7a1c9427

As a comparison in the UK there is robust mandatory reporting on "Retained foreign object post procedure" which is a so-called "Never Event" in the most recent publication (April 2024 to September 2024) this occurred 60 times[1] in the NHS in England. For a denominator there are approximately 21 million operation performed in a year by NHS England[2]. So roughly 0.002% of cases have an unintended retained object or roughly 1 in 50,000.

For further reading the Health Services Safety Investigations Body in the UK (like the NTSB but for healthcare incidents is the best worst analogy) looked at retained foreign objects and published in 2024: https://www.hssib.org.uk/patient-safety-investigations/retai...

[1]: https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/provisional-publication... [2]: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/sta...

Were they Teradici cards?

Depending on your country the GoodSAM app potentially has good mapping/coverage of AED locations: https://www.goodsamapp.org/aed

> If electrocution is what caused the cardiac arrest, it is much better to give breaths than compressions. The heartbeat system resets itself before the respiratory system. The problem is then that the heart is back, uses up all its energy reserves, but there is no oxygen to replenish and the heart goes back into arrest.

Can you provide a reference or citation to this claim and practice?

It is always much better to give "conventional CPR" (breaths and chest compressions) if suitably trained.[1] If not suitably trained you are more likely to a) perform CPR and b) do it effectively if not providing mouth to mouth breathing.[2][3] You can argue about the nuance of particular patient groups where there is potentially a statistically significant benefit of providing conventional CPR over compression only.

Under no circumstances are there benefits to providing rescue breaths without chest compressions (as your comment seems to recommend).

[1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21273279/ [2]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7726702/ [3]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17420082/

> Google's automation systems mitigated this failure by pushing a complete topology snapshot during the next programming cycle. The proper sites were restored and the network converged by 05:05 US/Pacific.

I think this is the most understated part of the whole report. The bad thing happened due to "automated clever thing" and then the system "automagically" mitigated it in ~7 minutes. Likely before a human had even figured out what had gone wrong.

This is true. But I would suggest your operational security has bigger issues than this potential vulnerability if you are using WhatsApp.

Regardless - you still haven't given a source for you original claim. "not deserving benefit of the doubt" does not qualify. If the linked article is in fact you source then in the future please do not exaggerate such claims as you have done. I would have expected a claim from the article to read (along with a link to the source!):

> WhatsApp have modified the protocol slightly auspiciously for user experience but this allows a third party attacker to intercept messages sent offline only alerting the sender after they have been disclosed.

I think that is a very charitable assumption about the GP claim. The linked article describes a very specific implementation vulnerability around handling of offline messages that would appear to be routed in user experience being ranked higher than operational security by WhatsApp (understandably). In this case it also does notify the user once they are online, and the original phone is logged out alerting the compromised user.

The GP claim is far broader that all E2E communication can be compromised without user awareness permitting ongoing communication between two unaware parties to be monitored.

> I will take this moment also to mention that "re-implement" isn't exactly right in that they modified the protocol slightly to allow for someone in control of the administration server to change a user's private key without their knowing, so that the admin can decrypt the E2E communications using the known key.

Do you have a source for that claim?

The naiveté being expressed in the comments here and as the premise behind the ventilator is astounding. I though I would share some information to put things in perspective:

- If you are unwell enough to need a ventilator then the ventilator itself is going to the least of your worries. You will need the drugs and expertise to care for you. The current respiratory illnesses going around aren’t like polio and the iron lungs where all you need is help breathing.

- If you can sort the above to have any hope of survival you need a “modern” ventilator that can operate in way that this simple homebrew device is physically not capable of offering. Most of the improvement in caring for people with ARDS is based upon careful and tight control of ventilatory parameters to prevent secondary lung injury.

- Modern ventilators have a price tag of if you have to ask you can’t afford it.

So in summary this is a nice build but serves no practical purpose.

I fail to see the security issue here, the Equifax certificate in question (thumbprint: d23209ad23d314232174e40d7f9d62139786633a) has been revoked (on Windows 10 at least) - it is in the system store to protect users by being marked as revoked and thereby marking all child certificates and signatures as invalid.

I strongly suspect all the other listed certificates are also marked as revoked but I couldn't be bothered wasting my time checking.

>... works in spite of the driver

You have highlighted a fundamental misunderstanding people have about Auto Pilot in its current form it is an SAE Level 2[1] driver assistance function.

It is not supposed to be functioning in spite of the driver. The driver is in charge and should be responding to events. It is dangerous to behave otherwise - examples include pretty much all Tesla Auto Pilot attributed fatalities.

[1] Level 2: The driver is obliged to detect objects and events and respond if the automated system fails to respond properly. The automated system executes accelerating, braking, and steering. The automated system can deactivate immediately upon takeover by the driver.

Edit: Formating

I think you may have misinterpreted my comment.

My intention was in no way to underplay or diminish the achievement of Auto Pilot but to simply make the point that: In this video, of this event Auto Pilot adds nothing. In this case the driver was "alert and competent". This video does NOT showcase or demonstrate Auto Pilot preventing an accident, reacting faster or better than a human.

That is my point. People seem to be extolling how Auto Pilot saved that day in this video. It didn't.

I'm sorry but is everyone here sucked into the "reality-distortion field" that Tesla Auto Pilot seems to be generating? Nothing happens in this video that a competent driver wouldn't have done.

Detailed Explanation: In the UK part of the driving theory test is a "Hazard Perception"[1] exercise that test candidates awareness of hazards around them by playing short video clips and getting the candidates to click when they first spot a hazard they would need to respond to.

When watching the linked video I 'click' at 0:04 when I see the multiple brake lights though the car directly in-front. This coincidentally is when the Tesla responds with its audible warning.

The factors that lead to the Tesla not being involved in an accident in this video were not related to Auto Pilot but due to a competent driver: 1) Maintaining appropriate breaking distance from the car ahead to i. be able to stop in-time but without being tail-ended due to fast breaking ii. have 'thinking distance' to allow for slowed reaction timing 2) Watching the road ahead and noticing solid breaking of ahead vehicles though the directly in-front vehicle. There is NO AUTO PILOT MAGIC IN THIS VIDEO

I do not dispute that in other circumstances and perhaps other videos Tesla Auto Pilot HAS prevented and accident that a human would not have. This video is NOT such an example.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/theory-test/hazard-perception-test

Edit: Please see child comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13272626 clarifying my intentions with this post.

I suffered from this and now have set up a filter on the forwarding account that goes something like: 'Matches: from:(*) Do this: Never send it to Spam' so it forwards absolutely all email. My personal account then dumps then filters stuff in to spam folder that I do check.

SEEKING WORK - London, UK (or Remote)

Front-end(HTML/CSS/Javascript etc.), Python, PHP, Ruby, MySQL/Postgres/Mongo. Experience with Appengine and general aspects of Linux/BSD stacks.

While you may not appreciate this now, and may seem 'left of field' particularly on HN, consider learning something else. By that I mean learn a foreign language, learn (more?) maths do something academic not related to programming.

You seem to be a smart person there is so much more you can do with your life that is outside the technology industry but you need to lay the groundwork now to open doors for yourself in the future.

Don't forget the programming though but think of it as more of a hobby not a career. And if in five years time you still want to make a life from it you still can. Don't start making big decisions about your life now, have fun enjoy yourself and stay open-minded.

Good luck!

I too would be interested in purchasing the(these) book(s).

I think this article http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelifi... comprehensively explains what is infective and gives plenty of constructive suggestions. Namely because the method described is already in use and has not had any problems.

Freebase? It has data on most movies in IMDB. And an open API.