A self-described “family friend” said that the Boeing whistleblower (1 of 60?) said that. Also, as anyone who works with mental patients can attest to, “if I die, I didn’t commit suicide” is not anywhere close to as ironclad as it sounds on the surface… (I.e. 99% of those claims were false)
I'd recommend doing cursory research before confidently claiming something as fact on the world wide web.
I learned about the dangers of spreading rumors from Veggie Tales when I was five. We all make mistakes, but there's really no excuse for peddling secondhand information when established facts are an internet search away at all times.
The Hacker News platform actually goes to great lengths to avoiding the reception of upvotes as a motivation for posting, and I'd recommend also de-prioritizing the importance of internet points and to instead rely on intrinsic motivation.
And yet, there are upvotes and they’re displayed to the poster. Also, I used the word ostensibly to imply I may personally have some other motivation. But in either cases, the broader point still stands: there are diminishing marginal returns to being more correct.
Such a point of view is depressingly self-centered, and I don't see any merit in discussing anything with someone who is more interested in the attention of everyone other than the person they're actually conversing with, especially when they value imaginary internet points above truth.
It’s not self centered at all. People act because there is some benefit to them in their action. You suggested I take an action without providing a convincing benefit. I was actually hoping to help you, by explaining why the types of suggestions you’re providing to people are likely to fall upon deaf ears.
"authorities will handle it" is a fallacy that is demonstrated to be wrong in practice. The theory of how societal functions operate is not at all how they're implemented - lack of evidence, corruption, and incompetence all contribute to there being little justice for anyone.
Not sure if you're trolling or just very naive. Knowing and having proof are two different things.
Does Russian journalists and political activists falling out of windows en masse tell you anything? Or would you say they were all experiencing mental health issues because there is otherwise no proof they were murdered?
I'm not trolling, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. As someone not living in the states, I simply had more faith in the US Justice system compared to say, Russia.
Definitely the people working on the model. It ultimately doesn’t matter what the users want because you can’t arbitrarily deliver an experience. You can only deliver what it’s possible to extract from the model, so growing the possible things the model can do well is most important.
In my mind you could not be proving that we need product people more. They'd never say "It ultimately doesn’t matter what the users want" - they'd say "let's find a way to build what users want" not "let's grow the possible things a model can do well".
I have experience in both R&D and product. Both need different approaches to work. The goals of people working on the model will be different from product people. As mentioned by the other user, a product team can look at things produced from research and see how it can bring it to users.
If engineering/research is all mattered we would have maybe two order of magnitude more successful products or companies. Because product-market fit is a thing we don't have any successful research turning to successful product.
I disagree. For instance, let’s say I’m an auto manufacturer and I need some parts made. If I don’t get those parts, I have to stall my assembly line and lose a lot of money. If I find someone who can supply the parts in a short time frame, then I will definitely fear missing out by declining the sellers offer. If I capitulate and the seller delivers reliably, then I am going to gladly return for their services because they can ensure my business stays running.
That’s a good example but I think you’re describing another market condition called a captive market, not FOMO. In FOMO, buyers have no real risk in not buying, it’s artifice and theatrics that drive a sale. Your example is a market in which mission critical assets are sold by few and those few control all aspects of the sale. In your scenario, you’re less a mark for a salesman and more of a hostage.
It’s not a captive market. It’s a market where the buyer has a need and if they don’t have that need met, then the buyer will suffer. That’s FOMO, and that’s when sales happen. If the buyer can sit on their laurels without any negative repercussions, then they’re not going to pull the trigger until their situation changes.
Being the one best suited to meet your customers needs is a sales strategy. That might include staying open late if you can convince people they’re going to regret not tasting your food after a night out of drinking.
You'll get bid, but not from the best suppliers. The goods will read "and if this works out, there will be more business for you in the future" as a red flag. If they're good, they'll be busy. They don't need to grovel for one-off work. Those who will bid on FOMO work are likely not as busy. Or are used to FOMO work (and not for good reasons).
Yes FOMO in your example can motivate. The problem is, not the types you want an LTR with.
You should read this piece in the NYT titled “The Tyranny of Convenience” [1]. It asserts that your entire worldview is essentially flawed. En masse, people do what is most convenient, which is completely orthogonal to what is right / wrong / best / worst. For instance, it’s an empirical fact that eating healthy and getting exercise is better than eating poorly and living a sedentary life. Yet, most people live sedentary lives.
But this is precisely the problem. If you want the right thing to happen, you can't allow the wrong thing to be more convenient. "The wrong thing is more convenient so STFU" is the flawed worldview, because it's what causes the wrong thing to continue happening.
Now consider what happens if people do the opposite. Instead of defending convenience as an end unto itself as Moloch would have it, you create friction against bad choices. Complain about them, refuse to assist your allies in making a mistake. Do things that make bad options less convenient and redirect people to better choices.
People will still do what's convenient, but now the more convenient thing is the better thing.
