xoa

>>Payload is 26 starlink v3 satellites.

>F9 fits how many?

Zero. Starlink v3 is too big for the F9 payload fairing. It's not just a matter of mass, the diameter and overall volume is important as well. In terms of performance, last I read they're supposed to add 1 Tbps of capacity each, so assuming they all work the first time all 26 would be around 10x the network addition of a full F9 v2 Mini launch. But the larger antennas would have other advantages beyond sheer bandwidth, and they'll be able to start getting more serious about direct to cell.

If making a breaking change to the format of the file, why in root's name would neovim not just make its own new file!? Import the vim version if that's desired into persistent-undo.neovim and then just go from there. I don't understand their choice here at all nor why you're acting like this is complicated or there was some need for them to reuse the exact same file as vim?

One thing I haven't seen tried in any of these things floating around (I'm still on macOS 15) that is the first thing I'd test after deletion is to stick a locked dummy file in there of the same name and see if that interferes with redownloads without any of the other mess. That's a classic simple hack. Ie, after deletion just a quick

  # touch com_apple_MobileAsset_UAF_FM_GenerativeModels
  # chflags schg com_apple_MobileAsset_UAF_FM_GenerativeModels

Then reenable SIP (or not). While maybe Apple stuck in some extra smarts in their download logic, and a full system update I think nowadays just blows everything away and replaces it, I've found in practice developers (not unreasonably) tend not to consider non-trivially-removable files appearing "where they're not supposed to be" and build a path for that. Granted, possible the process just ends up spinning trying to redownload over and over again or something but would be an easy thing to test.

>Is there any difference between US citizens and visitors?

Yes. US citizens have an absolute right of return to the US (at a land border anyway, they can be stopped from boarding a flight to the US while physically in another country). If there's an active warrant for arrest or they commit a crime right there or the like they can be arrested, but the process at that point plays out the same as an arrest anywhere in the country with the same standards. Property can be screened and denied, or potentially seized, but the person can than challenge that and it must be returned unless there is reason. This significantly changes the math as far as practical inconvenience to refusal to cooperate, though I don't want to downplay how much it could suck for most people to have expensive stuff taken for even a short period of time. But they can't keep someone from getting home and, in turn, back to financial, legal, political, and social support networks which can back them from there.

Visitors on the other hand have no right to entry at all and can be denied for any legal reason (which in practice amounts to near anything). They can be banned from future entry as well for a period of time or indefinitely. So they face different (and greater) pressure.

>In my home country I can just deny getting my devices searched. They might be allowed to seize and seal them, awaiting a court order for searching the device. Which I could appeal.

This sounds roughly the same as America then, depending on specifics. Here LEAs may not unfortunately need a court order to search the devices of an American "as best they can", but they can't compel cooperation either (and in fact generally cannot get a court order for that at all outside of a narrow exception due to the 5th Amendment). So if a device isn't encrypted, or if it is but they're able to break into it, or if (as in this case) the person in question simply goes ahead and unlocks it for them then that's at least for now allowed (hopefully SCOTUS overrules the 2C), but they can't legally force password entry.

>Basically the same process as anywhere else in the country, international borders are not some special place that gives the police superpowers.

You don't mention your country (and that's fine!) but I don't think there is a single nation anywhere that doesn't have "police superpowers" at international borders. It's sorta a core part and parcel with the basic idea of a "nation" at all, that it can if it wishes regulate its people/goods exchange with the rest of the world. When you travel within a typical free-ish country you can just stop at a store in town and buy stuff and then take it home and the police can't investigate it and demand receipts and that you pay additional taxes or just outright seize it or make you take it back. Right? That's just, normal, within a single polity everything is already under the same rules.

But a border between independent polities by definition means that there could be goods legal in one but illegal in the other, or that are subject to different standards, or different safety considerations, or where there is disagreement on whether/how externalities are accounted for, or just simply taxed differently for pure revenue purposes. In turn, what country doesn't give themselves the right to regulate import of physical stuff, even if internally there is total freedom of movement and goods? Genuinely curious?

The argument here though is that this isn't about regulation of imports, but a criminal investigation. And I agree with legal scholars like Orin Kerr that the Second Circuit got this one wrong. This was not an import power thing, trying to stop contraband or levy legal import taxes, this was a criminal case, and I think that should always be protected by the 4A.

>No statute defines "clean room RE" and there's basically no relevant litigation establishing case law.

You seem confused here? "Clean Room RE" is simply a descriptive result of copyright law in the US, and is well established. In the US there is no "sweat of the brow doctrine", pure facts simply cannot be copyrighted at all, nor underlying methods/ideas (that's patents). And as a direct result of the latter, again unlike patents, if two people truly independently write the same thing, both get separate copyright.

