- Here's a direct link to a PDF.
http://math.uchicago.edu/~shmuel/Network-course-readings/Mar...
- I assumed he read the Illuminatus! Trilogy and wondered where Markoff Chaney's name originated... There might be something wrong with me, now that I think about it. /s
- I have 64Gb, a 9800x3d, and a 4070Ti super. It's still a little slow if I set it to the highest settings, but it's usable.
Very cool either way!
- I was going to argue that you seem like a bit of a rare creature, but I suppose you would know better than I. I didn't bring it up because I didn't want it to sound like a personal attack or something.
Do YOU feel that it's common for folks to change their minds about such deeply held beliefs? I've met a few over the years that I know of. Maybe there are more, and I just don't realize it.
- I agree with most of what you said, and it was well said.
However, I disagree in two ways.
Firstly, while villainizing them is unhelpful convincing them is utterly impossible when religion is involved. It doesn't matter if we learn to understand their perspective, especially as logic/reason often doesn't apply and they aren't being honest about their goals and motivations.
I think the best anyone can hope for in such cases is for all parties to agree that we all have belief structures, and that we don't get to force those beliefs on others via the law. IE - "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." It's the only rational basis for a society in which different belief systems coexist. The United States used to understand this, but we seem to have forgotten.
Secondly, I do agree that it might be easier to reason with folks the further you get from the top of the ladder. The "true believers" who fly airplanes into buildings or who want to outlaw eating candy because it might lead to smiling on a Sunday didn't start down that path last week.
The issue with the bottom up approach is that the folks on the bottom seldom have any real power, and for good reason. If pawns were allowed to move backwards they would kill their kings.
- > they are optimizing but under differing constraints
Most often this doesn't happen because one side fails to understand the other, it happens because one side is dishonest about their motivations or goals.
In this case, the censors would like you to believe that they think pornography is harmful. The reality is that they're religious zealots who feel the need to prevent other people from making their own choices about something their religious leaders have told them is evil. They can't admit their real goal though, or people will realize it's just westernized Sharia law and stop taking them seriously.
- You have a solid point. I also ignore the fact that RTO actually does improve the bottom line in some narrow scenarios, such as when it's used as a backdoor layoff in companies that don't mind losing the best and brightest.
Some companies don't see an appreciable difference in performance between those that can easily find work elsewhere and those who are otherwise unemployable. For those companies RTO is a great, though immoral, way to lower headcount without triggering the WARN act.
- "Our plan is perfect, it's the world that's messed up!"
- I was being hyerbolic. I should have made that clearer. That said, there is a nugget of literal truth to my statement.
Market reactions are typically neutral to RTO announcements, which confounds some analysts who imagine that RTO adds some kind of value. However, studies have repeatedly shown that while the short-term impact of RTO is neutral these companies typically fair worse than peer companies over longer timeframes. To make it worse for the analysts, similar studies have also shown that companies which do embrace remote first work have outsized returns. Some estimates show that fully WFH organizations bring in about 7.5% higher annual returns on average than peer organizations that RTO.
Leaders continue to ignore the ever growing piles of evidence in favor of those analysts "common sense", and forget that "common sense" is just a laymans term for what scientists refer to as "making shit up."
Those same executives are most tempted to fall into this trap during times of duress, because being perceived as "doing something" is more important than long term impact on share price.
- You're missing the point. Sure, they're going to just keep doing what they've always done, but this time they're going to do it HARDER and with 15% fewer people!
- Has anyone backtested a stock bot that just shorts every company doing RTO? It's clearly a leading indicator for company collapse.
- > If the overview becomes a trusted source of information
It never will. By disincentivizing publishers they're stripping away most of the motivation for the legitimate source content to exist.
AI search results are a sort of self-cannibalism. Eventually AI search engines will only have what they cached before the web became walled gardens (old data), and public gardens that have been heavily vandalized with AI slop (bad data).
- I subscribe also, and prefer it for most things.
However, it's pretty bad for local results and shopping. I find that anytime I need to know a local stores hours or find the cheapest place to purchase an item I need to pivot back to google. Other than that it's become my default for most things.
- I would argue that all models are inherently incomplete because they are models (IE - they are the map not the territory). Rather than worrying about completeness, it's better to ask if the model is useful, and if anything would change about the requirement for tradeoffs in security if we used a more complete model?
I would answer that the triad IS useful in this scenario and further that if we used an alternative model (The 7-C's maybe?) we would still find inherently contradictory requirements for almost every security scenario. In fact, we would just MORE more of those trade-offs, further proving that security can never be "perfect."
For example, I can think of several fundamentals the triad doesn't cover directly. Privacy and non-repudiation spring to mind as concepts that don't neatly fit into the CIA triad, but they are the antithesis of each other!
