zzzcpan

5 ms·

1.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
It's more complicated. For most websites today if someone can intercept traffic somewhere close to the server they don't even need the keys, they can just fake responses to pass CA validation and issue valid certificates with thei
2.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
Right, there is plenty of confidence that climate change is real and caused by humans, but pretty much zero confidence in the long term effects of climate change on human population.
3.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
You are missing the point. Solving the truck problem is exactly what you shouldn't do, well, at least until your system is resilient. Because it could be something entirely different, it could be law enforcement raiding a data center a
4.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
It's not difficult, it's just different. It's the difference between predicting that a truck might crash into a data center and building concrete wall around it, and designing a system in a such way that users only ever resol
5.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
The whole idea behind resilience is to cover unforeseeable risks, the turkey problem just doesn't apply here. I would even say if the system doesn't solve the turkey problem it cannot be called resilient. And high availability wit
6.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
Honestly, you are not making any sense. This is not how engineering works. If you design for resilience, you get more resilience and you build confidence as you see the evidence how the system works in real world. Furthermore, with resilien
7.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
In web and online infrastructure pretty much nothing is out of your control except for two things: ISPs people use and domain name registrar you use for your domain name. And even domain name registrar centralization can be mitigated agains
8.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
Wouldn't that make you more happy, not less? Always figuring out how to improve things and having endless possibilities to improve them is almost a definition of fun.
9.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
> once-objective mainstream journalism Objective journalism was never ever a thing. That's why Manufacturing Consent happened and all the works from Edward Bernays and all the way to Noam Chomsky. What journalism had before though
10.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
It's more like a mix of solar and wind energy investors with fossil burning energy investors, both benefit from shutting down nuclear reactors. Solar and wind investors just want to have their huge returns with nothing wasted, as each
11.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
It takes a lot to produce and push government propaganda. It would require a tech company to essentially turn into a government run news organization if they were to do it. Which kind of defeats the purpose of even having different business
12.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
It's a private company, it's very unlikely for them to outright push government propaganda. They'll probably just censor "political activism" on the platform altogether and someday if government establishes tighter
13.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
You are confusing opinions with evidence and facts. Obviously you acquire knowledge by reading papers where people are doing research and experiments and presenting evidence, analytics and all the facts from which you can make your own conc
14.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
But isn't this part of the point? Philosophically science is about being interested and studying broad range of topics and areas to judge everything for yourself and make your own conclusions, not trust expert opinions. In my experienc
15.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
The original comment is about dang jumpyness and unfairness in moderation. He won't touch some people for the things he will shadowban or downweight others. Whatever you can praise dang for, moderation isn't one of those things. O
16.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
I sort of agree, he's definitely trying to enforce policies to advance an agenda while claiming pretty subjective justifications [1] for any action that he takes to shut down discussions. But to me that agenda looks like it's just
17.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
Yeah, CRDTs don't require keeping history of every change forever or at all. In other words, all the changes coming from a bad actor can be merged locally into a single change or a small set of changes or whatever is appropriate that w
18.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
I'm not sure what you are getting at. A model is essentially an unproven hypothesis, it can never be proven and confidence in the model depends on the evidence. With models on the effects of climate change (aka impact models) the confi
19.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
There is no science today that can make any kind of confident predictions on the effects of climate change on human population in 30 years from now.
20.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
Well, we have displaced people from different wars right now, but only some predictions on the possible effects of climate change, and I believe consensus among them is not even favoring the "civilization collapse" side. Human civ
21.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
If you want to compare which problems are worse, plenty are much worse than slow effects of climate change, like wars, contagious diseases, exploitation of poor people, poverty and inequality in general, political systems controlled by the
22.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
It's usually a measure of similarity to the mods, not pg, i.e. whatever dang thinks is interesting goes, if you are not "a good hacker" like dang - too bad for you. Although I do remember there was a pg article not so long ag
23.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
Right, essentially you have to be aware that you are testing the state space the code might end up in, which is very different from just hitting every line of code or every branch.
24.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
Right, it's a bit useless trick. I guess the author is just exploring how to organize help, maybe thinking about larger scripts or maybe doing it for the article. Either way it's hard to see it going anywhere with sed. If you were
25.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
This is just a logical fallacy. Some people changed their minds when presented with new facts, sure, but only some, some didn't and most people likely changed their minds when presented and bombarded with opinions, propaganda, etc., bu
26.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
Facts is a loaded term here. Facts cannot rely on trust, those are called authoritative opinions, not facts. And opinions about vaccination are still just opinions, not facts. If you say, for example, that it's hazardous not to vaccina
27.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
It's not possible to reliably anonymize data and still be able to infer something from it, the idea is just too logically broken. Because the whole reason for anonymity is to make sure no information about any individual or a set of in
28.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
There is huge difference between relying on libraries or independent implementations of software in a form of source code that may or may not have bugs, and relying on an organization that sends binary blobs to you, that has to keep their d
29.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
Breaking "hand rolled" crypto is a very hypothetical threat, almost a non-existent threat, as in practice software with centralizedly controlled distribution model has many much much bigger weaknesses that advanced threat actors a
30.
by zzzcpan 6y ago
> Hell, consider how non-welcome a person who thinks Rust sucks would feel on news.ycombinator.com. (tip: very non-welcome) That would be me. I literally got shadowbanned for criticizing Rust when I first became a member on HN. But I d

More ›