The economics prize is listed on nobelprize.org ("the official website of the Nobel Prize") along with the other Nobel prizes, so I don't think you can justify calling it "unofficial".
Perhaps if the ACM renamed the Turing Award to "The Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize in Computer Science", the Nobel Foundation would let them get away with it.
Because the plaintiffs are Swiss. Who else should they sue? Similar cases have happened elsewhere, e.g. the Urgenda case in the Netherlands.
Pointing to the inaction of other countries as an excuse for one's own inaction is a weak argument. Good luck suing Russia. (They were actually a member of the Council of Europe until 2022, so this decision would have applied to them...)
But then this feels like suing somebody for emptying his ashtray in a canal where 100 meter further a factory is discharging chemical waste. Good luck suing the factory.
OTOH — and for unrelated reasons — the factory (Russia) just had half its customers (Europe) not only boycott the factory itself, but also arrange a global price ceiling for all the other customers who weren't ready to transition away just yet.
> There is an international court of human rights.
There isn't. There is the ICJ, which handles disputes between states, and the ICC, which handles war crimes etc. and definitely isn't going to judge climate legislation.
Your quote left out "subject to a confidentiality agreement". Streamers are not obliged to make this information public, and I don't expect companies like Amazon to do so since they're extremely secretive about viewership numbers.
Nice eye — I did do remove that clause, but because the understanding in the industry is that the data shared with Guild members (for which there are 12k WGA writers and 100k+ SAG actors) can still be shared by those members. And even if they can’t, someone would likely leak them: good luck finding who broke an NDA with that many members!
I.E. They do not have to release the numbers publicly, but they’re not really bound by NDA either.
I imagine most, if not all, will go the direct route so they can spin the numbers how they want.
> Nice eye — I did do remove that clause, but because the understanding in the industry is that the data shared with Guild members (for which there are 12k WGA writers and 100k+ SAG actors) can still be shared by those members. And even if they can’t, someone would likely leak them: good luck finding who broke an NDA with that many members!
No, the Guild would assemble an audit committee of likely three people or a third party auditor would be appointed. It absolutely wouldn't be shared with the entire membership. It would be extremely easy to find the source of a leak, and they'd be subject to ruinous penalties.
Movement is simply matter going from point A to B. "Fast" or "slow" means, how far did our reference object (ex. Earth) move relative to the movement of another object.
The article you're responding to is a dramatic demonstration that it has happened: Amazon's IPs would not be worth $4.5B if we hadn't run out. It requires us all to ration a resource (namely numbers) that should be near-infinite and essentially free.
> It requires us all to ration a resource (namely numbers) that should be near-infinite and essentially free.
There can only be ~4.3 billion IPv4 addresses, which means that mathematically IP addresses are severely limited - you can't assign even one single globally routable IPv4 address per human. That's why we have NAT and its evolution CGNAT in the first place.
Back when the Internet was conceived, as a network of militaries, universities and large corporations, it was in no way foreseeable just how much resources humanity would need - and it was thought that the system would adapt.
However we got layers upon layers of closed-source middleboxes and everything ossified as a result.
But from the perspective of anyone that isn't a networking expert, there is no real problem, things just work and there are no real issues. Networking folks found ways to extend the runway and all other tech people see is the occasional article like this and then they forget about it again five minutes later. I don't even see the effects of the cost of an IP anywhere. I guess it's there, but I don't notice. No regular person even knows what ipv6 is.
The vast majority of C programmers do not use a formally verified C compiler, and most of them wouldn't care about that anyway.
From a security perspective, demanding a formally verified C compiler is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Switching to a safer language like Rust will do much more to improve security, even if the compiler is not verified.
This is what happens when a new security model is retrofitted onto an existing one.
In the original Unix security model, there was no security concern with this (except maybe for chroot environments): it didn't allow a process to do something it couldn't otherwise do, since all processes owned by a uid had exactly the same rights. Now that we've started sandboxing user processes in various ways on macOS and Linux, that's no longer the case, and we suddenly need to crack down on useful tools like strace and gdb.
Sorry... this is above my pay grade, but I still think of processes as running on a single thread, reserving memory and being mostly inviolable other than maybe sampling what they're holding at the moment. How does giving
a tool the ability to analyze a thread allow it to inject code into the process as it's running? Forgive me if I'm just way behind but isn't the kernel of any modern OS supposed to prevent exactly that thing from happening?
A lot of legitimate debugging features involve actually modifying the code of the target. This is a common way of setting breakpoints: you replace the instruction at the given address with a trap instruction that will hand control back to the debugger. Then the debugger puts the original instruction back and resumes the target's execution.
And since the two processes already run as the same user, in the original model there's nothing the target can do that the debugger cannot also do, so this was not a privilege escalation path.
If you're debugging as the same user that makes sense because the debugger is supervising the code. (the debugger can't for example halt other processes besides the code it's supervising). But how can some other random process even with the same user just inject itself into running compiled code without somehow having the ability to rewrite memory? [edit: memory that has already been allocated by the kernel for the thread it's trying to interfere with]
Not a very convincing article, since it presents some statistics about the US (e.g. "only 10% of injured Americans ever file a claim for compensation and only 2% file lawsuits") but does not compare them to other countries, so we can't tell whether the US is more or less litigious than the rest of the world.
Perhaps if the ACM renamed the Turing Award to "The Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize in Computer Science", the Nobel Foundation would let them get away with it.