blagie

67 ms·

661.
by blagie 3y ago
I imagine you breathe very rarefied air. $20 is a lot for most families, outside of Silicon Valley, New York, Boston, and a few other areas. Economist has rich subscribers. I don't think NatGeo would be anywhere close to 1.8M with high
662.
by blagie 3y ago
I'll keep it short too: You don't understand what (many) people are trying to explain to you, and are coming to dangerously incorrect conclusions. If many people are giving you the same feedback, it should trigger something in you
663.
by blagie 3y ago
It's a risk. Having is having glass windows (at least at street level). Whether it's a risk worth addressing depends on a lot of specifics. For example, a CSRF attack on something like sharepoint.business.com could be externally e
664.
by blagie 3y ago
That's not how real-world police departments work, at least where I live. The police are lazy. They receive many complaints, and ignore most of them. Coming to the police with allegations and no evidence simply doesn't go anywhere
665.
by blagie 3y ago
It depends on context. There are many pieces here: 1) Cost of compromise. - For example, medical data, military secrets, and highly-personal data need a high level of security. - Something like Sudoku high scores, perhaps not so much. 2) Be
666.
by blagie 3y ago
> Their security teams are industry-leading and they have done a lot of important work over the past decade (Project Zero, a very well-done bug bounty program, Advanced Protection, FIDO/hardware security keys, large-scale fuzzing an
667.
by blagie 3y ago
It's a slightly different argument. The level of "reasonable risk" depends on the attacker in both situations. The odds of any individual crafting a special packet to crash my system are absurdly low. However, "absurdly
668.
by blagie 3y ago
Please take this as critical feedback, and not as a personal attack: The comments which you are making here suggest that you shouldn't develop any software which in any way touches personal data without significant upskilling on IT sec
669.
by blagie 3y ago
Well said. Spoken like a true Google engineer! However, I think you understand both security as a field, at least one of my three points, as well as children and parenting. =================== Security as a field =================== You wro
670.
by blagie 3y ago
Google's increasingly cavalier attitude towards security is concerning: 1) Kids WILL use this to bypass parental / school controls as soon as they learn about it 2) In some contexts (especially as high-stakes test settings, but al
671.
by blagie 3y ago
One of my life lessons: Never do business with Google. It's served me well. I've seen so many businesses torched to the ground by doing business with Google. That's not an indictment of Google. There are things specific compa
672.
by blagie 3y ago
I don't think anyone disputes that. However, I think there's a difference between sympathy, empathy, and understanding. I apologize in advance; the rest of this comment will be a bit long-winded (rambly?), but it's hard to ma
673.
by blagie 3y ago
I will push back here. The fossil record shows change over time. There are several theories consistent with the facts: (1) Evolution by natural selection (2) Evolution guided by God (3) God created the world 5000 years ago, but didn't
674.
by blagie 3y ago
I actually don't. I take this on a case-by-case basis. I presented both the heliocentric and geocentric theories to my kid. Good news: He figured out which one was right quickly enough... Bad news: ....because someone spoiled it for hi
675.
by blagie 3y ago
Evolutionary biology is particularly easy to teach from first principles. That's one of the things which makes exploring it, as a scientific process, fun.
676.
by blagie 3y ago
> No, not legally. Most states have two-party recording laws, laws about recording on private property, etc. In my state: Record? No. Listen? Yes. > No, not legally. That falls under what is generally termed peeping Tom laws In my sta
677.
by blagie 3y ago
Technology changes expectation of privacy. Any neighbor can: * Mount a laser pointed at your window and do complex algorithms with diffraction to listen to you * Run Tempest and read your computer monitor (pretend we still have CRTs) * Use
678.
by blagie 3y ago
With Supreme Court, I assume good faith. I haven't seen anything to the contrary; differences in values and opinions -- even ones I strongly disagree with -- aren't the same as a lack of good faith. As for lack of political agenda
679.
by blagie 3y ago
OP didn't specify why this was posted, but I was glad to find out about the issue discussed. SCOTUS is also selective about taking cases beyond what you listed. It's one court for the whole of the US. Not taking a case is absolute
680.
by blagie 3y ago
Unlikely and irrelevant. Unlikely: Organ donor is only an option in some circumstances. It's more typical with young people and accidents than elderly. There's no age cut-off, but for example: 1) The organs need to be fresh (e.g.
681.
by blagie 3y ago
The cryogenics industry is a scam, but I'm more optimistic of the progress of the potential progress of technology. I'm not going to describe what's going to happen, since I think there's an infinite number of options, b
682.
by blagie 3y ago
That's something I do well before I'd reach advanced dementia. Part of the point is to never reach that stage.
683.
by blagie 3y ago
I think one way to go is to do this early, with a clear bound. For example, one might set a rule that if they can: * no longer compute ∫x²dx * remember the capital of France; and * recall where they were born Then they have crossed that thr
684.
by blagie 3y ago
I don't know of good solutions. I'm deep in the "ban on regulate" camp, but I don't know what those bans or regulations should be. Honestly, I'm less concerned about Chinese and Russian agents than simple, capi
685.
by blagie 3y ago
The US is hyper-polarized. There are crazies on both sides. The bigger the city, the more political processes select for crazies. In a village of 100 people (1) more people are involved, since individual influence is felt (2) there are fewe
686.
by blagie 3y ago
I had a corporate Google domain wiped out this way! This was a Google Workspace account tied to a domain (back when it was called GSuite). Google sent warning emails, which Google classified as spam. Google than wiped all all information we
687.
by blagie 3y ago
The problem is that learning one hinges on the other, and you can't understand the practical at the depth AoE goes into without first understanding the theory. Someone in the thread mentioned it was designed for physicists. It might be
688.
by blagie 3y ago
I got that, and it's great that it's public. That has a lot of impact, a lot of it auxiliary. The key question is suitability-to-purpose. Without the small group work and the collaboration, a web site like this isn't what I&#
689.
by blagie 3y ago
It's a long hike. Where are you starting from? brilliant.org has decent courses on linear algebra, including nodal analysis ($100/year or so). You don't need to know a lot; you do need to know how to express a linear equation
690.
by blagie 3y ago
I'll simplify. In 2023, there are much more effective ways to teach computer science than tossing lecture videos up on a web site with homework assignments. MIT pioneered that in the nineties with OCW. It was a good idea at the time. N

More ›