I can't tell you how many waiting rooms, grocery checkout lines, and delayed public transit that his puzzle collection gotten me through. On every handheld and laptop starting with the Symbian-based Nokia E61.
Surprised not to see this mentioned in the article.
Lots of places (including a former employer) have done tons of work to upgrade internal infrastructure to support HTTP/2 just so they could use gRPC. The performance difference from JSON-over-HTTP APIs was meaningful for us.
I realize there are other solutions but this is a common one.
Probably because it only works correctly outside of browser. Browsers don't support "native" grpc. You normally use something with specifically gRPC support rather than just h2 in a spherical vacuum.
The reason this is an issue is that the sub value changes often enough that intergrations ignore it rather than bother users with having to re-OAuth.
As far as what Google is doing in the bug bounty, that's a good question -- we don't know. The author is proposing two new values, for the ___domain and user, that wouldn't change in the cases that sub changes now, but would change in this case.
Your dad swindled thousands of "investors" out of their retirements and left you millions. You are benefiting from this and the children of the "investors" are suffering.
Your great-grand-dad swindled thousands of "investors" out of their retirements and you inherit a business empire. You are benefiting from this and the hundreds of great-grand-children of the "investors" are also suffering. They could've had inheritances but they didn't and work at Walmart.
You can trace your lineage to Thomas Jefferson who apparently owned 600 slaves over his lifetime. You still benefit from him having been a president and a wealthy man. You should have to trace ancestry of those slaves and compensate their current living family members.
Morally, sure, if you know your wealth is sourced from crime, you likely have a moral obligation to disgorge it.
Practically, that's difficult. If you grew up wealthy because of generational crime that provides life advantages you can't return. At best, you could make sure you direct any inheritance to victims if possible or a suitable charity (and not your family foundation).
Legally, this is not plausible. All sorts of legal principles dictate that lawsuits must be timely (for various values of timely) and estates become unlitigatable not very long after they're closed. There are some cases in the news about crimes in WWII and such, though.
Ok but only after I get a large chunk of Eastern Europe. I know I have some Polish/Ukrainian ancestry and they mush have been persecuted since they left for the US.
Yes, it adds an additional level of complexity to do role-based access control within k8s.
In my experience, that access control is necessary for several reasons (mistakes due to inexperience, cowboys, compliance requirements, client security questions, etc.) around 50-100 developers.
This isn't just "not zero trust", it's access to everything inside the cluster (and maybe the cluster components themselves) or access to nothing -- there is no way to grant partial access to what's running in the cluster.
I understand that reaction, I feel it too. But what is the alternative? Sharing details of an assault?
Note that in Tim's response at the bottom of the article, he says clearly he believes the board that the details can't be shared and that they are serious.
It's not a feeling. There is simply no way for that to ever be valid, and no one should ever aceept it.
As others have said, 3rd party that somehow has established trust, who has no incentive to favor either of the first parties and an incentive to never once have their own integrity questioned.
That's the thing, though. As far as I can tell, per the Steering Council's and PSF's reasoning, they did exactly that. There's a separate Steering Council, CoC Work Group, and PSF Board of Directors for a reason - and also a separate team of moderators for the Discourse forum.
Never mind that pairs of these groups may have multiple members in common and that they may act upon each others' "recommendations". Never mind that Mr. Peters is also suspended from the forum for the same period (which is nominally a completely separate action) and there was no separate announcement of this.
Aside from that, keep in mind that one of the supposed charges is "defending reverse racism/sexism" - by which they don't mean defending the act of engaging in racism against white people or sexism against men, but rather defending the use of those concepts. Never mind that Mr. Peters didn't write those terms; the closest he got to the subject was to point out that he's been in environments where e.g. the idea of racism against white people is not considered legitimate.
By the way, there is nothing actually written in the Code of Conduct (see https://policies.python.org/python.org/code-of-conduct/ ) which prohibits such a political view. The closest it gets is in the completely separate "enforcement policy" document, which says that claims of having been thus discriminated against should be considered as inherently bad-faith.
In short: the Work Group, on all available evidence, objects to the idea that e.g. discrimination against men occurs and ought to be labelled as sexism; and in fact objects so strongly as to imagine that expressing such an opinion is inherently objectionable. When one party reasons like this, what "unbiased third party" could possibly be deemed acceptable?
> For example, in one run, it edited the code to perform a system call to run itself. This led to the script endlessly calling itself. In another case, its experiments took too long to complete, hitting our timeout limit. Instead of making its code run faster, it simply tried to modify its own code to extend the timeout period.
