to be the case here (that's up to you, of course).

Otherwise, you need to start with an idea of what valuables you have and what threats - hackers? lawsuits? competitors? how well-resourced? - you're protecting against. No security will be perfect. You need to make it more expensive to steal your data than it's worth to the attacker.

A few general tips off the top of my head:

* As much as possible, don't store anything on a computer that you don't want to read in the news or hear read to you in court. The safest data doesn't exist. For any communications, set a retention period (e.g., delete messages in 30 days), and just save separately anything you need to keep.

* Store confidential data (passwords, credit card numbers, anything that can cost money or reputation) only in a secure database; the only exception is when the data is actually requird. Password databases, if they have long-enough fields, can work here. Do not keep it in emails - don't email around passwords, credit card numbers, etc.; otherwise when the hacker accesses your email, all is lost. This especially applies to confidential client data - you don't want to have to explain to all your clients, 'you're confidential data might have been stolen - I don't really know if they hacker found it or will use it.' With a secure database, you have peace of mind.

* Use Apple products. They prioritize security and have the resources to deliver on it; they are the fastest route to security. Windows' value is to larger organizations managing large numbers of computers. Linux is too complicated to secure for non-technical users (and probably isn't as secure as Apple). It does require trusting Apple, but you need to trust someone.

* Use Signal for communication, as much as possible.

* Security is much too hard to do yourself. Depending on need, use products that a vendor remotely manages (but then you need to trust the vendor). Use your firewall to filter viruses, though that's imperfect and you need to be careful about it slowing down throughput.

> In 2020, NASA’s New Horizons spacecraft, having passed the orbit of Pluto, measured a proxy for the amount of hydrogen around it. In the area between stars in our galaxy — the “interstellar medium,” or ISM — New Horizons found around 130 hydrogen atoms per liter of space.

Not to nitpick, but I thought New Horizons hasn't entered the ISM, and only the Voyager craft have?