"Clean room reverse engineering" is just applying that to make any legal fight much cheaper or discourage it from every being bothered with in the first place. You have an RE "dirty" team that goes through copyrighted software and makes a specification that is purely factual, ie, "function 1 takes (int16)X input and does equation ABC on it, function 2 takes (long)X & (long)Y inputs and does LMN" etc. A factual/math spec like that cannot be copyrighted, so it breaks any derivation chain. They then give that, and only that with no other communications, to the clean team. If someone with no other exposure to the software being RE'd uses that spec to write a new piece of software themselves, then by definition the result cannot have any copyright of the original. It's a brand new work based off a list of uncopyrightable facts & math/ideas (though worth noting it could still get tripped up by abomination that is software patents).

There are other ways to argue against copyright infringement successfully, but they're much more subjective, which legally speaking reads "expensive, uncertain". CRRE simply trades that for two clear binary questions: was the spec copyrightable, and did the people writing a new piece of software from that spec have any previous exposure to the original? If the answers to that are no, then all arguments about function names being similar or whatever are no longer relevant.

On the subject of LLMs, one curious twist is that proprietary software might have less effective protection then open source depending on how it all goes. A coding LLM almost certain trained on all open source software available on the web. So there's at least some argument it's tainted. But proprietary software is proprietary. If the LLM has never had any of the source code in its training input, then isn't it clean in terms of producing anything derivative of that? That'll be kinda interesting, and might leave some companies with a bit of a conundrum (or I guess pushing the patent side even harder, but that has a much more sane 20 year expiration date vs copyright).

>On the other hand, disabling WebGPU is offering entropy for fingerprinting, too. A vanishingly small % of users will have done so.

I think near any anti-fingerprinting efforts though presume some floor level of system security and stability. If some particular hardware exposure feature lets attackers run arbitrary low level timing and hardware testing code or crash the system or break the sandbox the game is likely over for most people.

An extra bit of entropy isn't meaningless sure, but at some point there should be some weighing of absolute attack surface against it right? Some features just seem inherently anti-privacy/anti-security and one might just have to try to deal with that via other approaches.

While I'm sure it has its uses, particularly if someone really does want to game or do complex computational stuff purely within a web browser, I'll admit I've grown pretty cautious/tired around the ever increasing amount of hardware attack surface area the browser vendors seem to be rushing to expose as Google in particular appears determined to try to be the "operating system on the operating system" as much as it can. In this particular case it made me realize I'd awhile ago set dom.webgpu.enabled and pdfjs.enableWebGPU to false in Firefox, same as I disabled WebGL. Kinda figured if I ever saw something ultra cool I could enable it just that one time but so far I haven't. Semi-related, reviewing the available settings now for the first time in a bit I notice they have a dom.webgpu.blocked-domains with the sole entries being "easyeda.com,*.easyeda.com", I wonder what that's about?

>EXIF data is stripped for a good reason - because it can be a privacy hazard. Suddenly this plays no role anymore?

Can you clarify what your actual complaint is here? Putting aside for a second obvious implementation options, it's pretty standard that there can be a tradeoff between privacy and trust. Any of us are still perfectly free to upload images for fun to forums or social media or whatever that are private, or edited or whatever we like. But if there's something we [i]want[/i] to prove, this gives an extra option to do so. And in particular the set of cases where one cares the most about enhancing authenticity appears at first thought to be pretty much a union set with the cases where one will put their name (or at least the location and time of the picture in question) behind the image? Like, can you give examples of specific cases you are imagining where simultaneously the photo itself reveals no information about time and location [i]and[/i] it's something local/national/international-newsworthy where people would fear AI-alteration? Like, say you're photographing at a protest to document it including any violations of law. By definition, the images you take reveal the location and the time. That's the whole point of them. Having the location and timestamp signed wouldn't reveal anything extra as long as the photo was unaltered.

And actual legit journalism always has name(s) standing behind the reporting. Or for that matter, even if we're merely talking something like a review of a product, is it actually wrong to put a name or pseudonym behind that review if you expect readers to give you much credence? I mean, you'd be free in terms of law and tech to not bother. But even long before the current growing AI-slop age a lot of us have been starting to treat anonymous reviews with a lot of skepticism, or discounting them entirely for some product classes, for good reason.

Even in terms of maintaining privacy, remember we already have "tools" for that which this in turn could further help. You could privately report a tip to a reporter at a media organization, and then they could report on that without revealing you but be able to say "we verified the signature of the raw image and sensor data" alongside normal follow up. Then it's their name, but having a stronger chain behind it could still be helpful in places.

Finally getting back to "implementation options", there's no technical reason the image and multiple sets of metadata can't all be signed separately by the sensor stack such that you can pick & choose what to include and still have it all be signed, with readers giving greater or lesser weight to the trust based on your choices.

