I used to be a C++ dev for 10 years. I tried to learn go after hearing about how great it is. IMO - it's a hot garbage practical joke made by googlers that became popular because it was made by googlers and then it was too late to tell its was a prank. It's a corrupt amalgam of "clever hacks" and "only one good way to do things - my way".
Its concurrency is awful, and makes shooting oneselves in a foot easy. Effective go teaching you how to basically make mutex using channels is just a practical joke, right?
Go's success in the cloud native infrastructure is really impressive - the language has enjoyed widespread adoption in many large engineering orgs. Having a hard time seeing where you're coming from when you talk about a "hot garbage practical joke"
JavaScript is an awful language, we all can agree on that, right? But it has reached universal adoption, it's widespread from in-app scripts, through embedded devices, back-end services and front-end.
I have the same opinion on Go - it's awful, it fails to deliver its promises, but it became popular because it was "a google thing".
Google itself supports go internally, but it is nowhere near being ubiquitous or even recommended - I think that tells you something about it too.
> Cryptocurrency cuts out the middleman in a transaction
How are you going to do ANY crypto transaction without a middleman? Will you wait months and burn insane amount of electricity to finally mine the block yourself? Of will you submit your transaction somewhere and pay the fee?
I have free next-day transfers, pay $1,2 for instant transfer up to $1200 - and those are bank transfers, with all the security of it, not some shady apps. This is in highly regulated market. What are commissions on bitcoin transfers again?
There are more words after the comma. There will be quibbling about the definition of "middleman".
Yes, bank transferral of money for basic things can often be free and very fast these days, but it wasn't when bitcoin was created, and cryptocurrency does more than just that nowadays too.
Both areas are constantly evolving, so comparisons are a bit fraught with bias.
I've already had many of these arguments in my own head, and it's only been with research (education, the universal silver bullet) and experience that I've been able to find trustworthy answers, so I try to share how I got 'from there to here'.
It's also taken me far too many years to learn that ridicule and dismissal are not paths towards persuasion. Not that I've permanently learnt that lesson though.
The brain is more like a CPU implemented in FPGA than a CPU synthesised into silicon.
Signals are only somewhat local - you get increased activity in this or that region and can correlate it with what happens in the brain - like power analysis attacks on crypto chips - the algorithm has to recover the data from the limited, noisy signal we are able to pickup.
You can't just put electrode in every single neuron to read its state like you can't put an electrode into every single piece of conductive metal on a chip - it would be to tight to fit and everything would stop working.
The AUTHORS of the original paper got a dataset from a company. They didn't assume the fraud from the start and published the paper based on it.
Later, when they tried to analyze the issue more in-depth, they couldn't replicate the results. THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS PUBLISHED a paper about a failure to replicate. It was just then that someone looked at the original data and found that it was faked.
I did completely read what was available to me without having an account.
> The AUTHORS of the original paper got a dataset from a company. They didn't assume the fraud from the start and published the paper based on it.
My comment is not about who the culprit is or isn't. Indeed, I don't mention anything about it.
Rather, it's about how, as the title says, a WIDELY cited paper has fabricated data following rather (IMO) obvious red flag patterns and none of the people -who cited the paper- raised issues about that.
Thus, I questioned whether scientists read or not the papers they cite in the parent post.
The question is not a judgment, I'm just truly curious since I'm not part of the formal academia, just an undergraduate.
He created the excel file. If he wanted to clear his name he could publish the original data as it was sent from the company, but he hasn't done so. And the company obviously has no incentive to falsify the data.
Anything that you access using thunderbird with GPG configured?
It gives no worse privacy guarantees than protonmail and possibly way better - because if you use protonmail through a web client and they get a court order to serve you a "special" client that forwards your certificate you won't notice it.
You just need to couple the keys to something tangible. But the truth is that every system can by bypassed if you spend enough effort. The only question is when it becomes enough hassle so that it doesn't disrupt ordinary people's lives. Not even facebook cared about enforcing https until someone made a browser plugin that let everyone steal cookies.
So now we are essentially bricking the devices of real users? Without doing anything meaningful to real attackers who just grab the next key out of their list of 10 million stolen from insecure androids.
What? No. The signature needs to be added by the image sensor as it gathers data.
It shouldn't be easy to extract it and that's it. It's even less difficult than keeping the DVD/Blueray keys secure because each device has a separate key, so if a line of devices gets compromised easily it's easy to spot.
Then you put a legal framework around what can be presented by media, the requirement for signature collection and so. And one of problems with photo/video authenticity is essentially solved.
I think the solution can be reached following from a set of simple observations about a single line of sight:
- in a square room all angles are right
- with wall at right angles the laser light will always create an inscribed square and return to the source for any given angle
- there is exactly one angle in a range <0,90> at which the light bounced from a single wall will go through an arbitrary point in the room
- there are 4 walls which gives at most 4 squares to be blocked
- the blocking point can be set anywhere on the inscribed square before the target - this gives at most 2 points per square (we can consider them left- and right- -hand directed) hence 8 points necessary
- at start we selected only angles from the <0,90> degree range for the ease of calculation, so there are also symmetric versions in the (90,180> range
- which gives us at most 16 points to block all the possible squares in both directions
From what happened to me - cards die, especially older ones when there is a lot of data written to them even without power failures (UPS ensured that). And when you have a journaled filesystem there is a lot of writes.
I made hybrid systems where either the card is only used to boot the system and everything (root included) is loaded from a USB drive or where card is mounted R/O, there is small ramdisk for volatile data and only when upgrade/reconfiguration is needed you remount it r/w, do what you need and then remount it back r/o. In both those setups cards didn't fail for the last 3-4 years. With a standard SD card root-fs they lasted about 4-6 months.
If police is corrupt and want someone to disappear they just won't create arrest records. US police was using black-sites where people disappeared without problem.
On the other hand public arrest record put a great opportunity for malice and blackmail - do what I want or I'll arrest you for allegedly molesting a minor. Charges will be dropped but good luck clearing your name ever. Now pay up.
> If police is corrupt and want someone to disappear they just won't create arrest records
Departments routinely doing this get caught. (They have.)
Of course if it’s corrupt all the way up you’re screwed. But the aim is to create grappling points for the Feds and state Attorneys General on e.g. city cops. Showing a pattern of undocumented arrests or of the arrested going missing is easier when arrest records are public.
It’s a tradeoff between the power of the state over the public versus the power of the public over itself.
Arrest records are fine as long as the follow-up is located in the same place. Though a voluntary process to expunge records that didn't lead to conviction wouldn't be amiss either.
Banks, having surplus cash, offer low-monthly-payment loans which allows more people to buy them, by the way earning 0.6-0.8 * X to the banks.
Since there is a lot of cheap credit price stops constraining the demand side. You can get almost arbitrary large loan with arbitrary long timespan. This causes prices to rise. Houses seem like good investment so wealthy buy them restricting supply side, causing prices to rise even higher.
Rising prices make it impossible for most to save for the house. They have to take loans.
Now poor people who want house need to pay the inflated price + credit fees on top of that. Sellers see their assets rise in value, creditors see more customers and more revenue.
If there was no cheap credit then the prices wouldn't rise so much because nobody would be buying them.
Now, I don't know how true is all above but that seems to be the explanation of the issue I've seen many times.
Its concurrency is awful, and makes shooting oneselves in a foot easy. Effective go teaching you how to basically make mutex using channels is just a practical joke, right?
As for C++ and libraries - Boost was and is a big one. Want HTTP? There's a full server implementation you can reuse easily https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_55_0/doc/html/boost_asio/ex...