Perfect privacy would require that nobody (including data-owners) can identify the user, and perfect non-repudiation would require that no access be granted without 100% proof of the current user. Again, you are forced to choose and this means that some aspect will always be less than perfect.
- This is the crux of the issue. The CIA triad (confidentiality, integrity and availability) are the root of all security. However, those goals are often self-contradictory.
There will always, for example, be a conflict between availability and confidentiality. Ultimate confidentiality might require that the data be stored in an inaccessible bunker with no outside access. Ultimate availability might involve hosting sensitive data on a publicly accessible server with no access controls.
In the real world we must always balance these needs carefully, and triage available resources to achieve an "ideal" outcome. This means that security will never, and can never, be a solved problem.
- What would be the purpose of launching a decaying lump of monkey meat into space when the AI can explore just as well with a tiny fraction of the mass requirements?
I'd wager that it will be AI's using IRC from space, but IPv6 still won't have replaced IPv4. :)
- To tell the truth, I don't remember. I've kept a "quotes.txt" file for the last two or three decades where I paste in anything I feel is worth remembering. It's been in there as long as I can remember, but I apparently didn't bother with a proper attribution.
I want to guess Oliver Wendell Holmes for some reason, but it doesn't read like something he said. Sorry I can't be more helpful.
- "We do our peers, countrymen, students, and children a grave disservice by admonishing them to think for themselves without also giving them the critical thinking tools to do so, for in so doing we foster a culture where "independent thought" is equated with "contrarian thought". This gives rise to an anti-intellectual, anti-science paradigm that supports an idea not because it meets a basic standard of evidence, but rather simply because it opposes established thought. This is worse than the intellectual calcification that stagnant "herd thinking" would give rise to, because it doesn't simply halt progress — it puts it in full retreat."
- I suspect that you're right, but only because of the rise in AI.
At a certain point we'll all have AI personal assistants that are easier to use, more convenient, and less harmful to us than smartphones have historically been. The cool kids will move to the shinier new format, and the poor will continue to use the moderately dangerous, addictive, less efficient legacy tech for a long while.
Maybe these things will come in smart glasses format that we interact with primarily by voice, better smart watches that don't require a phone at all, or maybe it will be something like the star trek communicator?
- I found a tampermonkey extension for Firefox based on this comment. So far it seems to work well. I'm not sure if that's what they were referring to though.
- Similarly, I've been watching the rise of the "minimal phone", and "analog tech" with interest lately.
People have lost agency to the degree that they're looking to the very tech that stole their agency for answers, and I view that a sign that perhaps the push-back is actually beginning in earnest.
- Literacy rates have been declining in lock-step with the increase in social media usage. We are now at the point that 54% of Americans read below the sixth grade level. 1 in 5 are functionally illiterate. Those numbers will be worse next year, and probably in every subsequent year.
The average person now spends more than 4 hours per day looking at their phone, but only about 60% know that social media companies make their money via advertising. Around 48% know what a privacy policy is.
These massively uninformed, heavily manipulated citizens make up the majority of voters now and democracy may die because of it. Worse, anti-science madness in the form of anti-elitism and populist zero-sum economic lunacy have begun to prevail above reason.
Screens may still spell the end of personal liberty and an abrupt end to the forward march of human progress. It's just taken a bit longer than parents predicated when they tried to ban Beavis and Butthead.
- I would argue that TikTok is what terminally online means now.
- No, but certain news outlets make it seem that way.
- 66% of autistic adults admit having suicidal thoughts. 35% have attempted suicide.
If they're faking it for benefits they are REALLY committed to the bit.
- This is a really great question. I checked.
Turns out that the poorer a nation is, the less reported autism they have. That could be because there is no benefit to the diagnosis or it could be because they have less healthcare in general and a real diagnosis can easily take 4-8 hours of clinical time.
Interesting either way.
- > fun and easy
It's not fun or easy for anyone to find a new job. However, it's usually less painful than staying if you're poorly suited to your current role.
We all have strengths and weaknesses. The secret to living a good life is learning to take an honest inventory of your personal capabilities and then figuring out how to work with what you have.
I truly hope that things improve for you.
The documents do. However Clinton did not invite Epstein to his wedding, or buy Epsteins jet after his suicide because he liked flying it in so much.
More importantly, Clinton was asked about the release of the files last year, in court. He did not object then and he has recently stated that he does not now. Meanwhile, republicans actually dismissed Congress early, stopping the business of governing, to prevent it.
> redistricting in response to TX
It is "in response". They're trying to STOP the gerrymandering, not make it worse. Gerrymandering should be illegal in all cases. It's not, but I think we can all agree that it does not serve democracy and should be.
> Who set the precedent?
Are you seriously defending concentration camps because someone else has done it in the past? Take a look at yourself in the mirror and really think about this one.