sammax
sammax on Hacker News
> cables haven't improved since USB-C, 9 years ago
Not to distract from your point, which I agree with, but that is just plainly untrue. A USB-C cable from 9 years ago almost certainly doesn’t support current standards for power delivery and data transfer.
The tests are done using proprietary hard- and software, though it is generally made by biotech and not pharmaceutical companies.
I fail to see the net loss to society in this scenario.
What a shitty take. There’s only so much ibuprofen you can take before the risks start outweighing the benefits, and there’s plenty of pain that is much stronger than that.
I’ve set up an AuthorizedKeysCommand that uses unbound to get the authorized keys for the server via DNSSEC, with the ability to specify keys for whole servers, users on servers or globally for all servers. This is pretty neat for my few private boxes, I wouldn’t advise it for something bigger or enterprise, an ldap or similar seems better for that.
They originated around the same time, but singular you was initially only used for addressing superiors/showing respect (using the plural second person pronoun as a singular for this purpose is still a thing in a bunch of languages), a few hundred years later “you” became the standard second person singular pronoun while “thou” fell out of favour.
I fail to see how any of the mentioned pronouns are ungrammatical.
As for competing needs and such, in this case it’s as easy as using she/her (as maia lists that as one of its pronouns), in other cases it’s usually acceptable to use they/them or no pronouns at all. The only thing that is generally absolutely unacceptable is (knowingly) using the wrong gendered pronouns or using gendered pronouns when the person only uses non-gendered pronouns.
> test of reasoning
My experience is that ChatGPT is not particularly good at reasoning, so I assume that either the test isn’t a particularly good test of reasoning or the result was a fluke.
It’s a text model, not a reasoning model, so I wouldn’t expect reasoning ability in the first place.
The numbers in that table are the numbers from the bra sizing system, not necessarily actual measurements. The EU system for some reason uses band size numbers about 10 less than the actual underbust size.
Oh yeah it’s not always wrong, just often enough and convincing enough that it would be dangerous to rely on it.
You can generally “convince” it to agree with anything, how difficult that is depends on how strongly it “knows” that what you say is wrong. Making it agree that violence is cool is harder than making it agree that 1+1=3 is harder than making it agree that <obscure chemical process> is <completely wrong explanation>.
Same with anything ChatGPT tells you, except it manages to sound much more convincing than Google does.
I did actually miss that. But my point is that none of the papers established a limit at 10 years and it’s not clear at all how the authors came up with that number.
What does child labour and slavery being profitable have to do with whether “without regulations we’d still have child labour” is a compelling argument?
I don’t know why they write that, but one of the papers they quote for that claim reported success with samples up to 19 years old and in turn cites a paper that reported “genotyping whole-genome-amplified DNA” from up to 25 year old blood spots. I don’t know what this means exactly, it definitely isn’t the methylenation thing, but I think it’s a good indication that blood much older than a decade is viable. Both of these papers also report no differences in results between older and younger samples, only between different extraction methods and amounts.
I’m quite happy with Glauca [1], they’re not quite as cheap but their DNS stuff is pretty good and they are friendly and helpful. Only downside is their website being a bit slow sometimes.
[1] https://glauca.digital
Microsoft has evidence that the code they are reproducing is MIT licensed, so are they intentionally violating that license or does this AI thing include the license and attribution in every snippet it generates?
Don’t most licenses require at least attribution? I don’t believe GitHub is restricting themselves to only licenses that don’t. In fact the only software licenses I can think of that don’t require attribution are 0BSD, WTFPL, CC0, MIT-0 and Unlicense, and they all aren’t super popular. Also in some countries creators have inalienable moral rights which can be enforced regardless of the license. For example in Germany it is impossible to relinquish certain rights you have as the creator of a work, including the right to attribution.
Sounds a bit like you weren't an organ donor because it's the right thing but because it makes you feel good. And now that good feeling is taken away from you because everyone is an organ donor by default and you're not doing anything special anymore.
It has historical reasons. Back when Napoleon conquered Europe, the HRE redistributed some land from the Church to the secular rulers and in return promised to fund them via taxes and compensate them for the land. The church tax has since become more of a membership fee (you can just leave the Church and stop paying it), but the state still collects it for the Churches.
> The target may feel much safer clicking a link to knowntrustedsite.abc than yourunknownphisysite.xyz
Big doubt honestly, at least for the vast majority of people. Just set up some blog with some contest that interests them (can be copied from other blogs) and they're not gonna suspect a thing. People might notice if you pretend to be their bank but are actually a phishing site, but they don't notice if you pretend to be a blog and are actually a blog that harvests their data just like any other website.
> Any traffic incident here always involve two people who failed to comply with traffic laws.
Are you sure about that? It would mean that it's technically illegal to cross a road unless you're absolutely certain that there can't be a speeding driver around the next corner who's gonna get to you faster than you can react. Or that you aren't allowed to cross the street at a green light even when all the cars are waiting because you can't actually be certain that a car isn't gonna start driving suddenly and run you over. Or that someone tailgating you is somehow caused in part by you.
It's pretty ridiculous to claim that both sides failed to comply with the laws in every incident.
> Yes, and _that's it_! Just by getting someone to click on a site they find trustworthy, you are now able to extract country, device, browser, OS, time of access
So you'd be using this as an overly complex IP geolocation lookup and UA header parser? All of this information is either already known to you when you trick someone to click on that link (because they are on your website so you get the same data) or can instead be obtained by tricking them into clicking on a link to your website instead of that one (if it's an email for example).
Your private email that you don't use for signing up anywhere is irrelevant except for phishing and spam. Your secondary email address will become the foreign key that is used to correlate the datasets from everywhere you signed up with it. The +tags can just be removed since it is known how they work. Might give you a small protection against attackers who don't know about email address tags.
So whenever the program used for extracting ZIPs has a vulnerability any website could force-download a malicious ZIP and it would automatically be extracted and trigger the vulnerability...
Why is "force-download" even a thing? IMO the browser should always ask before downloading any file. Though this is not a unique Mac thing, I believe Chrome does that everywhere.
> I found another browser trick that lets force-downloaded TXT files to be opened without user interaction or warning
I wish there was more elaboration on this. Opening a downloaded file without user interaction sounds pretty bad.
Other nations somehow manage with prison systems that don't just shoot convicts who are trying to escape. I believe there are even nations where trying to escape from prison (or successfully escaping) is not a criminal offense itself.
It's even more insane how willing people are to say "both sides do X" when one side does X a thousand times more than the other side does.
The whole point of UBI is that everyone gets it, unconditionally. There is no not using it or not staying on it. You just get the UBI, and it should be enough to pay for basic living costs, and most people also want to be able to afford luxuries so the incentive to work is not gone.