Memosyne

I found this comment about the "shock" experienced by the author interesting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098

> If you read the profile the New Yorker published about us last year, you'll find the author's own shock experience of HN encoded into that article (and it's something of a miracle of openness and intelligence that she was able to get past that—the shock experience really is that bad).

Maybe you're looking for the term microcontroller? [1]

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcontroller

Hm, I possibly misused the term "amateurish" when I meant "simple". My apologies for the confusion.

I'm not denying its effectiveness, just remarking on its technical merit as a topic of discussion. Once the system is already compromised it becomes less about the payload and more about the attack vector involved. If the payload in question was using novel techniques then it would be a different story but the analysis shows the program to be relatively rudimentary.

> Each sample of the malware contains a hardcoded name of the victim organization.

> Apart from encrypting the files and leaving ransom notes, the sample has none of the additional functionality that other threat actors tend to use in their Trojans: no C&C communication, no termination of running processes, no anti-analysis tricks, etc.

> Curiously, the ELF binary contains some debug information, including names of functions, global variables and source code files used by the malware developers.

Seems pretty amateurish...

If you have colorful icons you'll need to duplicate the resources to account for light and dark variants unless you prefer sub-optimal legibility. If you emphasize color as a method of representing state you'll need to adjust by shipping images for each state value. With monochrome icons the emphasis is placed on shape so you can efficiently render the whole icon in a different color without obfuscating its meaning.

> If you could take all the good parts of most countries and try to combine them to create a new country, you could have a winner.

Or you could have an amalgamation of different policies that are dependent on conflicting cultural values.

> Is anyone seriously working on starting a new country?

Hm, I don't know if you consider them serious but there's the ongoing Syrian civil war, Boko Haram insurgency, Mali war, etc...

You are referencing my comments without the proper context:

> who doesn't trust people

I do not trust people because I write in a journal? How is this incriminating? I don't find it any more peculiar than speaking to oneself or opening with "dear diary" -- as if those who address their text to something inanimate are any better. I fail to see any merit in this revelation aside from attacking my character. I could try and dig up something equally irrelevant from your history but I find that act to be in poor taste.

> You seem to think 'How to win friends & influence people' is an acceptable instruction book for manipulating people

Once again the context is conveniently missing: the individual I was replying to described himself as someone who dislikes talking to average people (had a sense of superiority). I figured rather than offer him something vague and patronizing like, "be nice and try to be humble", I would endorse a resource that would offer solutions pertinent to the subject matter. I was not sharing my own personal opinions; one does not have to ascribe morality to a function in order to see merit in its execution towards an objective.

> You think a public psychological label is a life-and-death matter

Not entirely, no. But is this a minority opinion? Why would they blackmail the patients if they didn't believe that some would be willing to pay? I have recently lost someone precious to me as a result of similar circumstances and my mishandling of the situation by encouraging therapy and medication played a key role in her suicide. I apologize if my original comment appeared unnecessarily reflexive -- I'm still reeling from the guilt and I could be projecting some of that bias in my response to these types of things.

I think if something necessitates intervention then by all means seek professional care. But if you're unsure and living a decent life make sure you exhaust all other options before considering yourself diagnosed with whatever label is put in vogue by pseudo-scientists. If you think some secrets are uninteresting consider if they'll remain that way when the culture inevitably shifts and society decides to reject certain categories of people. The normal of yesterday too often becomes the enemy of a better tomorrow.

I'm arguing that your secrets, especially if they're socially taboo, are best kept to yourself unless you are fully aware of the consequences. I'm against disguising mental health care as something inherently beneficial to the patient. If people are fully aware of what will happen to them then I have no problem, but there is simply not enough transparency in this process and some are lulled into a false sense of security by the advertising.

You can read the Turing story here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing#Conviction_for_indecenc...

My point with Turing was that here was a man who lived a decent life up until he exposed himself to society, thinking that this society would help him solve an unrelated problem. In truth, society is only motivated by self-interest (of the collective) and sometimes having you live a decent life is simply not in its best interest.

I'll be the contrarian: Is this a good business decision?