As @severine said a few hours ago, lots of upvotes, zero comments, guess today between work we're all squeezing in a bit of Shattered 4.0.0 instead of HN ;). I got an incredibly lucky 7 challenge Assassin run going on the previous version that I'd forgotten about at floor 6, so I've been continuing with that to give the new one a kick. Just reached the new Imp Quest right now, trying to decide whether to try it here or do so on a fresh vanilla run to see how it goes without challenges on. If challenges apply in the vault Into Darkness in particular might be tough. Though I guess on the other hand unlike normal no point in worrying about further leveling or equipment before trying it since we get reset to zero, that's actually kind of fresh in its own way.

I agree that the new designs might just take awhile. They're definitely prettier, but right now since a lot of art hasn't been updated yet they stick out vs the older design style. I'm not sure they're as clear and readable either, though that's improved from the early redesigns, but even so I feel like the 3D-ish effects have caused a step back in contrast. That's a challenging line to walk with bulky pixel art. Still, the new terrain tiles are quite nice and general rejiggering there. I think overall once it's all updated it'll be a little slicker. Haven't seen any of the new enchants or the like yet, Prison/Caves felt mostly the same just a little more atmospheric. Troll quest was the same but his room was cooler.

One selfish thing I'd enjoy seeing as a player with [holy crap] hours into SPD over the years would be a sort of minor "trainer" mode, something that'd let you fix a few variables in a run while keeping the RNG otherwise. Basically having done near everything (though the occasional surprise is all the more delightful for that) when I go back for a game often I'm in the mood for something specific like a gardening/necromancer run or to try something silly as a build. Right now that can turn into a tiresome game of seed hunting though, you only get the right Old Mage quest 1/3 times for example and have to go through 7-9 levels each time first. And if you run it on vanilla to speed up the search, then play that seed, now you know a bunch of other info instead of just that it has the right potential, you don't go into the unknown again until the levels after. It'd be nice for vets if there was a way to just say "I want a game with Seed/Ember/Dust OM Quest" or "make the sad ghost drop a +1 whip" or "first crystal chest has a +0 corruption wand", that's it, just 1-2 seed variables overridden to be fixed but you still have no idea where they'll be or when, or know anything else about the run. Just that if you survive to find it it'll be there.

Edit: Ooh, the new rat king room is more appropriately majestic for the true ruler of the dungeon!

>I am not sure I see a fundamental distinction between HN censoring your speech on their platform or the government preventing you from speaking in public. Both are censoring you right?

Wrong. HN is not "censoring" you at all, which requires engaging in violence (or threat of violence) against you to inhibit you from speaking in public. HN is literally engaging in Free Speech itself. Take arguably the most fundamental free speech activity in a democracy: advocating to your peers for the candidate you wish to vote for and have elected to represent you. You've researched and listened to Alice, Bob and Carol. You decide the best is Alice, and to show your support you do the quintessential thing and put out a Vote For Alice lawn sign on your lawn. That's obviously free speech right? Now what if instead some volunteer from Alice's election team comes by and asks you if they can put up a sign on your property, and you say yes. That too clearly involves your free speech rights, even if you didn't pay for the sign. Now say Bob & Carol's campaigns turn up, and they ask to put up signs on your lawn too. You don't support them and say no. Have you censored them? Of course not, that's ridiculous. Free speech isn't "everything is equal nothing matters", everyone is trying collectively to iterate towards truth and value by making their cases and listening, without general use of force. To say that "I think this idea/person/item is the best choice" by definition is exclusionary, it's also saying "I think all the other ideas/persons/items are NOT the best choice". It can also simply be "I wish to engage with these subjects, not those". You can make a forum dedicated to airplanes & cats, and ban anyone who starts threads on boats & lizards. You may have nothing whatsoever against boats or lizards, but that's not what you personally want to focus on on your own forum you're paying for.

Hacker News is the private property of its owners. They have their own free speech rights. Exercising those rights is not censorship.

Others in turn are free to use their property and/or their voice on public property to make their cases, and they can try to convince you and vice versa. And there can be social consequences, if someone really dislikes your speech maybe they don't invite you to dinner anymore and urge others to do the same, who might agree (or go the other way, or just ignore it). Humans can get passionate sometimes. But by keeping violence out of the whole thing outside of narrow exceptions that undermine the approach itself, room is preserved for minds to be changed and rifts mended years or even decades later, and for ideas to come back around if someone cares enough.

Government enforcing things though always involves violence, either directly or one or more orders removed. But a general monopoly on the legitimate use of force is a defining feature of government. If government doesn't like Alice, and tells you take down the sign, or else, that's fundamental infringement. They're closing down the whole cycle (if a private person did that it'd also be a bunch of other crimes AND infringement, because private persons are not allowed to use violence against others at all by default outside of narrow exceptions). And if government tells you "oh you can leave up the sign about Alice, but it's not fair you censor Bob & Carol, you must put up signs for them too. Or else." that'd be equally infringing censorship. If everyone has a sign, it's the same message as nobody having one. It's still suppressing "I think Alice is the best choice".

>For a large part I see people using digital platforms as a primary method of expressing their thoughts and opinions.

It is easier and cheaper than any point in human history to put up your own website, including your own forum to try to form a community around. You have no right to an audience though.

