Pretty simple really the community has been clamoring for a block size increase for years now and the devs have been actively fighting it. They managed to create enough division in the community to scuttle the last compromise (Segwit2x) and now people are rotating en-mass to Bitcoin Cash which has the larger blocks they want and doesn't have the divisive developers.
Very little surprising about this at all except for maybe the speed with which it is happening.
>>now people are rotating en-mass to Bitcoin Cash which has the larger blocks they want and doesn't have the divisive developers.
This isn't entirely objective. BCH has 25% of its market cap trading today in volume. There's something weird going on. As for the developers, BCH has very little Github activity while Core is being actively worked on and improved.
I don't have a horse in this fight as I am into other cryptocurrencies but your statement is not very fair.
To be a fully random sequence, a sequence would have to contain substrings of apparent predictable beautiful order. If it didn't, it would be more predictable (you could then discard ordered continuations), not unpredictable.
> [Model-agnosticism] consists of never regarding any model or map of the universe with total 100% belief or total 100% denial. Following Korzybski, I put things in probabilities, not absolutes... My only originality lies in applying this zetetic attitude outside the hardest of the hard sciences, physics, to softer sciences and then to non-sciences like politics, ideology, jury verdicts and, of course, conspiracy theory. -- RAW
A universe isn't a map, it is the territory. An ordered universe can still be mapped/modeled with maths. A universe that is impossible to be mapped/modeled and has no predictable patterns would be an impossibly boring universe indeed (Kolmogorov Random Universe). Perhaps our brains would evolve to think more in probabilities than absolutes in such a universe. Or they could simply not be allowed to exist (intelligence requires order).
Thanks, but can you please give a specific example?
One, I do not share this experience, and think the quality issue is overstated (you are more likely to remember the time that a query failed, than when it succeeded).
Two, if you can produce a POC, Google can use this to improve the search results.
As is, the issue brought up by original poster is too vague and unspecified to be of any use.
Dude, you're treating it like a bug. It's not. It's intentional behaviour that started 2-3 years ago. Instead of giving you just the formerly relevant results, they give you all kinds of crap that they think you are interested in.
You can still revert to the original behaviour by selecting 'Verbatim' from the search tools menu, but you cannot make it default. And in time I'm sure some marketing head will remove even that option.
Edit: and if you never experience it, my guess is you're working with some technology that's "in fashion".
Maybe I never experienced it, because if I want to force exact match results I simply place the error message within double quotes. But often you do not need exact match searches to get good results for a random error message. If it happens to you a lot, it should not be a problem to post a single example query that returns useless results.
I do agree that Google is focusing more and more on the common internet user, and not the early tech adopters. This forces us to use tricks like the double quotes, while keeping the search engine user-friendly for the vast majority of ad-clicking internetters.
The behavior you are referring to is called https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Query_expansion and while this improves the search results for many people with imprecise or misspelled queries, if you trained yourself to search with exact matches, you'll need some time to adapt (or get in the habbit of adding double quotes).
Maybe I never experienced it, because if I want to force exact match results I simply place the error message within double quotes.
Come on!!! This is not my first rodeo. I’ve been on the InterNet (yes, with a capital N) since 1993 and I use double quote searching all the time, except that in cases like these one gets zero results back.
It is not relevant that you were on the internet before Google even existed.
Apparently you are the only person in the universe that regularly gets never-before-seen error messages. I feel for you, but I hope you stay away from any issue tracker I am involved in, because no matter your vast experience, the quality of your error reporting is downright poor.
If exact match search is unable to find your error message, then you wouldn't have found it on 2005 Google either. You wouldn't find it on any other search engine. You are (poorly and vaguely) describing a problem that must have always been there and blaming it on an unrelated recent UI change.
All the while unable/unwilling to give a single concrete example, just noisy ranting. For all I know you are, despite your experience, banging your head against the keyboard, until you get 0 results. The burden is on you to show that there is a teapot orbiting the Sun. Good luck!
It is not relevant that you were on the internet before Google even existed.
That’s where you’re wrong: I’ve used the double quotation marks search technique since before Google and I’ve known about it and used it since Google’s debut.