Sony has recently stated that it wants to enter the automotive industry but Google is a direct competitor with Waymo and their Nest product has a pretty firm standing in the smart home appliance environment. Is it wise to basically become dependent on a large competitor for such an integral component of your next generation products? What if Google decides to give up maintenance of Flutter to the community and use an internal, better fork? I guess it's the same thing with Microsoft using Chromium to implement Edge and how we're converging towards a complete Google monopoly.

I was an early adopter and proponent of Flutter but that's just not the case anymore. The ecosystem has become inundated by what you might get if you forced copulation between the JS and Android ecosystems. There's a ton of low-substance spam articles, excessive usage of libraries reminiscent of NPM-madness, and just a general obnoxious colorful-emoji-fueled atmosphere. I don't want to be misinterpreted: there are plenty of good Flutter developers and the core engineering team is certainly brilliant. But they're largely overshadowed by a community who continues to drive a good technology into being associated with bloat, poor security, and puerility.

> Secrets have to exist somewhere

This location exists below the cranium or somewhere securely encrypted and private.

> Socially ostracizing people for leaked mental help information is like laughing at fat people who had their gym treadmill data leaked

And like that example it happens despite whatever ideal moral system we want to espouse (never watched AFHV?). Advising people to not seek mental health care because of social acceptance is a valid concern since the consequences are real and critical. In 1952 Alan Turing admitted to performing homosexual acts and was subsequently charged with gross indecency - he was punished for sharing his secret. What do you think would happen if someone pursued mental health care to resolve a deviance in 2020?

"Hello Bob, I'm quite happy you've come to seek help with your problem... but first constable Alice would like to have a word with you. Oh, and I'm afraid you won't be allowed to leave the country or own a firearm; plus I've already spoken to your employer and he "suggests" you take a permanent leave of absence to resolve these issues. No worries Bob, just doing my job! Hm? Your girlfriend and friends dumped you after finding out? That's a shame, Bob."

If you want to act like there are no downsides to these solutions then I'm afraid you're being particularly naive. By all means fight for the right to have these people not discriminated against but don't mislead people by suggesting that you've already won the war when you clearly have not. Some lack the fortitude and recruiting them through disingenuous advertising is unethical.

Google fuchsia: https://fuchsia.dev/

My 2 cents: Get rid of stars and then have each reviewer submit something positive about the product as well as something negative as nothing is ever perfect. Eventually people will figure out the reviewers writing "it works too good!" or "it has no problems!" as negatives are fake. Even if the bots manage to get around the automatic detection (i.e. IP + activity tracking) they'll still be submitting negatives which will hopefully balance out their positives and incline the user to examine each argument instead of being subconsciously manipulated by the 10/10s and 5 stars.

I've been testing out beta and have noticed the Vulkan backend using around 30mb less memory than GL on Linux. Hopefully we'll see even more reductions when QML3 is released (which really focuses on embedded). Another interesting thing is that QML now has cross-platform desktop widget via QtQuickControls2 (i.e. native Windows and MacOS styles) and the improved CMake support is also pretty convenient. I can now get rid of my .qrc files and just write everything in CMake.

I really admire how smooth this migration was and it shows Qt really cares about minimizing breaking changes.

Relevant: https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/2003/can-chinese...

> No, you'd blame the manufacturer for building an exploding car.

A better analogy would be accidentally crashing the vehicle - an action resulting from negligence or incompetence rather than some 1/1000000 chance of your car exploding due to a failure in functional safety. If someone is operating a vehicle in a manner that it was not intended to be used should we blame the manufacturer? You expect litigation to follow someone forgetting their keys, driving their car into a lake, or running out of gas on a busy freeway?

The solution should be to mandate more certifications and security audits for high-risk organizations. The safety mechanisms should be legal and not technical; you shouldn't be permitted to operate a business dealing with sensitive data if you haven't been audited. Delegating more responsibility to the system architects doesn't solve the fact that you have incompetent people performing the administrative tasks and malicious actors abusing this incompetence. It isn't about someone making a mistake, it's about someone being irresponsible in a security sensitive environment - something that should carry severe legal repercussions.