HexagonalKitten
HexagonalKitten on Hacker News
"Emulation is not a new technology, and Transmeta was notably the last company to claim to have produced a compatible x86 processor using emulation (“code morphing”) techniques. Intel enforced patents relating to SIMD instruction set enhancements against Transmeta’s x86 implementation even though it used emulation"
It's not a competence thing, or stopped being since woman doctors are a thing, and is a motivation thing. Not to a 'better' place, but a different one.
Can you imagine if we let cars contribute to inequity by allowing rich people to own them and not poor people? Or if it was possible to just aim a car at people without the self-driving stopping you.
I didn't dwell on my identity (because those aren't the words I'd choose to use if I had to). It was a way of self-disclosure like saying if you work for the company being discussed. It's to say "while I'm probably one of the people you're talking about ...".
> an attack on you personally so that you don't feel a need to defend yourself from an imagined attack.
Oh, no. You're out to left field. I'm explaining, not defending, everyone who tends to be misunderstood. I'm trying to say that people can support a thing without being 'enablers', and that two people who both see the same problems (police violence) can see different solutions.
I'm sharing my personal views to help explain how, regardless of labels, that most of our group hatreds are based on intentional (by others if not us) misstatements about the others, not their own words or actual views.
If you were with someone with serious intent of trying to be a compatible partner, and failed despite your best efforts such that you and your partner agree the best thing is to not be together, then probably your instincts aren't as good as you would want... Maybe you don't fully understand why "being friends" won't be as helpful for either party as desired.
It's important to be capable of being friendly with your exes, all the more so the less you actually get along. But it's probably unwise to put this to the test.
Watch the video about this and how the law professor says that your casual honest comment to a cop might be taken to be a lie based on nothing. Not just wrong, or potentially incriminating, but a lie, and because of that they can and will start to try to fit the evidence to you.
> This perpetuates the mantra that cops are an evil force out to get you.
That's not a requirement for this rule to be useful, but I'll act carefully to protect myself rather than to test that theory in either case.
However, those people probably don't think that the police "committed acts of brutality against protestors", they likely see the videos of BLM peacefully protesting and police standing by, and Antifa committing arson and attacking police and police fighting back. (Portland, Chicago, Kenosha) And they think that fighting and arresting rioters is exactly what they pay police for.
> their enablers being too ignorant or too hateful to recognize the stupidity of the action and how 2020 has set them back decades in getting people to trust them.
You were talking about BLM here? Because "Breona" is just as fake as Jussie Smollet's story, and Jacob Blake would have been shot if he was white, etc. Watch the videos of woke white people in Portland shouting racist slurs at black cops to show how much they care about black people in general.
Of course.
> Additionally you cannot deduce whether an entire institution is "institutionally" X or not X just because one individual behaved one way or the other.
That's not required here. Even if the diversity push is pure PR, it's still coordinated company-wide and reflected in all their messaging. Even if it is pure PR, they still stand to gain from supporting it.
> The fact that Jeff Dean hired Gebru doesn't tell you anything.
It tells you quite a lot. Google is willing to hire ethicists, blacks, and women. They're willing to let them publish many papers, and go to many conventions representing Google.
> Actual statistical measures, such as retention rates, percentage of work force, percentage of leadership etc. need to be consulted
No, that's only to disprove the literal conspiracy theory that Google is secretly racist and is hiring black people as part of a white-supremacy program. There'd need to be something to make that likely before it's even worth investigating.
As long as the most likely theory is a disgruntled employee... Did you read her papers?
Because there are two entirely different things - one is producing an unbiased bitstream from a potentially biased one (the topic of the article) and the other is keying an individual encryption.
When you're trying to generate a bitstream and you expect uniformity (ie, a prng) then seeing obvious non-uniformity over time is a sign that it's biased. You need the type of algorithms from the article to unbias it while preserving the actual entropy. This is what a system's designer should be doing to produce useful output from a hwrng in the first place.
But, looking at an individual piece of randomness, a key, you shouldn't be looking for uniformity at all. Here you want all zeros, all 1s, and any mix, to be equally possible.