>Governments in both the US and the EU have imposed restrictions on what platforms may host.

What? What restriction has government in the US imposed beyond the long standing and unchanged exceptions that prove the rule (which essentially boil down to threats of violence, comms integral to crime, defamation AFTER a court case to prove it, serious violations of personal self with zero public value like CSAM, and purely commercial speech engaging in fraud)?

>I think we have not reconciled yet how to reinterpret free speech online.

There is nothing to reinterpret. We've gotten it fine since the passage of Section 230. The problem are constant efforts to suppress what we've already got, in some cases coupled with completely orthogonal issues like failure to enforce ancient anti-trust legislation.

I'm a free speech absolutist (albeit one of apparently few people who actually knows what "free speech" is [0]) and I'm absolutely outraged and infuriated by this action and a long history of anti-speech actions by the USG, though this particular Administration is unprecedented in terms of censorship, general evil and authoritarianism in modern history. I also think it's unfortunate how many people in favor of all sorts of censorship now attack stawmen and treat something so vitally important as a joke like you have. The unseriousness you treat something incredibly serious with has become an endemic problem in our society, and directly inspires nihilism/fatalism/tribalism etc, feelings which in turn directly support authoritarianism.

----

0: For example, if HN bans you, shadowbans you, makes your posts dead by default, flags, or downvotes, that's all free speech.

>On hardware, it's very expensive to purchase anything which can provide a fraction of the performance of a subscription.

One of the basic questions/concerns here though is that it's not like the AI places are getting the GPUs for 10x less. It's true they have some economies of scale, but they also have some waste, and frankly in this particular case it's not clear they get that much gain over what a lot of businesses could achieve. The biggest traditional gain for central providers is that a lot of typical computing usage is burst-y, and in turn local kit might be underutilized. But with LLMs heavy users tend to use them all the time assuming their tokens allow it (and in the case of local hardware there's nothing stopping you, quite the contrary), they can use it directly interactively or leave them to go overnight on something too.

So it's reasonable to suspect that the reason subscriptions are only a fraction of the cost is that we're in a bubble seeing these companies losing money in an attempt to gain some sort of durable advantage. Just as every previous time, there is the chance that the music stops at some point, and they need to crank up pricing or pull other schemes to actually make money. Of course, it can be a good deal in the mean time, you basically get to suck down investor money for nothing, but it's also not unreasonable to at least be consider fallbacks. Even beyond questions of control and risk etc. I know at least a few places that are now genuinely considering questions like "what happens if a datacenter we depend on gets droned" that would have never had an iota of thought devoted to them even 5 years ago.

>On electricity, this is a surprising cost center depending on location. A system with just one 5090 can easily pull 1kW, and to achieve usable performance for a workplace is going to require dozens of machines. This can represent an extra $10-20k in electricity in cheap places.

I don't think that's "surprising" at all, everyone knows about power use. And this seems like it gets heavily into what you're defining as "usable" and is also more useful to define in terms of cost-per-employee vs total. Obviously a bigger business will have a higher line number total even if the cost per employee is identical, but simultaneously can be expected to be making more revenue to pay for it.

If we're defining an average of a dedicated 5090 pulling 1 kW for every single employee (presumably some people wouldn't use it all the time, but others would then pull the compute for other work), running 24/7 (to cover people running stuff when they're away), then that'd be 8760 kWh per year. At my not particularly cheap New England location that'd be about $1900 per employee per year at the generalized residential rate (~$0.22/kWh), or $156 per month. That doesn't seem radical if it really does boost productivity. However, there is a lot of room to go lower. I'd expect a business to run backup anyway, and these days there are a lot of incentives to do that at least partially with batteries. That also opens up rate shifting as another way to pay back the cost. If we change to time of day pricing, that's 8 hours of peak pricing with the rest off-peak. 8 kWh of battery can now be had for a few thousand. And the off-peak rate is only ~$0.14/kWh, cutting the cost per year by about $700 to $1200 per employee per year. Solar power is also usually far more valuable to use yourself then sell back to the grid, and also continues to plummet in price.

None of this is to say that it makes sense for every place at all, but it's close enough to the the line that the math is at least worth exploring, or could at least lower the cost enough to be worth it given other things. It really comes down to how much extra value the company (or individual) expects to come out of it per month.

>In California or Europe this could be $30-60k per year.

Dunno about Europe, but at the kinda prices I see for California I'm really surprised more places aren't trying to move a lot of usage to battery+renewable.

>The only real moat that local LLMs have right now is privacy.

I don't think resiliency and control are things that can be taken for granted anymore, particularly on the global scale. War and terrorism is getting worse again. International relations are getting nastier, and governments have the power to just order places cut off. If LLMs aren't particularly valuable to a business, then why an expensive subscription? But if they are particularly valuable, then insurance is something leadership should be contemplating.

>It's interesting that diesel is taxed more than gas in the US. It's the other way around in France.

