raphman_

it's also quite stable. We never had an issue in ~ 2 years with ~ 20 users.

A few years ago there was a discussion about making bike helmets mandatory in Germany. At least one scientist [1] did a cost-benefit analysis and argued against such a law. For example, while fewer people would die of head injuries, many more people would stop riding bikes (or do it less often), leading to an increase in cardiovascular diseases.

[1] http://www.cycle-helmets.com/germany-helmet-law-cost-analysi...

Here is a nice explanation of the reasons for secrecy:

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-trade-agreements-like-the-Tran...

tl;dr: two reasons: if each minor step in the negotiations is made public, lobbyists and NGOs will constantly bug the negotiators. Furthermore, if one side publicly states which lines it will never cross in the negotiations, it loses leverage because the opposite side now knows on which points they can expect less resistance, and will use this knowledge as a tactical advantage.

> I don’t recall the author now, but the gist of the argument made was that we’re too protective of our code - if you give someone responsibility, show that you trust them, more often than not, your intuition about people abusing their freedom is way off.

Maybe it was some of Pieter Hintjens writing and/or the C4 process:

* https://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:42/C4/

* http://hintjens.com/blog:112

* http://hintjens.com/blog:106

Edit: oh, as the author mentions a blog post from 2012, it probably isn't any of the above posts (which are newer) but maybe something related to C4.

Source: https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2016/04/18/is-replica...

Thanks for the tip and the vouching - as schoen suggests, it seems like I need a little bit more karma for this.

For those without `showdead` on: (@dang / @sctb: this seems to be a false positive)

> XORcat 18 minutes ago [dead] [-]

> In my lab, re-enabling did not kill the current connection, so it could be a very quick switch flick, login, revert to try and avoid detection.

The screenshot indicates that it is indeed a wrapper around Google Chrome's speech recognition capabilities.

Hmm, I found it a rather distracting inside joke. I can happily live without reading Reddit memes in this forum.

Funny, there does not seem to be a Null Island in Google Maps but a whole lot of subsea supermarkets in close proximity:

https://www.google.de/maps/@0.0612621,0.4003209,12z

This sounds promising.

Is anyone already using Matrix as an event server/queue for interactive environments and/or sensor networks (similar to the Stanford Event Heap [1])?

What is the minimum latency for Synapse/Ruma?

[1] https://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/eheap/

Requesting exactly three reasons sounds quite trollish...

A Leave vote would probably negatively affect many European research projects. The EU's framework programmes [1] are funding many collaborations and exchange programs. If the UK leaves, non-British researchers might need to to leave the UK, British universities would get isolated from the rest of European academia, long-term projects would have their funding canceled, etc. Even if EU and UK somehow would find a way to continue research cooperations, the uncertainty will have negative consequences right now. While this might not directly affect the average joe, it would negatively affect quite a few people I know.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_Programmes_for_Resea...

While I would identify as Wikipedia inclusionist [1], I find this article quite problematic. It is (quite) impossible for a reader to verify any of the claims made in the article. Five years ago, someone (probably Ken Dakin) wrote this article and no other person on the whole planet earth has apparently been able or willing to add information or support the claims of the article. For all that we know, the WRS might just be an elaborate hoax [2] or part of a plot by someone who hates VisiCalc. (A quick Google search turned up some further sources that suggest that at least someone calling himself Ken Dakin actually exists and claims to have worked on WRS [3].)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_i... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wi... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXA_kwrkxA0

Thanks for the insightful list. Bunnie Huang has been arguing for some time that the end of Moore's Law also means that Open Hardware and maintainable hardware in general might become more common:

> "Also, as Moore’s law decelerates, there is a potential for greater standardization of platforms. While today it seems ridiculous to create a standard tablet or mobile phone chassis with interchangeable components, this becomes a reasonable proposition when components stop shrinking and changing so much."[1]

[1] http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?page_id=1927

(apparently no longer)

off-topic: gangadhargs, FYI, your comments are shown as [dead] (since about four years ago).

