p-e-w

52 ms·

901.
by p-e-w 3y ago
My criticism doesn't concern Google's ethics, it concerns their practicality. Common sense says that with bounties like that, they won't attract the most serious exploits, which isn't an ethical problem, but can absolute
902.
by p-e-w 3y ago
Why "black market"? Surely any intelligence agency worth their salt has a public, open, completely legal program where you can just contact them and offer what you have, no? They'd be stupid not to.
903.
by p-e-w 3y ago
I'm pretty sure it's "lawful" to sell exploits to intelligence agencies of your own country. It wouldn't make any sense for it not to be, considering that the same people who control those agencies also control what
904.
by p-e-w 3y ago
The stickied comment stating that "this contradicts standing policies" is amusing. As if Reddit was somehow contractually bound to abide by random rules that they themselves made up, on their own site. It's astonishing how ma
905.
by p-e-w 3y ago
> As the Linux kernel is a key component not just for Google, but for the Internet, we started heavily investing in this area. We extended the VRP's scope and maximum reward in 2021 (to $50k), then again in February 2022 (to $91k),
906.
by p-e-w 3y ago
> starting to question the gain of a project in the scientific space is never really an argument It most certainly is, at least in the real world. The ISS has cost more than $150 billion so far. That's not "a joke", it&#x2
907.
by p-e-w 3y ago
Your formalization is wrong. In fact, it's nonsensical. The predicate variable K should be bound by the existential quantifier associated with the proposition A^K+B^K=C^K . You cannot just separate K from the proposition with a co
908.
by p-e-w 3y ago
That's a very unpleasant and cynical way to put it, but the underlying idea is true. Admitting that you spent a big portion of your life on something that has no realistic chance of success is a herculean task, and most people understa
909.
by p-e-w 3y ago
Science is a human endeavor, and like all human endeavors, it is subject to human limitations and resource constraints. Humanity surviving is a prerequisite for doing SETI, and that means preferentially allocating resources to projects that
910.
by p-e-w 3y ago
Quantum entanglement means that pairs of particles can have correlated states regardless of the distance between them. It does not mean that if you push on one particle, the other one lights up. Imagine that two people are each given a co
911.
by p-e-w 3y ago
While I do share a certain romantic admiration for the grandeur of SETI's goals, I have to agree with those who call this a waste of money and brainpower in our times. The most ludicrous AGI apocalypse scenarios seem orders of magnitud
912.
by p-e-w 3y ago
The fundamental problem with Reddit isn't ads, or freemium, or venture capital, or who is CEO, or even the API changes. The fundamental problem is lock-in. Once a site becomes big enough, its "users" effectively become owned
913.
by p-e-w 3y ago
> the developer is an extreme authoritarian who is aggressive to non-authoritarian users, going so far as to ban users who speak against Stalin and friends. They've been banned from other social media, including Reddit, for hate spe
914.
by p-e-w 3y ago
There are exactly two viable, open alternatives: Mastodon and Matrix. Neither are complete equivalents of Reddit, but both have more than 10 million users, which is what makes them viable for building communities. If you intend to try Lem
915.
by p-e-w 3y ago
It's only absurd if you misunderstand the true intention. They didn't acquire Dubsmash to profit from its technology and users. They acquired Dubsmash to shut it down. Today's social media corporations are so fat with (ventur
916.
by p-e-w 3y ago
> There are anti-spam measures that don't require locking down protocols. Of course. Locking down protocols is never required. It's being done because it benefits the largest service providers by restricting their users' a
917.
by p-e-w 3y ago
Federation and open protocols aren't new ideas, and the vast majority of people have collectively decided that there is no value for them in those ideas. This isn't pioneering stuff that everyone would jump onto if only it was kno
918.
by p-e-w 3y ago
> The delta of the world with and without Reddit is close to zero. Hence no value. The same is true for the users. There are 8 billion people on the planet, two thirds of which use the Internet. There's no shortage of users able to
919.
by p-e-w 3y ago
It's generally not in the interest of commercial providers to use open protocols. They do it for email because due to its history, there is a very long tail of small mailservers that they need to federate with to be useful, but the big
920.
by p-e-w 3y ago
> Your logic is: there has never been a not-for-profit large online community, therefore the value comes from the specific for-profit company that currently exists. No, my logic is: there has never been a not-for-profit large online comm
921.
by p-e-w 3y ago
> Federated authentication and open protocols are a thing. In theory, yes. In practice, they are a niche endeavor used by a bunch of hackers and computer science nerds. Lemmy is constantly mentioned in these discussions as an open source
922.
by p-e-w 3y ago
Usenet has/had hundreds of millions of active users?!? That's certainly news to me.
923.
by p-e-w 3y ago
The largest Lemmy instance, according to their list, has 1500 monthly active users, and they can't handle more? How is that thing ever supposed to scale?
924.
by p-e-w 3y ago
> It convinces itself it has a right to profit here, but it really created almost none of the value. I used to believe that too, but reality has convinced me of the opposite. There isn't, and there has never been, a large (hundreds
925.
by p-e-w 3y ago
Indeed. And it even has the same features (centralized, ultimately beholden to commercial interests) that destroyed Reddit! But don't worry, that's not going to happen here. You don't need a decentralized non-profit community
926.
by p-e-w 3y ago
You're talking about cognitive science, I am talking about psychology. The two are not the same thing, nor is one a subfield of the other. The papers you have linked are more closely related to neuroscience than to psychology. I'm
927.
by p-e-w 3y ago
What "theory of everything" are you talking about? I've never heard a scientist claiming to possess such a thing.
928.
by p-e-w 3y ago
They weren't pioneers, they were bullshitters. Their claims had no basis whatsoever. They just made stuff up. That's not comparable to the luminiferous aether, which was actually a reasonable assumption once the wave nature of l
929.
by p-e-w 3y ago
Software engineering and venture capital aren't, and aren't claiming to be, sciences. And Pauling lived a remarkably long life for someone who was hanging around in chemistry labs in the 1920s. Someone with that background dying a
930.
by p-e-w 3y ago
> bringing up Lacan in this conversation tells me you don’t know psychological science very well Lacan is one of the most famous psychologists of all time. Probably only Freud and Jung would rank above him in that regard. That in itself

More ›