> Now consider what happens if people do the opposite. Instead of defending convenience as an end unto itself as Moloch would have it, you create friction against bad choices. Complain about them, refuse to assist your allies in making a mistake. Do things that make bad options less convenient and redirect people to better choices.
What about making "the right option" better instead of making the "the wrong option" worse?
These things are related. If people don't use the right option then it's starved of resources with which to improve.
Of course, you can also improve the right option independently of that, e.g. by making contributions. But now we're back to "Apple interferes with this by making it harder to tinker."
The flaw in your logic is that you’re taking too myopic a view. In your world “making something worse” is somehow divorced from the tyranny of convenience, but in reality it’s not. Changing society is itself inconvenient, and therefore unlikely to happen unless leaving society as-is is less convenient.
Reducing variance in a random outcome still has value. For instance, you might have the money to cover an adverse outcome, but if you could guarantee you wouldn't need the money, then you could park it in an illiquid asset (e.g. some type of investment).
It doesn't work that way - and if it did - it's absolutely acceptable in most, if not all systems. A year to "break something" is absolutely considered secure in risk management of larger systems.
Also in the NYC area. There seems to be a major shortage of blue collar labor: contractors, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc. the cost of home renovations is truly staggering due to this lack of supply.
So I work in tech but am pretty well-connected to the trades within my family and friends group. The major shortage in every trade is in helpers and laborers. It’s not the case that they need people with journeyman-level technical skills, are willing to offer lucrative TC, and simply can’t hire for the skill set.
They can’t find unskilled/semiskilled labor willing show up to a job site every day for $25/hr cash. Even 10 years ago this wasn’t a problem. The issue is that nobody wants to offer market-clearing wages and benefits because it cuts into the owners’ distribution.
We're asking businesses to make additional payments to their employees' landlords. If rents were lower $25 would be a good wage to live on, but given the cost of housing, we're all paying out to landlords, even homeowners.
Even if the copy the header, they can only perform a replay attack, which is an improvement over leaking an API key. Also, you could include a timestamp in the signature to limit the amount of time it could be replayed.
Most pollen is captured at pm10 or higher level. PM2.5 tends to be created by humans
Crossing the blood brain barrier exacerbates not only asthma but other vascular/heart and related diseases, including diabetes, as well as lung diseases.
It isn't clear until you are suffering from allergies, and notice that old people who used to chew on lead fishing weights are not all that bad off. Most people with high lead in their bodies don't realize the issue nor to the people they know.
Chunks of lead just aren't that bad. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp060175 lists common sources of lead poisoning, and none of them are lead weights.
Common sources involve things like airborne lead powder (from grinding or smelting), lead compounds dissolved in food & water, paint, and lead in soil.
Identification and authentication are different, though. You identify yourself to a website as a specific user (e.g. using a username) and the website in turn authenticates your claim, i.e. verifies that you are in fact the user you claim to be (e.g. using that user's password).
If you go that route .. your OIDC provider authenticates your claim. The website just trusts some specific OIDC authorities which you must use to create your identity.
And the third half, “management” verbalizes the action therein.
Also, IAM has a cryptic assertion of ultimate authority: In Hebrew, . . . hayah carries the added weight of representing God himself: Yahweh, “I am.” [0]
What could be a difference between identification and authentication? In my understanding they are completely synonymous. I frequently use an IdP (identity provider) to authenticate for web applications.
Know your customer is something that started in banking and is leaking everywhere.
Identity is who you really are. Be that you as an individual or as a corporation.... In the case of your bank they have a copy of your ID, your SSN, for them identity is what established the account and auth lets you work with it.... AWS might know some members of your company (either by corporate or individual card) but might not know your identity (as an individual) and yet you can still authenticate, because you have been authorized by an identified customer. I can transact with crypto as an authenticated user and NOT be identified.
In some circles "identity" is a term of art. For instance an identity provider maps credentials to user accounts. Those may or may not map to a government-numbered human.
I think authentication is about proof of identity. Identity can mean a lot of things imo. Applications identify me all the time without me giving them any proof of who I am. This happens in meatspace all the time too. People project identity and we make assumptions about what we observe. We don’t necessarily ask them to verify this identify through mutually agreed upon terms.
KYC is not so much about removinh ambiguity. It's about risk mitigation and proof. Not only about a specific user, but also the connections of a company or a person. There is also a lot of rules and laws behind against AML and PEP checks.
Indeed. "Logging in" implies some kind of long lasting session. And logging in conceptually only requires "identification" (e.g. via a username) but not necessarily "authentication" (e.g. via a password)
To “log in” is to convert the username/password pair (or API key, or whatever) into a smaller token with an expiration. Doesn’t matter of it’s put in a cookie in my browser, held in memory by some other API client, etc.
Aside:
Why bother even doing that? Because every time you transmit the credential, there’s the possibility of leaking. We would rather leak the token that has an expiration.
