sambe

What complexity adds up?

I'm struggling with the enterprise-y terminology. It sounds like:

  * your bank is an "ASPSP"
  * the second party is you
  * the company (third party) is the AISP

So each individual company that needs to access your information is an AISP (or PISP for initiating payments)? Your accountant might be an AISP and your water company a PISP? And FCA requirements are (https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/new-regulated-payment-services-...):

"For businesses that only carry on account information services, there is an option to become a ‘registered account information service provider’. These providers have no capital requirements and need to meet fewer conditions than authorised firms. Businesses that provide payment initiation services must be authorised and must have a minimum of €50,000 in initial capital (or higher if they provide certain other payment services). Both AISPs and PISPs have to hold professional indemnity insurance (PII). The EBA has developed Guidelines on PII (link is external)."

Correct? This doesn't specifically rule out being a relay, but I guess there is more detail/restrictions in another document.

See also: https://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2017/june/fca-urged-to-a...

Does the history go back more than a year or two?

That makes sense to me, but then why the need for AV to repeatedly set the key?

If you have no AV, you can be pretty sure that’s not an issue.

You can’t just stop using AV software I’m told. The key is checked for everyone, including people with no AV. Contrary to the sensational headlines, it is implied to be a temporary measure. It’s not really clear whether you’d have to only do this manually once, or on every subsequent update.

This person is also accused, not found guilty (from the link, and no quick Google turning up a conviction).

It does very rarely happen. But even of the subset of events that aren't totally fabricated, many turn out to be more innocent than they are made out to be.

People getting their worldview from these sources are going to be unnecessarily worrisome about such things, which is really the point of the grandparent.

Or does it?

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/15255796._I_was_to...

What do you mean "no"? The article literally never mentions atomoxetine outside of quoted text. It mentions it twice in the contextual part of quotes from papers also dealing with amphetamine variants.

There is a single anecdote about atomoxetine. The quote has nothing to do with the drug's action. The point of the anecdote is the researchers' attitude toward the behaviour of young children, in the context of debating their approach to judging side-effects. That is certainly relevant context: the paper in question is also looking at side-effects for amphetamine variants. Strange approaches to behaviour classification likely apply across all the trials involved.

Your original comment was that this is confusing. I think it's very clear. I am not left with the impression that results for atomoxetine are being conflated with results for amphetamine variants.

I would imagine trying to preempt class actions.

The article itself doesn't, some of the quotes from relevant papers do. It seems likely that studies are often done comparing treatments, and at least one of the quotes has context supporting that idea.

Like I said, it's not part of the replacement program.

I think the assumption in the parent - which would also have been my guess - was that assets begin in higher resolution than required and get sampled down. Certainly used to be the case with games.

That quote really hurts. My iPhone 6S has had spontaneous shutdowns since the first winter it was out (and is supposedly not in the replacement program). No previous Apple phones did. This winter it's the same. To me it suggests a more widespread defect that they do not wish to admit.

I'm talking about single farmer farms and similar.

I know of UK farms that hedge their crop and currency prices. There is a common theme of wanting to be both hedging and getting the upside, but I don't think they are all unhedged.

Amazon already offers such buttons but I haven't used them. I can certainly imagine that being convenient, although I'd want them to be a) unbranded/programmable; b) optionally adding to a shared shopping list rather than directly ordering c) possibly a bit more subtle and/or smaller in size.

I started skimming towards the end. It sounds like there's some genuine weakness introduced here. But I'm also getting the impression there's some of the "security people" mindset Linus was ranting about:

"Forgot the original password? There’s no going back, you’re stuck with what you have unless you are willing to factory reset the device and lose all data in the process. If you ask me, this was a perfect and carefully thought through solution."

I'm not sure how you can consider it a perfect solution that users are losing their backups and hammering Apple for support about the issue. The suggestion to make another backup via iCloud is not terribly useful to those who have lost their phone.

Ahhh they mean the per-application HUD. That is indeed tremendously useful, like the OS X searchable menus and Sublime's command palette. I can't see why anyone would be against that functionality.

Can someone explain to me what HUD means in this context? They say HUD is gone, and GNOME developers are strongly against ever having one. The screenshots show something looking like an overlay with global search. To me, that's what a HUD is.

It's cryptocurrency. Someone is leading the crypto part (also: smart contracts etc. etc.). You could even argue that traditional currencies to have a leader - those maintaining the fiat.

I'm pro-net neutrality and I'm against dishonest marketing, but I think overall it's important to take the higher ground and remain intellectually honest. Doing otherwise results in a mud-slinging contest.

Existing regulations are a restriction on the freedom of service providers. That is undeniable. There many cases where we restrict freedoms for the greater good, but I don't like to pretend we are not doing so in those cases.

I'd also add that freedom is not the right to demand other people give you something you want. I wouldn't say that I've lost my freedoms if there are no good ISPs left after the regulatory change. Everyone involved can still either choose an existing provider or set up their own. We have monopoly/anti-trust laws when that ceases to be the case. Of course, this may not be the efficient path to a world that a huge majority of people want - which is why I slightly side with net neutrality.

Why would one care about whether a dividend is paid? Tax treatment?

I always thought that a major reason to use Scrivener was to do with studios being very fussy about standardised formats and layouts - something that may take quite a bit of time to setup in other editors. You also don't want to do it through trial and error if they are going to discard on first failure. Is this not true? If true, how do you ensure your Emacs output matches requirements?

Per my comment above linking the real implementation: the comment is perhaps misleading about the cause but its claim is largely true. Rust code tends not to look like this.

The real Rust basename implementation is not so low-level:

https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/std/path.rs.html#1801-1808

I don't see how Rust vs C makes no difference. Both languages have trade-offs and I'm pretty sure that Rust advocates would claim the increased safety of the Rust part as a big advantage, and it will certainly reduce those core dumps. Probably the reason there are so many of those advocates is because they don't have to write such error-prone low-level code. Expressive code is more fun, in my experience.

They have an incentive to maximise the expected value of an exit. The parents are suggesting that maximising output reduces probability of an any exit, I believe.

That's not an "or". According to the article, Mozilla is very likely still entitled to payment after terminating. The statement from Yahoo in the grandparent comment makes it sound like Verizon didn't quite realise this possibility and are looking to avoid it.

That sounds a lot like "we are going to try not to pay".

Bugs exist. That isn’t a design problem. Neither is carelessness. I don’t think either are the thrust of the article.