Although in the US there is commonly an "on-road"/"off-road" split, at least in more rural/agricultural regions or states like mine. The diesel is dyed so it can be distinguished if inspected, and the off-road diesel is either not taxed at all or taxed at a much lower rate. The intention is to not tax agricultural usage, and also that it doesn't make sense anyway to tax tractors and other equipment (almost all using diesel still) used in fields and woods for road maintenance. In contrast, the biggest on-road use of diesel in the US is commercial trucking of various flavors, and those really do do much more damage to roads (and if anything aren't taxed proportionally at all). One of the very rare times the politics and costs have even mildly aligned.

It'd be nice if we could have more electrification in off road agricultural equipment as well but even putting aside all issues of energy density (which are solvable via quick swap packs/trailors if nothing else, and that's much easier to engineer in a tractor form factor and much easier to have a setup for at a typical farm) the weight will be a challenge, soil compaction is a very serious concern for most ag. Maybe electrification along with extra R&D/gov support can drive down the cost and improve the reliability of continuous track (or split continuous) for ag applications. John Deer has developed a few models with it, but the majority up and down the spectrum use tires. Combining the two though could allow for electrification with the same (or actually lower) ground pressure.

In our case we use both Dropbox and also have a few teams using the 1P.com sync in addition. So we value both, plus just plain still don't like the 1P8 software itself.

Of course with the original Dropbox based sync, a concern is that Dropbox itself isn't set in amber, at some point it might get rug pulled and sadly 1P never introduced WebDAV or some other self-hosted option before subscription/VC fever set in. And I suppose that macOS continues to move along too. 1P7 on the latest and final version is Apple Silicon native and through a lot of major transitions doing nothing exciting, so it might well keep running for a long time. But the browser extensions will probably stop working at some point which is going to be another big line for a lot of people, and legitimately because it's a not insignificant bit of security.

Anyway, I mean, not like one couldn't keep running it a long time via various layers, but I figure probably time to at least survey the landscape on moving on :(

>but "the company reviews each request for data it gets to ensure it is legal" just sounds like something a judge should do, no?

No, unless you're arguing that the government should be barred from even making voluntary requests at all? I'm not sure I'd agree with that either though, there's plenty of times where a government request really is just an honest "request" for pure info, like a poll or survey or something on how a program is working and any feedback participants want to give. Though of course it's also easy to see how things like 3rd party doctrine have expanded in effect over time and gotten badly abused, particularly in combination with other levers government has. Perhaps that doctrine should be abolished and the government shouldn't be able to make "voluntary requests" for anything that'd touch on a criminal or civil investigation (so they'd still be able to ask for surveys and the like), but that'd require some careful consideration. Or maybe there are some reasonable limits in terms of data automatically and unavoidably collected (like cellular location) vs data voluntarily shared.

Regardless however, if the government wants to compel somebody to comply, well that's literally what a warrant (or court order) is for right? If the government chooses not to involve a judge in a request for data that'd require a warrant to force, then yeah of course the private party they're asking gets to decide whether to voluntarily go along with that or not. That's the trade.

>Since when were private companies part of the Judicial Branch?

What part of GP's quote from the article gets you to "private companies are part of the judicial branch"? The judicial branch wasn't involved there, only the executive. All of us, private individuals or organizations, have the right to challenge any requests by the executive branch (and by the same token, unless forbidden by law we can also just voluntarily go along with its requests). The judicial branch can then rule on who is right. If the executive wants to force it then it can go to the judicial branch up front and get an actual for real warrant. If it wants to bypass judicial review, then it doesn't have the same legal force either.

Here, it asked T-Mobile and Google for a bunch of stuff on a journalist. T-Mobile said sure. Google said no, come back with a warrant.

>I don’t remember that part of the Constitution.

Might want to reread if it's been awhile for you.

>By a strict definition of gambling, the stock market is gambling: It's a monetary wager placed on an unknown future event.

No, that is not a strict definition of gambling, that is your own loose, personal and casual definition. The strict definition of the gambling in question under Arizona law (the subject of this article) is I believe partly under 13-3301 [0] and has a number of criteria that clearly differentiate it from investment (whether it be stock, loan by a bank or any other entity/person, or whatever else). Other polities will have their own flavors, but all of them are aimed at a net negative, destructive social activity. That's the whole point of regulating it, it's not some metaphysical philosophy thing about life having uncertainty it's about long experienced concrete harm. Trying to argue that buying shares in a broad index fund is a "wager that a meteor will not hit the Earth" is uninteresting.

>Just because it (often) is positive sum doesn't mean it isn't an unknown that people are betting money on.

It does actually! Positive sum changes everything in terms of collective incentives, strategies available and how investors can hedge risk. You may not choose to make use of all the tools available, but that doesn't make investment the equivalent of gambling. Part of the whole point of markets is to manage changing risk and information discovery (including dead ends) such that we still continue to grow overall.