> Interesting. Why do you hash the ECDH secret then?
Well, EC is a bit magical and I don't know. Wikipedia says that it prevents 'weak bits' from the handshake. That means correlations, but I don't know why this is true. At any rate uniformity here means what you think, that it's not a random bitstream and should not be used as such.
Yup. And still does. There was a huge sea change circa 2013(?) when everything became about currency and speculation. Every idea had to pivot to being its own coin, or including some useless utility token (a bit later) because that was 99%+ of the value to investors.
> Is there any reason that Bitcoin doesn’t have Turing completeness, faster blocks, oracles, etc? Not really; but ...
It feels like the first implementation couldn't have gotten it right if it aimed for too much more than Satoshi did. But technically, yes, BTC is a plausible base for this as much as anything else.
> debate inside the smart contracts community about the halting problem and how it could be used to attack the network. This is probably practically solved with transaction costs alone, but I think it was a practical software engineering compromise do scripting without looping and backward jump instructions because they made the software much more complex and vulnerable to attack.
Unbounded loops are an issue, but functional constructs (foreach) have 99% of the power and little of the risk. Ideally we'd have Satoshi take three months now and make v2, which would be BTC in spirit but with the lessons of the last ten years.
> To go further, the gas price itself doesn’t solve the problem of computational complexity because only the miner that wins the block actually gets the reward, while all others downstream are expected to verify it, but they have no incentive to do so, and frankly, today, most don’t.
This seems like where we need a mechanism that allows a script to be audit-executed, and if its outputs don't match expectations a deposit can be claimed by the auditor and the script will be marked as unreliable. If the precondition of the code is that it returns the correct public key, make sure that key works. If it doesn't you can claim the QA/Security prize - which can be set at whatever amount the script author wants depending on their belief in their code.
> Most of the early eth discussions I was involved with implied doing this in snarks or some other provable computation in the initial discussions, but that never made it into eth. So no; that problem was never solved, although we are getting closer.
Is there a specific blocker for this or just that the complexity is 1000x what is currently supported?
I think it's more complex than that all (or even most) republicans are racist.
What I'm trying to say is that the idiots you see probably are dumb enough to think they're geniuses, but there's a huge invisible support base (on all sides) of non-radicals who are fairly rational. And I think experience is the biggest difference between the groups. If you've seen a neighboring store burned you feel one way, if you've seen a neighbor threatened you feel another. The problem then is sharing experiences honestly so we can construct a mutual view of reality and then discuss the same issues.
Most people who say we should discuss politics more seem to mean that we should affirm the local viewpoint.
But I could more easily just use my GBP to directly buy Euros, with one less exchange rate and one less transaction in the process.
> that whole transaction takes a few seconds
For a bank, that's slow. But even if it wasn't, using an intermediate currency simply takes twice as long for each step.
The problem is that your grades (the signal) depend on your success at the stretch-goal courses, not the signaling courses, meaning that the best strategy is to not take anything hard. If only the base classes counted to your grades you'd be free to stretch your mind without risking your expensive credential.
> and in any event, employers know the difference between the bird courses and the ones with real meat on the bones.
Some interviewers do, but I feel companies hire more blindly based on your GPA than that HR people actually dive in and weight your courses against other candidates.
> being taught higher math and physics for the same price as what my friends were paying for sociology and religion courses seemed like the ultimate cheat
Good attitude.
A blockchain is just an incredibly inefficient way to store those messages, giving them an explicit ordering in case they don't have internal IDs, and to establish ordering between users. All of that can be done with a simple 'index server' that doles out ordered message IDs, without the blocks, the mining, etc.
Banks don't even need the currency. Banks just settle their debts in their local currency and they trust enforcement to the courts and bailiffs. This is what Ripple had right, in the beginning. They only need a messaging layer.
This stuff always sounded like it came from people who've never hired. Unskilled labor is not all equal.
> Satoshi’s concept was to use hashcash to both secure the ledger and issue currency. This was brilliant but antithetical to the no-currency concept, and re-ignited the debate
Satoshi's most important advancement was in making a currency and using it as its own rate-limiter by paying, in it, to publish.
