ajross

45 ms·

931.
by ajross 1y ago
Why would you need to target "vulnerable UN delegates" from blocks away from the UN, though? Literally anywhere in the US would do. It's literally SMS , the location of the transmitter says nothing about the location of th
932.
by ajross 1y ago
You know how every year the DEA seizes enough fentanyl in one truck to kill half of Chicago or whatever? It's like that.
933.
by ajross 1y ago
It's not "difficult" to believe, no. But it's easier to believe that cops don't know how radio networks work, though. This is clearly illegitimate, they can tell that much. They just got the use case wrong. It&
934.
by ajross 1y ago
The use case is fraud. You need thousands of burner SIMs to send millions of spam texts. But the way it works, every SIM needs a radio (the negotiation with the network is very heavyweight compared to an SMS transmission, you wouldn'
935.
by ajross 1y ago
> In the C/C++/Zig code, you would add the second concurrent access, and then start fixing things up and restructuring things Well, sure, which in practice means throwing a lock around it. I mean, I get it. There's a cate
936.
by ajross 1y ago
> Seasoned Rust coders don’t spend time fighting the borrow checker - their code is already written in a way that just works. That hasn't been my experience at all. At best, the first version of code pops out quickly and cleanly
937.
by ajross 1y ago
Exactly. And the whole point of a cellular network architecture is that it's resistant to DoS attacks (what the rubes call "unexpectedly heavy usage"). Sure, you can take a cell out with a hundred fake phones, and all the
938.
by ajross 1y ago
For anyone interested, I went digging. In fact the citation for that (FCC Chair) McNinch quote that is (not quite correctly) excerpted in the Coughlin article is a 1938 Times article talking about how he'd "recently" said it
939.
by ajross 1y ago
In an amusingly bald bit of Wikipedia editorializing, while the Coughlin page links to the Communications Act page in the context of (as the upthread throwaway account[1] says) half-implying that it was created to censor opinions... ...the
940.
by ajross 1y ago
> You putting "language" in scare-quotes is completely unnecessary, as that's not what she's arguing at all. ... then why is it in the headline?! I'm not discounting the possibility that someone somewhere underne
941.
by ajross 1y ago
Yeah, but for every single instance of every single one of those glyphs, someone needs to publish a paper substantiating similarity to whatever that archetype is. You can't just put up a pretty font diagram and announce "They use
942.
by ajross 1y ago
This is junk science. The illustration is absolutely bonkers: https://cdn8.openculture.com/2019/02/28230224/cavedoodles.jp... It's literally a bunch of graphic design output showing clean font glyphs!
943.
by ajross 1y ago
> people are nervous that this is becoming true It seems abundantly clear that there will be no peaceful/rule-of-law transfer of executive power in January 2029 to anyone but a hand-picked Trump successor that wins an election. A d
944.
by ajross 1y ago
> First, there is the 3.5% rule [1]. Second, if 10%-20% of the general population would go on a general strike FWIW, when the best case recommendations for a restoration of civil order and the rule of law involve very large scale society
945.
by ajross 1y ago
> In any situation, your best bet is to follow the direction and guidance of your own attorney. Private lawyers don't know any more about this than we do. The administration will do today what the administration decides to do today
946.
by ajross 1y ago
The principle is better stated as "don't be an asshole". HN's insistence on decorum is just really poorly suited to the moment.
947.
by ajross 1y ago
> No, it doesn't. It's an ordinary reading of a common idiom But not the only reading. Which you seem to agree with because you dodged that point. So if there are two interpretations, one offensive and one not, surely you a
948.
by ajross 1y ago
> Look I don't even pretend to know the truth. But the sitting governor of Utah, the highest authority on the investigation (which is being done by Utah state investigators), said the shooter had a "leftest ideology". Curi
949.
by ajross 1y ago
> The sentence does carry the implication that Kimmel is calling the shooter "MAGA" True. > because otherwise there would be no reason, in Kimmel's position, to say any of it. Untrue. In context, what he's saying
950.
by ajross 1y ago
Well, that is the "real" issue, sure. But the pretense was that Kimmel accused republicans of inspiring the killer.
951.
by ajross 1y ago
> absurdly hard to find in all the coverage. By design. If it was actually offensive Fox would be playing it non-stop. The offense has been excavated from inside an implication of a phrase in a nested clause in a sentence saying someth
952.
by ajross 1y ago
It was a White House announcement of a White House policy relying (apparently) on nothing but executive authority. The attribution is correct. Obviously there are very serious civic questions here (like under what law the authority to levy
953.
by ajross 1y ago
> In the last few decades, there has been growth of abuse of the program to get mid level talent at below market rates which really hurts the middle class in America. That's a weird definition for "middle class", there are
954.
by ajross 1y ago
Whoa whoa whoa, that's (1) not correct[1], but (2) shameless goalpost motion in any case. The whole premise of your original contention was that we should measure like-profession salaries to see whether or not there is an effect. Th
955.
by ajross 1y ago
He... sorta did: "We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them [...]" The sentence is convoluted but clearly impl
956.
by ajross 1y ago
> Extortion doesn't count for much if the FCC had no leg to stand on. What on earth are you saying here? It worked. Obviously it "counts", it actually happened! The show was pulled from the air! You're saying that
957.
by ajross 1y ago
> By "not nearly as bad as you think", what I mean is, the FCC has always policed content on broadcast television For boring stuff like sex and profanity! When was the last time a show was pulled under threat of FCC action bec
958.
by ajross 1y ago
> - What Kimmel said was wrong (assuming you believe Utah state investigators) and deeply irresponsible and inflammatory. Was it really though? Paraphrased, Kimmel said that the killer was a republican. He had a republican background,
959.
by ajross 1y ago
This is the way shakedowns work. Disney backed down on Kimmel because he's "just a comedian" or it's "just one show" or he was "failing anyway". So now they're marks. It's always easy to
960.
by ajross 1y ago
Citation? I've never heard of such a test. The opposite is routinely tested: making sure doors don't pop open (and potentially eject occupants) during rollovers. Demanding the very tightly engineered door mechanisms to surviv

More ›