----

0: https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03301.htm

I mean sure, people can find ways to use all sorts of events and activities for gambling, but that doesn't mean the events/activities themselves are. And the sentiment you expressed joking has gotten repeated with (afaict) total seriousness in these threads with some regularity (insurance is another one that people incorrectly bring up trying to defend gambling). So I think it's pretty important to differentiate between everything, and to help pass on some of the history as humans have grappled with this in the past. Insurance for example has the concept of requiring an "insurable interest" to help avoid negative incentives and gambling. You can insure your own house against burning down, but you can't take out a policy against some random stranger's house.

No, the stock market is not gambling (or at least hasn't been, need not, and should not be). The stock market is a positive sum game, linked to the growth of the economy as a whole. Humanity is very, very far from the maximum possible utilization (and maximum efficiency) of matter and energy in this solar system or even this world. What decisions we make matters a lot in how well/how fast/whether we continue to get richer, so we've tried however ineptly and haltingly to make systems that reward short and long term gains balanced against current use priorities. And have failed plenty, and may yet fail completely. But it's perfectly possible for everyone to win, for the whole world to get "richer" (defined as being better able to meet human goals & desires within a given mass/energy budget or have more or both). Investments can yield >1x total returns. And that has indeed been the case, that's the story of modern civilization.

Gambling in contrast is strictly zero sum at best and always negative sum in reality. A group of people puts in 1x capital, the house takes a cut of that, and then the <1x gets unevenly redistributed and that's it. Nothing is generated, the collective set of people is strictly worse off after the gamble, with a few making gains off the backs of loss distributed amongst everyone else. All while hacking dopamine reward centers that didn't evolve for that.

It appears to be the case that we can't perfectly stop 100% of all IRL gambling without a cost that exceeds the benefit. That's life. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be picking as much low hanging fruit as possible, same as with other negative sum brain hacks.

It's hard to give a big enough :rolleyes: for this nihilistic bullshit being spouted in 2026. In fact I'm going to go further: I accuse you lrvick of active maliciousness and trying to aid illicit access and discourage people from improving their security, because you have no excuse not to know better.

>All they would need to do is install a wrapper for sesame that waits for the next database unlock and exfiltrates all passwords in plain text to a pastebin somewhere.

"""All""" they need is to get root? Most people access all key stuff on their own devices, and for the vast ultra super majority of the population and vital sites if their personal trusted device is rooted it's over regardless. Your "Now as an attacker if I want to get the users whole database of 100 passwords I must trick them to tapping a blinking smartcard or touchid 100 times" is total fucking make believe, completely ignoring normal things like RECOVERY FLOWS. If you have root on someone's computer and phone you have access to their email and probably messaging as well, and that will suffice to get into nearly everything including the majority of financial institutions (which even now have massive ones that don't even support HSMs at all, let alone leave no recovery route! looking at you Charles Schwab, with total client assets in excess of $12.5 trillion at the start of this year [0]). There isn't any need for "100 times" because most people don't have 100 different critical accounts, rather single digits or even just one actual one that has things like money or comms.

>This is how I have been doing password management for over a decade with password store, the standard unix password manager. That tiny shell script is the -minimum- security any password manager must have.

Literally laughing out loud here. If it's not easy enough for my friends in their 70s to use and like it's WORTHLESS to most security. Including on some level mine or yours, because security has key social/network effects beyond just individuals, stolen money, information, and access is used to fuel further security threats. Job #1 is to make something people like and works with most of what already exists. Otherwise it's yet another case of "ROTATE PASSWORDS EVERY 2 MONTHS NO USE X NUMBERS OH ALSO Y SPECIAL CHARACTERS NO NOT LIKE THAT" which results in everyone just leaving stuff on sticky notes on their screens and doing the bare minimum to fool the system and using the same thing or minor variants everywhere. Theorycrafted garbage made for robots not humans.

>I submit with a straight face that they have never let any capable security engineers near their products. They have a negligent design end to end and must not be replicated.

I submit with a straight face you are either literally working for a hostile agency to spread disinformation or you have serious neurodivergence or you are seriously and dangerously bubbled with an (un)healthy splash of Dunning-Kruger mixed in.

----

0: https://pressroom.aboutschwab.com/press-releases/press-relea...

It's worth a spin. Before moving to iSCSI I had my home folder as well as lots of projects and data on ZFS for macOS for almost a decade, and it was extremely reliable and performant within reason [0]. ZoL of course is also quite solid at this point too. Life gets a lot more complex if you want to boot off of it, but a shared data partition for two separate OS boots could be a good match.

----

0: By which I mean, for equivalent features. It's possible to go really far out of the normal with ZFS in terms of silly compression and multiple copies of data even within a single OS and checksumming and so on in ways that add computational overhead, but I don't hold that against it vs APFS.

Not saying your VM approach isn't right for you, but:

>and because there's no performant way to share disk space for data with MacOS

Have you tried a ZFS partition? If it's a desktop system use iSCSI to network storage (I'm not running Linux directly on my Studio or M4 mini but I still put my Home folder on the network)?

