News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

Nae3Au5x

In this case it also relies on the resistant cancer cells having altered metabolic pathways compared to your average cancer. It's not an universally applicable strategy.

Remember, fasting didn't work out so well for Jobs.

Re:Trash piles up in US as China closes door to recycling on Friday August 03, 2018 @07:50AM (#17679049)
Compostable does not mean it decays under your eyes.

E.g. polyurethanes are marginally biodegradeable by fungi and still last years when the conditions are not ideal for them.

China skipped straight ahead to post-cyberpunk dystopia
Most renderers support near-realtime preview. If fusion360 doesn't maybe write a script that watches for file changes, converts the CAD data into whatever your renderer of choice takes as input and then display in preview mode?

Maya+Vray spits out a preview within seconds on my machine.

Re:Tesla is building its own AI chips for self-driving cars on Thursday August 02, 2018 @11:13AM (#17672059)
I was quibbling about semantics. I am aware that cars can be dangerous.

> and the damage it can cause on accident

You are conflating (un)safety of a tool used in the way it is intended (kitchen knife = cutting a steak) with accidents (cutting a finger) and with malicious use (stabbing people). Those three categories are not the same for object-that-may-act-as-weapon and object-designed-as-weapon.

Conflating them collapses the number useful things we can communicate.

So are you concerned about Tesla intentionally building killing instruments? Or potential for accidents? Or the potential for intentional misuse?

> The fact how dangerous cars is is very much underappreciated by people in general, as evidenced by the number of morons on the road.

Cars also provide immense utility. If all they did were providing the thrill of speeding then they would probably be banned as too dangerous. One of the tradeoffs is the overhead of enabling people to drive. We could drive down the number of morons by requiring astronaut training for vehicle operators but again, that tradeoff seems too harsh and it's more efficient to occasionally let people die in traffic accidents than letting them die because nobody qualified as ambulance driver.

> We have a for-profit race by companies, many of which can't be trusted with getting software right

In the short term this may cause more deaths than necessary. But on the other hand it might be the quickest way to find a winner and then hold the rest to the same standard. As long as the experimental fleets are small they are just a blip in the statistics. Right now they should be equated to the yearly batch of first-year drivers who have an inherently higher risk profile due to lack of experience. We still accept them on our roads in the expectation that they improve.

What is important is to make sure that they are as good as or better than humans once they roll out in large fleets.

Re:Tesla is building its own AI chips for self-driving cars on Thursday August 02, 2018 @10:33AM (#17671685)
In the same sense that any object that can potentially kill someone (hint: everything) is a weapon. Which is technically correct but a useless observation.

If we use a more narrow definition of weapon, e.g. a tool optimized for the primary purpose of injuring or killing people then it certainly is not a weapon.

Re:Sequoia-PGP – A new OpenPGP implementation in Rust on Thursday August 02, 2018 @06:04AM (#17670348)
Some people may depend on them, but the difference between API guarantees and implementation details is that developers are far less reluctant to break your legs... I mean your application if you depend on the latter.

For example in java the iteration order of hash maps or the behavior of sorts in presence of non-reflexive comparators changed and people did depend on that. Sun was able to change it because it was not part of the API contract.