Pilfer

16 ms·

31.
by Pilfer 9y ago
Before anyone gets ahead of themselves, this bill only protects net neutrality and does not enforce net neutrality as defined here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality . ISPs are still allowed to discriminate
32.
by Pilfer 9y ago
iMessage uses the WebKit rendering engine to run Javascript. The WebKit engine will be patched by its vendor Apple.
33.
by Pilfer 9y ago
The Meltdown and Spectre attacks require code execution on your local machine. You can avoid both the Meltdown and Spectre attacks by not downloading and running untrusted software. The Javascript attack vector for Spectre will be patched b
34.
by Pilfer 9y ago
>It was made law in 2015 Net neutrality has never been made law, as the 2015 FCC Open Internet Order is not a law. The FCC cannot write laws. Full net neutrality, as defined here [1], has also never been mandated in the US. The 2015 Open
35.
by Pilfer 9y ago
>There is no reason whatsoever why sending 10GB of data to one IP would be more expensive than sending it to another. This statement is false. It most certainly is more expensive to send packets to places like Australia than to Europe (A
36.
by Pilfer 9y ago
>this is most likely going to be a significant raise in your tax bill. SALT changes will cause a 1-1.5% percent decrease in after tax income for those making 150k-250k per year, the magnitude increase on taxes is not especially significa
37.
by Pilfer 9y ago
>The ISP isn't directly paying that transit price Technically yes, but in many cases the ISPs are essentially the same company as the network provider. Xfinity is the ISP and Comcast is the network provider. Uverse is the ISP and AT
38.
by Pilfer 9y ago
>So in effect these messages would only arrive 33% faster On average, yes, but in the event where a malicious attacker completely DoSes the network with packets, the prioritized packets would be more than 33% faster than average.
39.
by Pilfer 9y ago
>But the packet's source or destination should also not matter Why not? It costs my ISP more to deliver certain packets than others. Sending a packet from San Francisco to San Jose is far cheaper than sending one from San Francisco
40.
by Pilfer 9y ago
>Comcast and Verizon were already caught drastically slowing down Netflix and Youtube Actually no, all three incidents you mentioned (Netflix being slow on Comcast, Netflix being slow on Verizon, Youtube being slow on Comcast) were cause
41.
by Pilfer 9y ago
> repeal of net neutrality It irks me whenever people say this, because technically net neutrality (As defined here [1]) has never fully existed in the US. In the US there is no law, and there never has been a law, mandating net neutral
42.
by Pilfer 9y ago
No you're wrong on stock price, tech stocks all went down Monday. Google, Microsoft, Netflix, Nvidia, Facebook, Tesla, all down. Facebook announced further Russia advertising findings on Sept 21, and on Sept 22 the stock price barely c
43.
by Pilfer 9y ago
https://www.cryptocompare.com/mining/calculator/dash?Hashing... If the specs are real, the profit per day is $76.13 (at current prices). Assuming the price stays this miner would pay for itself in 1.5 months. Insa
44.
by Pilfer 9y ago
> Anyway I want to know, aren't you identified in any way at all when you vote? Don't you have to pretend you're someone who's on a list, at least? You can see how easy it is to register to vote in California yoursel
45.
by Pilfer 9y ago
But the author isn't sea-lioning, you're the only one doing it. @civilian explains why in a followup comment. Sea-lioning yourself reflects badly on you and makes it hard to take your other comments seriously. You admit half your
46.
by Pilfer 9y ago
> It's a delaying tactic. Keep people busy answering an endless series of questions and objections, so they can't spend that time doing anything else. It's not like we haven't seen this before. It even has a name: sea
47.
by Pilfer 9y ago
> I've commented elsewhere on this topic if you'd like ... some related citations... I looked through your comment history for the past few days and didn't find any links to scientific studies or statistical evidence. Jus
48.
by Pilfer 9y ago
I also sense you also are not able to refute the author's argument. You don't deny that the author's points, that is the Differences in distributions of traits between men and women, could possibly explain a percentage poin
49.
by Pilfer 9y ago
> Terrorism is just minor nuisance [sic] If you look at the raw numbers, only 3 people died in the boston bombings. But if you look at the economic costs, - The entire boston transit system was shut down for security reasons, disrupti
50.
by Pilfer 9y ago
Thing is, I sense you are not able to refute the author's argument, and instead resort to claiming it's "completely irrelevant" and "deliberate and malicious". Claims which, frankly, do not refute the author&#x
51.
by Pilfer 9y ago
But you misinterpret the author's thesis by an important mark. " Women in tech are underrepresented in tech because of sexual differences " is not the author's thesis, it's a fundamentally different statement. The a
52.
by Pilfer 9y ago
I notice how you neglect to mention nor address his thesis. For the section you are citing, the author stated his position is: "On average, men and women biologically differ", and used the evidence you listed to back this up. >
53.
by Pilfer 9y ago
I had trouble loading the webpage. Here is a mirror/cached copy. https://archive.is/VlNfl
54.
by Pilfer 9y ago
Gizmodo removed the citations to scientific studies and also took out the images. The original document is here (credit to lisper) https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
55.
by Pilfer 9y ago
> I doubt the scientists would back his position. It's a gross misunderstanding of their research. He takes the research and jumps a huge gap to get to his conclusion. And what might his conclusion be? You don't even bother st
56.
by Pilfer 9y ago
> phrenology 200-year-old research on phrenology was supported by dozens of data points. Today's research on cognitive sex-differences is supported by billions of data points. > little [sic] evidence to back it up And where is
57.
by Pilfer 9y ago
> His main point is far less interesting than the points I outlined. To me, it seems like you aren't able to respond to his claim (suppression of views at Google), therefore you won't do so. > It's like phrenology all
58.
by Pilfer 9y ago
> Therefore he believes women can't work as hard. But that's not the author's conclusion, that's your conclusion. You are imagining what the author's thought process is and claiming your resulting conclusion
59.
by Pilfer 9y ago
Oh golly, a quote taken without context. Now read it with context: > Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these ch
60.
by Pilfer 9y ago
> To use single differences to claim men are better at software like the Google guy did is just stupid No. The google author never claims anything of this sort. In one of his minor points, he argues that why we don’t have 50% representa

More ›