Bitcoin's weakness is that computation isn't priced in BTC, so scripts had to be nerfed. Vitalik applied Satoshi's rate-limiting solution to computation and Ethereum scripts can now be allowed to grow arbitrarily complex.
The other issue is the key itself, and in AES for example, there are (believed to be) no 'weak' keys. All zeros is just as secure at mixing the plaintext as anything else. If you reject keys with too many zeros in a row all you're doing is lowering the keyspace you have to work with.
So no, uniformity is not a goal for keys.
This is very true.
> The issues with bug bounties as a whole is the market is skewed. For any work done by a bug bountier, there is exactly one legitimate buyer who gets to make a significant judgement call on the value of the work done.
The problem, in my experience, is that they never analyze it by its potential. Why would they, they have the details now and usually your legal details so if it leaks they'll have you busted in a heartbeat and sued for contract violation.
> Furthermore, it really is hard to place an accurate monetary value on a bug that's responsibly reported
I submit that from my experience threat modelling this is actual dead simple but nobody feels the need to do it.
> What precisely is the monetary loss from ...
As you point out, the issue is that there's a single buyer. You really need to open up the bidding. If you trusted a Russian mob to pay residuals (and they probably would) you might be able to sell this for what ended up being $50M+, and the criminals could clear billions if done right. Then the next time something like this came up you'd have more bargaining power. If the company was still there...
Thomas is right that there isn't specifically a market like flippa for exploits but there are dark markets and many of the vendors would be open to a chat. I'm not rooting for this, I'm just not blind and it will happen. (Well, if it's Twitter I'm rooting a little...)
I don't trust laws justified with only a soundbite though, whatever the soundbite is.
Parler's front page makes no mention of this. Pls source.
Or, do you just mean that they take the people who get kicked off of twitter? Because then, yeah - if you kick people off one place they'll tend to be found somewhere else.
They do seem to have the legal authority to make life very difficult for and potentially restrict entire actions of these companies. I imagine that if you refused to answer, and that your right to do so was likely to be upheld, that they'd just do what they were going to do before they asked the questions.
Picture this like a chance to talk your way out of trouble. Saying the minimum probably won't be enough.
Did you have merge week too? Often stretching into a second?
They reviewed her paper, so tautologically they were. You seem to be suggesting that this was inappropriate though, yes?
> Furthermore, the review process does not involve anonymous review. And no similar process does.
Nope. I'm in an SV company similar to two FAANGs and it totally does. If you submit a paper and want the company to sponsor it, you'd better believe it does. Before your manager lets you even start the process on work time they'll have you meet with others above you to review the idea, and it goes to both your team's architecture review board (in engineering) and an adjacent team's review board. The reviewers aren't anonymous, quite, because you can look at who's in the groups, but they boil the requests down and present it as a list, not a set of feedback. You can ask to have anything reviewed, because it's not a one-and-done process. Some people sail through, others do it as an iterative process. And then legal looks at everything and they insist on seeing the final release version, even if you only tweaked a comma.
Of course they're stringent though, this is a new project you're proposing to release with their name on it, made in lieu of your other job.
> This was not scientific peer review: no scientific process has peer reviewers from one's own institution.
Generally your research institution, in your subfield, won't have more than 5-10 actual peers and they're all assumed to know you and probably your work. So it's not that it can't be, it's that it's usually not useful.
> almost certainly avoiding reviewers from the same institution specifically to avoid conflicts of interest.
Google has multiple interests. They're very concerned with their reputation and even if the paper didn't need more peer review (which it seems to) they clearly think it needed a second round of review.
> If I made a code review, a coworker approved it, and my skip-manager said "This was reverted because some people said we couldn't ship it, but I'm not telling you who," I'd feel entirely justified in objecting.
You'd be fine if you just said you disagreed for technical reasons, but if you actually objected and released it yourself over objection you'd be escorted out within minutes and very likely charged with unauthorized use of the work resources to do so.
They pay your salary. This job is about your work product, not your feeling of entitlement. Want academic freedom, separate it from your 9-5.