> So did you get hit by a car before learning to look both ways when crossing the street? Or did someone tell you?
Are you suggesting the first people that learned to cross a road got hit by cars before realizing they had to look both ways? There was no one to tell them how to look, so how did they learn it except by "being hit by a car"?
Not OP, but...the advent of cars over horse-drawn carriages involved a _lot_ of deaths before both pedestrians and drivers learned. There was also a lot of propaganda put out by car companies to change the popular conception of roadways from being a place where people walk and children play to being a place for cars. [1] So...it's actually pretty close to people needing to be told to look both ways.
I’m suggesting it’s stupid to think you’ve learned nothing but false truths from advice.
Edit: but for what it’s worth even in this stupid example. To learn from experience that you must look both ways does imply you suffered the consequence of not knowing it beforehand. Be that being hit or coming close. Pedantic w/e
I grew up being taught to view elders as wise and thoughtful people who should be respected above all others. However my experience with most people over, say, 85 has been highly entitled, highly incapable, easily manipulated, and uninterested in doing anything but watching tv. Now of course, I recognize there are many old people who do not fit that mold. I also personally know plenty who are active and engaged.
But I also cannot think of anyone who fits that image of a sagacious, wise elder. Nor, upon reflection, do I think anyone I know, myself included, is likely to be that person when old.
I totally buy that wisdom accumulated in years 0-60. I feel it will on average hold or drop thereonafter
You'll find people of all types in all ages. Age is only passingly correlated with an increase in wisdom or intelligence. I promise you that there are elders worth respecting as there are those worth dismissing. I hope you get to meet some eventually.
I have a non technical friend who did this citing CNET. It felt like kind of a shit thing based on how it was being advertised, but I couldn’t actually see anything that warranted saying nord was bad.
How would have expressed this in laymen terms (before this compromised thing was revealed obviously)?
You have to take your choice of VPN seriously. When you use a VPN, they can read all of your internet traffic, so choose a company you can trust with that information. If they screw up, like NordVPN did, then anyone can read all of your internet traffic even when you think you're safe. You're often better off without a VPN than with one.
This seems like an overstatement. Five years ago, mostly true, but can they mitm my ssl connections? (I'm getting mixed answers on StackExchange, but it seems like generally no.)
They can see what sites I visit, but for most of those sites, they still shouldn't be able to see the content.
(This might be more nuanced than the layman explanation needs to be. Just curious for my own sake.)
It's likely that they cannot trivially MITM SSL connections but for that to be true you're relying on a bunch of things which are not trivial to verify:
1. All of the apps and sites you care about are HTTPS-only and don't rely on, say, an HTTP-to-HTTPS redirect which can be bypassed.
2. The VPN client doesn't do something like configure a proxy.
3. Your OS, apps, and browser don't have exploitable bugs or weak software update mechanisms, or that the VPN provider or whoever compromised them isn't going to try exploiting them.
Obviously the third one is a relatively low probability since it's noisy but it's the kind of thing which would be hard to rule out since VPN providers have a market incentive to cut corners if they think it won't be noticed and by their nature it's easy to imagine a law-enforcement or intelligence agency thinking it'd be a good service to compromise to get access to a userbase which contains people who are trying to hide something of interest.
Depends, if they have a root (or a wildcard) certificate, they can show you that, and your browser will happily show you a green lock. However, the list of root CAs in your browser is public, for Firefox see [0], and hopefully someone would notice if a VPN provider has access to such an certificate.
(However, that is something that also applies to ISPs, at least Telekom has a CA and therefore a root certificate.)
The article I linked in my original comment goes into a bit more detail and is aimed at the layman, but it's a bit more in depth than a comment you can make in a conversation.
It shouldn’t. Yellow lights are supposed to last an amount of time based on the speed limit at that section so this doesn’t happen.
Traffic simulations are generally quite complex. In your proposal, if your approach is not detected correctly, you either stop traffic for a car which isn’t there, or you never stop traffic for a car which is there.
I would love to learn more about traffic simulations they use. I saw some software traffic simulators in college and they looked nice but in no way included real-world driving.
It’s hard to imagine, given how bad traffic is, that our streets were planned by sophisticated computer simulations. There’s one place near me where it can take nearly an hour to go 3 blocks during rush hour, due to people blocking the box. Do simulations take that into account?
Boeing didn’t create the MCAS system because they thought it was a superior design or a labor saving mechanism. They did it to compensate for bad design of the physical plane.
And if the pilots had been trained to turn it off at the right time it would have been safe. They weren't (the plane was advertised as requiring no new training), and boeing made MCAS deliberately hard to turn off.
In the OP case, the evidence is not a problem, right? There's nothing specially about "legally actionable", you just need to convince a judge or jury that it happened, as with any other fact. In this case, with the JS code cited.
> Experiments show that transfer learning basically doesn’t exist, average people simply cannot apply principles they’ve learned in one context in a completely different context.
This is an exceptionally bold claim. Sounds dubious.
> Finally, many people have very successful careers in one field despite having a degree in a completely different field, which suggests that whatever people learn in their degrees doesn’t really matter all that much.
No it doesn’t. For that to be true you would need to demonstrate that, say, having an engineering degree does not influence likelihood or magnitude of success in engineering careers.
In reality there are likely going to be many recipes for success. Nepotism or social skills is one. Learned Competence is also one. Dumb luck is a third. The fact that you can succeed without such things does not mean such things are worthless
A complete camera and RF transmitter is only a few grams in weight and negligible in power draw. (I fly a tinyHawk which is 42g including the drone, camera, RF stuff, flight controller, frame, motors, props AND battery) I can't see them NOT having real-time camera feeds, especially since they have actual pilots in control of them.
When you think about game design you have two big buckets. Writing code to make mechanics work, and writing code to make new content. This kind of game is almost entirely the latter because it’s not much more than handling one off edge cases and is very simple.
I would recommend using https://love2d.org/ to get started. This is a simple language built around a 2D game engine with (I think) many examples to follow
I always thought that game must have an incredible ontology underneath it that would be amazingly useful to other ventures...
I also recall playing it and, at a certain point, realizing that I was stubbornly uncreative in using the variety of options available to me.
In retrospect maybe that wasn’t true, and the game managed the massive potential for variance by condensing things into smaller buckets. Either way those were some brave developers agreeing to that project scope.