I already told you I’m not compiling anything and can’t give you a reproducible test case right now but you chose to disregard that; I’ve also told you what to do to reproduce the problem yourself (“attempt to compile GCC, get an error, search with Google with and without double quotation marks”), but you don’t want to do that because it’s a lot of work, I know, but that’s your problem and here’s why:
The burden is on you to show that there is a teapot orbiting the Sun.
that is why, since you’re wrong again: I’ve switched to “DuckDuckGo” as my primary search engine and rarely use Google any more since the results are nothing but advertising-soiled false positives; I don’t care whether you do something about it or not. Now, you might wisen up and take my feedback about exact or partial error searching earnestly or not. You wanted feedback, you got it; your move on what to do about it. Good luck.
There is nothing wrong with that, but it is good advice if your goal is to become exceptional.
The only way to equal or beat someone naturally talented is to put in many hours.
Relaxation is good (but try to combine it with activities that are good for you, like jogging, meditation, or taking a shower/doing a house chore.)
While you go out to have drinks with your friends, some stay home and work on research and side projects. One makes you happy, the other makes you more skillfull. It is a lever.
I do agree that sometimes it can be better to give up. I spend close to a decade of my life trying to understand the subtleties of a single paper. Now I see the broader picture this was definately a Pyrrhic victory.
If you have this mindset, may I suggest that you could be significantly underestimating the role of luck and being in the right spot/having the right network?
If I was to review my career (which is by no means exceptional, but still), the times I've taken giant steps it has been either because of luck (I joined a company at a good growing point) or a mix of skill, luck and a network of people that help put me in opportunities to be exceptional. I have the skills to be great, but I need the opportunities to be great as well, and opportunities are not necessarily only created by skill.
Skill is a necessary component, but it is not the only component. There are a lot of things a lot of people can do, and the determining factor in who ends of doing them is usually not skill. There is such a thing as skilled enough, which is hard to get to, but if you're opting between getting 1% better at something and getting 20% better at something else, often taking the 20% thing will pay off more, whether that be in networking, finding more opportunities, or whatever.
I don't think luck in this context is actually a thing that happens by chance but rather by actively finding and selecting the right choice presented to you at that time.
I've seen it with myself and many of my colleagues that the one big chance that you thought you simply can not let go was actually one of many chances that come along quite regularly but seem to be very tempting at first. In the sense that you feel like you have to take it or there will never be such a chance again. But to be honest, if you are doing a good job there is almost always a way to grow, and if there really isn't then it's time to switch.
I think it really depends on what you really, really want out of life.
My best friends and roommates all think I work too much, to the point that they've started calling me a "robot." But I tried going off the advice of my therapist to be more "balanced", and I found that all it did was make me dissatisfied with my progress.
I find a lot of joy waking up early, going to the gym, working until an hour before bed, and then reading a book until I fall asleep. I allow myself time to veg with Netflix for an hour or two a couple of nights a week, but no more than that. Ultimately, I find myself a lot happier being productive. I know it doesn't work for everyone, but I know that this is the way that I'm built.
Is it possible that you're working yourself to the bone to avoid thinking about your life.
I used to work crazy hours in workdays, on weekends I felt sick and sad. I actually wished for the stress of working at a high tempo. The downside was that I knew deep inside that the constant stress was detrimental to my health.
For years I've aimed for a work/life balance. But I am yet to achieve it. Either I work super hard, or I spend all my days procrastinating.
"The only way to equal or beat someone naturally talented is to put in many hours."
I totally agree with the sentiment. I work an extra 1-2 hours every day which gives me an additional 260-520 extra hours per year to outperform my peers. However, the older I get, the more I'm starting to think that being exceptional is overrated. Time is arguably the most valuable resource I have. Every extra hour you spend trying to become more skillful is one less hour to "live". The hardest part for me after college was to find this work life balance.
So much this. I've tried to 'out work' everyone my whole career/life. All that has change recently when I had a baby girl. All we really have is time, so spending it with my daughter has become more of a priority. Instead of grinding tickets on the weekend (obviously if there's a hard deadline then..), my time is spent with my baby. It's so much more rewarding and I am far less stressed all the time. But balance it truly the key.
Way down this thread, so time to ask the question: Do American anti-virus, social media, and search companies do exactly the same, but for the US military?
I've always found it suspicious that Russia and China created their own social networks, email providers, and search engines. Almost like they know the power of a capable search engine or social network for intelligence gathering purposes.
Google and US anti-virus companies must work closely with the NSA too.