>There are many instances today of cops forcibly entering a home claiming nothing more than a welfare check, or "we received a call."

Sure, but there are also many instances today of evidence getting thrown out in court due to cops not getting a warranty and poisoning the tree and all its fruit. Rights don't just enforce themselves, there are and have to be a number of layers to the onion to help reduce the violation numbers at each stage.

>It should be about who got the camera there and set it up, not who pushed the button. With automated recording (dashcams), there isn't even "a button".

I'm actually having a bit of trouble thinking of what sufficient societal good there is/would be in granting copyright on raw dashcam or security camera or the like footage? None of those purely mechanical automated systems need a subsidy or encouragement to generate more. Certainly someone can use that sort of thing in the creation of a copyrighted work but what would be the issue with the underlying material in that case being unprotected?

>but it's all people seem to care about.

This is a pretty weird assertion to make on HN when we've had constant AI threads about everything from mass surveillance and job threats to bio-warfare agent creation. Or just simple economic debt and risk. People clearly care about all sorts of aspects. Even in mainstream media there is tons of coverage on many aspects. But if you're talking purely in terms of the law and local activism:

>Why is that?

The way we have things structured (for good and less good reasons) in the judiciary and local politics is heavily biased towards immediate or very short term, concrete, and individualized/divergent harms vs broader societal costs and risks. Water, heat, electrical access/costs, and noise all meet those standards. They can be objectively measured, impose significant immediate burdens on a small population living near the DC while little (and over time) to nothing at all elsewhere, have clearly priceable harms and/or mitigations, and are instantly graspable by everyone regardless of education/research. On a practical level, they also involve a significant degree of local power without diffusion across as many people, including traditional things like zoning. A small motivated group living there can definitely make a difference, and definitely has standing for lawsuits too.

So of course those are the first and most immediately loud focuses in that arena. The broader stuff is also under scrutiny, but at a different scale right?

>I just want to note that pretty much all airlines and travel credit cards and other similar services offer travel insurance products that deliver this exact “take care of every travel risk” coverage if you want it.

And that's wrong. Same as warranties on products being far, far below reasonably expected working lifetime but with the option to have an added warranty. That sort of behavior is very common in our society at this point, but it's all bad.

>You just have to pay for the real cost of that service.

Ie, you just have to except the airlines externalizing that onto society right now. Doesn't mean we can't advocate for a free market instead though.

>Everything else that you infer should be in the service contract is a fantasy. It is simply not part of the product. You can go ahead and read the contract for yourself, every airline posts them.

You are demonstrating incredibly muddled thinking here, as well as leaping into your own brand new strawmen. Saying how things "should" be by definition is not saying how they are. I argued specifically against a strawman and incorrect point, and I said that it was a "request", I never claimed the contracts were secret or didn't have all sorts of BS escape clauses that, in many jurisdictions (though not so much in the EU), are unfortunately legal.

>If I buy a ticket to a broadway show, they can refund me or give me a makeup date if there is an unexpected cancellation, but they will not reimburse all my costs of being in town on that day or compensate me for not having anything else fun to do with my time.

The broadway show doesn't involve taking physical control over your physical body in time and space. You cannot just step out and leave partway through a flight. That you'd use this as an example is either stupid or malicious.

>When I pay my electricity bill including the flat delivery charges, my utility doesn’t guarantee that power will be uninterrupted and they don’t compensate me for outages

Your utility is massively regulated and depending on jurisdiction yes, they will indeed pay for certain levels of issues, as PG&E has been discovering in California over the last few decades. You don't pay for power not delivered, you are allowed to generate your own power and store it. There are SLAs available for utility services as well.

>You can’t even really buy a consumer product and expect it to be problem-free for very much time

>Numerous products are sold with no refund possibility of any kind. Just try to get a refund from your local McDonald’s franchise. They’ll never do it. They will give you replacement food, but they will never give you your money back.

Which, again, is bad, not good as you are arguing. That bad stuff exists elsewhere does not in fact mean we can't want to improve where possible incrementally.

Yes, we live in society the whole time, and no doubt you are very smart.

>Because airlines don't -and can't- promise incident free travel.

That's a strawman of the request, not the request. The request is that, same as anything else in a proper Free Market, the price includes all costs and internalizes all direct risks. I'm paying $XYZ to be delivered from point A to point B on a given date with a ~roughly given time. I don't expect there to never ever be trouble, that's life. I do expect them to take care of all trouble however, as I am in their care. If they create a need for a hotel stay, then they should pay for that. If they lose luggage, they should pay for that. If they have to reroute, put me on another mode of transportation, or whatever, that should all be their problem. And if they can't deliver reasonably appropriate service they should partially or fully refund the purchase.