Somehow related: https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-informati...

FWIW, there's already https://github.com/gurgeh/selfspy which seems to offer the same features as your tool (and a little bit more).

Hmm, the press release mentions that only " a single layer of electrophoretic fluid" (and also only a single backplane) is employed. Therefore, the mechanism must be a little bit different than the one described in the patent.

Yes. I just wanted to clarify that code that "compiles to nothing", e.g., build instructions, may still be copyrightable. Therefore, I do not think that Page wanted to extend his definition of "non-code" to anything besides interfaces/declarations.

I'm not sure if this interpretation of his words is what he meant to say.

I'd argue that code that "compiles to nothing" can be protected by copyright, too, even if it is not distributed to customers. E.g., extensive documentation inside comments in the source files is definitely copyrighted. Complex build rules might be copyrightable, too, although they definitely end up in the distributed application.

Therefore, it would probably be counterproductive to assert such a thing in court.

I agree with your general perspective. (I have publicly vowed to never act as a reviewer for Elsevier, for example.)

However, ignoring the traditional role of publishers does not help our case. Regarding your individual points:

- Peer review for CS conferences is usually organized by volunteers, yes. However, this is not true for other, journal-focused disciplines, where there are paid assistants

- One might argue that spelling/layout checks are not really necessary. I personally appreciate them. In any case, these _are_ services that publishers usually offer.

- I was not trying to argue that the typical publisher does a good or cheap job. What I wanted to say is that publishers can and do add value.

- Universities usually try to handle scientific fraud discretely (for PR, HR, and legal reasons). They are usually not interested in disseminating bad news widely.

- Sure, if we could retroactively bring all previously published works into the public domain, things would be much easier. However, in the copyright system we live in right now, publishers provide a useful service by taking care of author's rights and facilitating reuse.

Sure, there are other ways. Arxiv is certainly an option. However, someone still needs to develop and organize this (and pay for that). There is no free lunch - either you are paying a publisher for this service, or a university library to do the same.

(Of course, one might argue that other entities might be able to do the same thing cheaper - but this was not the topic of my argument)

(Actually, there already is some sort of "inter-university p2p network": http://www.lockss.org/ )

> What value does the publisher's work add to the work the author generated?

- organizing peer review - spell-checking and fixing layout problems - making sure that the paper stays available for a long time - handling complaints and retracting fraudulent papers - providing a single point of contact for people who would like to reuse published material (e.g., using illustrations in a textbook).

Sure, many publishers don't do a very good job for the money they are taking. Sure, there might be better approaches for disseminating knowledge than the current one. However, in the world as it is now, publishers can and do provide some value.

For reference, there's also autorandr [1] and x-on-resize [2].

[1] https://github.com/wertarbyte/autorandr

[2] http://keithp.com/blogs/x-on-resize/

see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11493927

This has nothing to do with the Schengen treaty.

Schengen == "there are no passport controls at border crossings"

Visa Waiver Program == "you do not need to apply for a visa in the destination country's embassy"

> "In this trove there are administrative documents that could actually be brought to public knowledge, such as records of incorporation, shareholder registers or directors or creation of bank accounts. But there is especially a lot of personal information, such as private postal and email addresses, scans of passports for internal and external correspondences Mossack Fonseca, with many private items (such as vacation rentals, electricity bills or, more sadly, the discovery of cancer)".

https://www.reddit.com/live/wp1fvdxxwb45/updates/02ec05f2-fa...

Indeed, there is no culture of replicability at CHI (and even less so at UIST). Reviewers usually reward novelty and cool PoC videos, not thoroughness. It is quite rare (especially for U.S. labs) to also publish source code, schematics, or raw data. There have been some initiatives advocating for replicability, and some researchers indeed publish everything, but in the whole, a quick, shiny video of a PoC implementation is often sufficient for a paper to be accepted.

Previous unmasking (without naming him) based on screenshots from his account:

https://syrah.co/joshdickson40/5604e5e10fc1786b0152a51a