That point about Elo is irrelevant. Games on Fishtest use bullet-like time controls (60+0.6). Significantly shorter than 1 min per move.
As originally suggested, when running modern Stockfish at 60 seconds per move the games overwhelmingly tend to draw. Even when the older engines make slightly worse moves.
> Nothing to do with some CEO's evil plans, but more to do with the hundreds/thousands of mid-level "not my job" or "doing my best" workers who are actually in charge of handling my data.
The CEO is responsible for what their company does. If a major breach can occur through the oversight or "incompetence" of one worker, the CEO has already failed, whether through negligence or malice.
In China, CEOs go to prison or are executed. Not all the time, but enough. In the US, they are given a golden parachute and make more money at their next posting. There is mostly only failing upwards.
> How much do you think an organization like Google would spend on, for example, AI tokens or compute to detect this internally before it was found and exploited in the wild?
On average, probably not that much. What's the amortized cost of all testing, static analysis, and audit / code review, per "prevented potential bug"?
If you ballpark it as a single 3 hour downtime window per week and iid Poisson, then overlapping downtime probability of 2 providers is approximately the expected occurrence rate per 3 hours, 1/56. Not particularly surprising at all.
The law could make mergers executed provisionally for up to X years, with a binding plan to "unmerge" that must be updated every Y months. The FTC already half-does this with post-merge divestiture requirements.
Yes, that's the point, making something hard means that sometimes it will not happen. Only comparing to the cases where it does happen is missing the entire point.
It's based on the interpretation of "unreasonable" and while the current rules may be far from perfect I don't think interpreting routine border searches as categorically "unreasonable" is better.
“Reasonable” and the current definition of what the government considers reasonable are entirely separate things. The entire state of Florida is currently defined as on the US border, that’s effectively a meaningless definition.
Further, in what way is the content of someone’s cellphone relevant at a border specifically? Inspecting luggage for cocaine at an entry point makes sense, but physical borders mean little in the face of the internet. You might as well just erase the phone before crossing the border.
Uh, no? I highly doubt that a non-occluding watermark on screenshots is even in the top 100 gripes most people have with X. And I don't use either platform. If anything your argument is an accusation of bias without any discussion of merits.
From reading through a lot of comments on this thread, I'm honestly struggling to notice any super obvious pattern or bias other than the amount that people care about how screenshots work compared to the average person is a lot.
I don't think this says a whole lot about the direction of people's political views here as much as there being a general disdain for arbitrary claims of political bias that aren't based on any discernible evidence. I feel pretty confident that if I jumped into a random thread about some feature in the Brave browser and accused someone of defending it only because they agreed with Brendan Eich on Prop 8, I would get flagged too.
re: dead, I agree. I'm so tired of flags killing discussion. This site is highly regimented
What I want, as someone who vaguely leaned left and has gotten... less so, since certain revelations, are platforms that work. Where you can't just get booted off for things that are not-boot-off-worthy (sorry. wording sucks). In that view, Bluesky is something I'm interested in as a protocol. It should be something the Left and Right can both use, regardless of the people it tends to attract
> Mass un-elaborated on downvoting = censorship; needing 500 karma to downvote = censorship.
> Turn on showdead in your profile and see for yourself what people are "allowed" to comment vs what they're not. Userbase = mendacious pricks.
Apparently everything is censorship and everybody else is a prick. It's always someone else's fault. There's never responsibility taken for mean-spiritedness or rule violations.
Ever considered that if this is the hill you're dying on, your takes are just terrible and getting flagged is just this site's natural selection?
No, it's everyone else who is wrong? OK then.
I mean, the dead comment in this one is dead because of: "You're just defending Bluesky because you're on the same team politically" which is an unnecessarily unkind, snarky, uncurious way to communicate. That last paragraph was unnecessary but it tainted the entire post.
From the site rules:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
> Don't be curmudgeonly.
> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
But, of course, it's everybody else's problem, never yours, never the owner of the dead comment.
You're not wrong and I do think that specific dead comment is dead for a reason. I just get a bit bristly when I do see legitimate comments buried under flags
> against Stockfish 18, this new release brings an Elo gain of up to 44 points, and wins more than three times as many game pairs as it loses.
reply