This is critical to a functioning market. If Airlines Alpha & Beta both have a incident rate of 0.5% but Airline Omega has an incident rate of 4%, what should happen is Omega has to compete or go out of business vs the other two (and then someone new comes in and gets the assets to try a different approach). Maybe they save enough money over that they can offer lower prices anyway, or have high enough quality or unique offerings elsewhere to charge a higher price, or accept even lower margins, or some combo. But what cannot be allowed is for them to externalize that onto the public, because then the prices are fraudulent and no longer comparable between competitors. The market can't respond if the pricing signal gets muted. Unsurprisingly lots of players would love to be able to advertise a lower price not through actually earning a lower price but just socializing costs, but that's not ok.

>But let's be real, their slim margins cannot support bonusing out every passenger with a sob story about getting delayed.

Horse baloney, margins have nothing to do with this. Every airlines can and should be held to the same standard, so it's just a universal cost same as jet fuel. They're all in the same boat so long as they perform the same. If some airlines have much higher failure rates then others, then yeah they're going to have to address that somehow and that's exactly how it should be! Normal adult businesses deal with this via prevention, insurance and buffers, it's simply a cost of doing honest business.

There's some proper shareholder-oriented thinking! Even I was falling into the trap of purely considering Flock in a governmental context, and thus the potential for law abuse. But of course, they're not government, they're a private (indeed YC backed, Summer 2017) company. Policing might be their tent-pole and install argument but once in place there's all sorts of potential profitable revenue streams they might turn their minds too.

So to put the overall point first: democracy and freedom can require putting some money and effort into protecting rights, preventing abuse, preventing dragnets, and honestly addressing second/third/nth order effects that people are worried about, etc, even if you're trying to improve something. In this particular case, it's REALLY not difficult to envision systems that would achieve a better balance for the "officially stated case" [0] you describe, and thus be more likely to win the public's approval. We could use the same basic from-the-founding historical check of requiring a warrant and specifics for a search for example, and update that for modern times. The US judiciary could establish a solid internal PKI system and every judge could have an HSM of their own, then we could have a system where all footage, search capabilities and so on were encrypted and it literally required a judge's cryptographic signature on a warrant that had enforceable technical boundaries in time and space, with everything immutably documented. That wouldn't prevent the occasional bad judge and bad warrant, but just as with traditional searches it'd be a strong low pass filter and change incentives and accountability significantly.

So you have presented (amongst other things) a very black & white false dichotomy. You're claiming a bad, prone to abuse system is the only possible way to respond to your stated threat scenario. But it's just not. And you do actually need to win the public's approval not just browbeat them.

Moving on:

>It's like if you're trying to catch someone who robbed a home

It's notable how you didn't say "trying to catch someone who had gay sex" (a felony in some states until 22 years ago), "trying to catch someone who had an abortion" (back as a felony all of a sudden), "trying to catch someone brought as a child to the US who is in the green card process", "trying to catch someone who had a state reported stolen because the car dealership reported the car missing 6 months ago but it was found 2 months ago but the databases were never designed to get real time updates so there's a lag" and so on and so forth. Or more straight forwardly "it's like if you're a cop trying to catch your ex-girlfriend who said mean things about you on social media". You're on HN, you've been part of plenty of this, I don't think it's good faith discussion on your part to reach for an emotional tug and a lot of people here recognize and resent the technique.

And again see the first thing: in this case, why could the police not get a proper narrowly tailored warrant? They have plenty of clear, straight forward probable cause do they not?

>So you follow the car, and then you enter a dead zone [...] You're now at a dead end.

Wait, you said you were following the car? Police can do that you know, without massively networked surveillance nets, they have cars too, and they can follow cars. They can also put out an alert to keep an eye out. You'll need to quantify the gain here vs the cost.

>So I guess that's a win as that first camera is not very useful. And this is a good thing? I don't see your point.

I truly don't think you're making a good faith effort to see anyone's point at all.

----

0: I'm using scarequotes there and giving it a footnote because I also want to emphasize that part of our suspicion is that, precisely because of obvious improvements, the "stop the robber!!", like "think of the children1!!!!", is primarily a cover story for far... less popular things that elite powers want to do to us. Meaningful checks and balances are possible, implementation importance aside that they haven't even bothered to try from the start tells a story of absence all by itself.

It seems really obvious as soon as I read it, but for some reason as I've been working locally in my neck of the woods against Flock and worrying about it snowballing it hadn't really occurred to me that the snowball could work the other direction as well. The emergent effects of more and more deployments into a single unified storage/search system has always been the new and scary part. But "the whole is worth more than the sum of its parts" of course necessarily means "the parts are worth less than the whole" too. So managing to stop or reverse a deployment in your own locality, however small, also serves to help reduce the capability to everyone else across the nation whether they agree or not. That's really hopeful.

As the article notes, in some cases a locality might try to switch to a competitor, but the competitive community pressure here is still useful. Seems like a rare time where it creates an actual direct incentive to consider what will be popular amongst the people all over, even if certain LEAs etc personally might want more.