They go on to say that the solution is sandboxing, but still, this feels like burying the lede.
Does it really? If you want an LLM to edit code you need to feed it every single line of code in a prompt. Is it really that surprising that having just learnt it has been timed out, and then seeing code that has an explicit timeout in it, it edits it?? This is just a claim about the underlying foundational LLM since the whole science thing is just a wrapper.
I think this bit of it is just a gimmick put in for hype purposes.
It could be just the opposite.
One of the cheapest ways to improve alignment would be to re-run the models iteratively. The AI was likely looking for precision in the aforementioned experiment. Precision in inference is a correlate for aligned inference.
https://doi.org/10.22541/au.172116310.02818938/v1
I see why you'd think a human-read one would be better, but in my experience that's not the case. It's not that easy to read out loud and actually sound good.
I've spent a fair amount of time listening to free audiobooks (https://archive.org/details/librivoxaudio) including many that are out of copyright like these, as opposed to modern but in the public ___domain.
After listening to a few minutes of "Frankenstein" on his site, I would say that these OpenAI generated voices sound better than almost all of the human-read ones on Librevox, both in audio and performance quality -- these are voices that are designed to sound good, and they succeed at that.
You have capital gains tax on it eventually, much of that capital gains is from inflation. The only way for it not to be a wealth tax is if capital gains is indexed to inflation.
Capital gains tax is just a % of your gains. So assuming the appreciation of your asset is due entirely to inflation, capital gains tax will be strictly less than the depreciation of the same amount of cash.
If it's a wealth tax, it is giving the best deal to the people with the most non-cash assets, i.e. the wealthy.
The asset has a nominal increase in value but not a real increase. After paying the capital gains tax you end up with less than what you had. In real terms your wealth has diminished. I think people are conflating a speculative asset bubble with inflation on the basis that they tend to occur at the same time and for the same reasons - easy monetary policy. But it does not necessarily follow that if you have inflation you also have a speculative asset bubble.
If we are talking about say a house, i think the poorer person who rents (and has rent increase with inflation) would be much more negatively affected over time, notwithstanding the extra capital gains tax the person who owns the house would have to pay upon sale.
I agree that it would increase inequality not decrease it like people would assume a wealth tax (inflation + capital gains tax) would do. The problem I see with the government having their revenue tied to wealth tax becomes incentivized to do things that will make the wealthy wealthier, like maintain a higher rate of inflation.
However, fixed inflation targets (with central bank using interest rates to control) are generally not that beneficial for that purpose, as the inflation is known ahead of time and would be priced in.
Inflating away your debt only works if you can increase the inflation to be more than what the person you borrowed from thought it would be.
Erm... no. That's how people imagine it's supposed to work, but in reality, the wealthy fund their consumption from loans using their wealth as collateral, enjoying the benefit of their wealth while avoiding capital gains taxes. Warren Buffet has famously criticized this, it's not some unheard of thing. There are many, many loopholes and they are very much there on purpose.
Certainly, I'm talking about the middle class that are not afforded such opportunities. The rich can not only often dodge such taxes but can benefit more easily from government largess.
some people are the people in question here. This discussion started as a conversation about a wealth tax and “capital gains” is mentioned. The wealthy largely do not pay a proportionate amount of this tax. Additionally, you will see “massive amounts” of anything in an economy as large as the united states. Capital gains tax is not a very big percentage of US taxes collected, and the taxes that are collected are mostly shouldered by people who are not wealthy. So, in the context of this discussion, I’m not sure what your point is. some people pay capital gains tax. My point wasn’t that no one does.
Capital gains tax is one of the more disgusting taxes. Most capital gains are simply due to the devaluation of the unit of account. The banks and government work hand-in-hand. The more money the banks print (as interest-chargeable loans), the more the government makes you pay in capital gains taxes. A win-win situation for them.
One way the wealthy get around this is by taking on debt against their hard assets - generally real estate.
As the price of their assets go up, they take out larger and larger loans, each time paying off the old loan and pocketing the difference tax free. The money is devalued faster than the interest rate, so even after paying interest, they are left with free money (our money), tax-free.
CPI is a useless metric. It doesn't take into that goods and services are going down in value over time (at around 5% per year), and doesn't include hard assets that retain their value such as housing. It's a trick.
> Also, capital gains are unearned.
On average, capital gains aren't gains at all. They are simply the price of your asset going up, not its value. Housing is a perfect example - it increases in price at the same rate at which the dollar is devalued through supply increase.
> ... The price elasticity of import demand, ε, was set at 4.
> ... The elasticity of import prices with respect to tariffs, φ, is 0.25. ...