> Kuok repeatedly expressed fears that he might be dealing with an NSA, CIA or FBI agent, but continued to negotiate with the undercover officer, even cautioning him to avoid referencing the items by model number in e-mail, because "your country has this system to analyze" e-mail for keywords.
Also after the "theft" and premature release of Stuxnet by Israel, I wonder how strong the collaboration between the US and Israel is.
> A 43-year-old former Akamai employee has pleaded guilty to espionage charges after offering to hand over confidential information about the Web acceleration company to an agent posing as an Israeli consular official in Boston.
> Facebook, for example, previously announced its DeepFace facial recognition system is capable of determining with 97 percent accuracy whether two images are of the same person. The company, which itself is accustomed to criticism that it views users as guinea pigs, is able is make such accurate identifications because of the network of images from which it draws, something that could take police agencies a decade or more to build up.
Snowden worked for Dell as a cover for his intelligence work. Russia told their military to move off Linkedin the moment it got acquired by Microsoft. Do Dell and Microsoft work closely with the DoD and should this concern non-US citizens that rely on their software and hardware?
> Do American anti-virus, social media, and search companies do exactly the same, but for the US military?
Doubtful. Keep in mind that in Russia / China the state has a lot more leverage against commercial companies. It's very easy for the state to effectively shut any non-complying company, not to mention far worse (Russia and China have thrown businessowners into jail for no reason before).
> Almost like they know the power of a capable search engine or social network for intelligence gathering purposes.
Absolutely, the typical pattern is that some dominant foreign provider refuses to comply with say, Chinese Firewall rules, so the Chinese block it and instate a friendly domestic provider instead.
> Doubtful. Keep in mind that in Russia / China the state has a lot more leverage against commercial companies. It's very easy for the state to effectively shut any non-complying company, not to mention far worse (Russia and China have thrown businessowners into jail for no reason before).
That is pretty disingenuous. Noncompliance with an NSL is a quick route to contempt charges. On top of that, the gag order prevents you from explaining your position to shareholders or customers.
This coercion makes it much more straightforward for most businesses to simply comply with US demands, unless you voluntarily shutter your company, e.g. Lavabit.
NSL is a statutory authority document issued directly by the executive without judicial involvement. It is not a legal proceeding nor a warrant, nor is it even on court letterhead. There are no statutory penalties for noncompliance set out in the law defining NSLs, but it has provisions to request a court order to enforce if the recipient does not comply. That requires filing a federal case, bringing the intelligence operation to the attention of the judiciary, and probable argument with an opportunity for the target to argue. This is where you hear about folks like EFF defending an NSL, since replying to an NSL usually does nothing.
After a court issues an order, contempt of court is a possibility. Just clarifying that the route to contempt is not quick. It’s also largely untested. Writing an NSL is two pages in a Microsoft Word template, while arguing a federal case to get your way is a much bigger prospect; if the investigation is small enough, or they’re not totally legal in how they got intelligence, etc., etc., they might not wish to argue and calling the bluff might be smart.
The gagging facility of NSLs actually has a non-coercive purpose: as designed, an NSL basically invites an unknown third party into a sensitive intelligence or counterintelligence operation. Tipping off the target or anyone else could lead to a collapse of the investigation, burning other sources that were used before you got your NSL, diplomatic repercussions, and so on. That’s the thinking that went into it, and it’s actually understandable. Two problems are that (a) the gag is indefinite, with no circling back once the operation concludes and (b) NSL is horrifically abused for stuff it shouldn’t be, since FBI realized the gagging lets them mostly get away with it.
Source: Have held more than one and read the citations.
'I've always found it suspicious that Russia and China created their own social networks, email providers, and search engines. Almost like they know the power of a capable search engine or social network for intelligence gathering purposes.'
Seems like the Europeans are the only ones stupid enough not to.
Europe has been destroyed in WWII only to be liberated by the USA and the USSR (China is also among the winners). The USSR collapsed and withdrew from Eastern Europe, on condition that it remains a buffer zone (think about Ukraine in this context).
The EU is therefore essentially a peace project, subject to the peace treaties ending WWII (this hasn't happened in N. Korea, think about it in this context).
Those treaties are still in force today, including the stationing of liberating forces. This pretty much sets the boundaries, including the defense (read supervision) of strategic resources, such as gas pipelines, energy grids, and yes, communication lines and information technology. Obviously, these restrictions hardly reflect current German economic strength (just like after WWI), which inevitably leads to tensions (‘The Germans Are Bad, Very Bad’, as the POTUS puts it).
Operating systems seems like a weird one to throw in there. For a start I'm pretty sure some Finnish guy wrote and maintains one of the better-known operating system kernels, which happens to be used in certain popular operating systems as Ubuntu (UK) and SuSE (Germany).
Or perhaps you meant mobile operating systems, in which case I would note that the most promising and well-known mobile OS after Android, iOS, and Windows phone (all American) is SailfishOS, which is... Finnish.
So the US is definitely on top, what with all the software tech giants being based there, but Europe seems pretty relevant.
Indefinite Pessimism. China and to a large extent Russia are Definite Pessimists.
The US and the UK are Indefinite Optimists while many in US tech are Definite Optimists (such as Elon Musk.)
Cultural attitudes about the future of our world has a huge influence on the type and velocity of innovation.
Those are generalizations, but just compare investment philosophies of various countries. EU: with a few exceptions that prove the rule, very conservative, less likely to back 100x technology innovations, more likely to back 2x innovations that have low risk and low reward (but enough reward to make a return.)
Russia and China: more likely to invest in keep-up technology (me-too stuff) that promotes domestic stability — much more defensive investing to promote Juche ideas. North Korean “tech” is the extreme example.
US: willing to bet huge on low percentage, future changing tech (speaking of the Valley specifically,) while much of the rest of the US tends to be closer to the EU in terms of risk tolerance, with notable exceptions.
You won’t have an EU investor funding self-driving cars generally and you won’t have a Valley investor funding incremental 2x tech (generally.)
All countries have visionaries and innovators, but due to who controls the finances (and tax policy,) most of those future Elon Musk types are shot down before they even get off the runway.
Exceptions abound of course, but that’s my general take.
The Europeans were developing one of the most interesting secure distributed platforms 10 years ago as part of the European Multilaterally Secure Computing Base initiative, but it appears to have gone dark. Maybe funding priorities shifted, or the technology was deemed to be something that shouldn’t be open.
>Way down this thread, so time to ask the question: Do American anti-virus, social media, and search companies do exactly the same, but for the US military?
> I've always found it suspicious that Russia and China created their own social networks, email providers, and search engines.
Yandex search predates Google.
Not to mention that the quality of it's search in Russian had been much better than Google's until at least 2010, as a Russian when I needed to search for something in Russian I didn't bother with Google because their search results were visibly much worse.
That's true. At least in the beginning, there were some people near the CIA on the board and some of the early investment funding came from entities close to the CIA.
However, that's a very old story, I doubt that there is much of a connection now.
Care to expand on the "theft and premature release of Stuxnet by Israel"? Most information seems to point to it being a joint US-Israeli creation or even primarily Israeli.
We do know for a fact that US General James Cartwright pleaded guilty to leaking Stuxnet. And then got pardoned by Obama.
No, he pleaded guilty to making false statements, not to leaking Stuxnet. More specifically, he admitted to providing classified information to reporters in 2012, over a year after Stuxnet was identified.
Now, whether or not he was guilty of more than that, I don't think we know, but that's often the nature of plea deals.
More like implementing a password hashing scheme using a library and not understanding the maths behind bcrypt. Or mocking up a proof-of-concept in Python with no idea of how to speed it up 10x rewriting it in low-level C.
Not OP, but he is right. I just walked out of work, where I had to reverse the sample. It indeed uses EternalBlue (attacks by enumerating local network IPs with Windows APIs and randomly scanning the internet). Apart from that, it overwrites the MBR with a custom bootloader and schedules a restart ("shutdown /t /r") as SYSTEM in a random amount of time. After rebooting, it fakes a chkdsk and meanwhile, encrypts your files.
It is also true that it uses PsExec to spread.
TL;DR good old Petya ransomware (old as shit) with a copy/pasted EternalBlue-based spreading method. Nothing new.
Literature: sorry no, I didn't read anything; everything I know is from practice.
As for the tools: just IDA Pro, really, if you don't count the standard stuff: a VM to avoid getting the host infected (VirtualBox), Burp (to analyze malware HTTP traffic), etc. Nothing too fancy.
