Nice display, but it starts off with misleading measurements of DNA. The spacing between DNA base pairs is 0.34 nm, so the 10 base pairs pictured are in fact 3.4 nm. But the DNA in a single human cell is about 2 meters, and chromosome lengths vary from 2 to 10 cm. I am skeptical of the hemoglobin vs ribosome sizes as well; hemoglobin has a molecular weight of about 60,000, while ribosomes weigh more than 5 million.
Before Postscript, tektronix 4010 was the language of graphics, at least for biologists drawing phylogenetic trees or reassociation curves. The phylip phylogenetics package, introduced around 1980, still has the option to generate trees in tek4010 format.
I agree with this, but given how much of the value of EVs is tied to the accessibility of a charger network, it seems like this really needs to be reported on the title somehow.
Even if Tesla is the only one doing this right now, I'm sure it'll be a thing in the future with other manufacturers and a proliferation of 3rd party repairs.
Tesla controls the supercharger network, vehicle registry and vehicle software, and nowhere in the process of acquiring the vehicle did the customer get notice that the car was banned from the network. Tesla has some culpability here since the title was clean.
People still think they own cars, and that they should be allowed to repair them without the blessing of the manufacturer. They don't expect to be banned from using their car because someone decided that using the DMCA to pervert the concept of ownership was a good thing.
No one is banning them from using their care. Just from plugging their car into a device that has enough power to kill anyone who happens to use that care because of shoddy repair work.
But the state confirmed the vehicle never had a salvaged title, so, what was the scam?
I wasn't even aware that it was possible for a car to be banned from the supercharger network. Sure, it makes sense in hindsight, but I wouldn't necessarily expect a used car dealer to know anything about this either.
It really depends. Working on genome analysis, I once encountered/interrupted (by rebooting after a software update) a student who had been running an analysis for more than a week, because they had not pre-sorted the data. With pre-sorted data, it took a few minutes.
Not everyone works on web sites using well-optimized libraries; some people need to know about N and Nlog(N) vs N^2.
Indeed. As an anecdote, I've come across a self professed frontend UI guru writing quadratic code that worked fine in testing because it only had to display a few tens of items there, but at a complete loss why it was unusable in production.
Really not a libertarian, but why shouldn’t Netflix have the right to choose who they distribute content to? They negotiated conditions with the creators, why shouldn’t they be able to specify the DRM? No one is forcing you to subscribe to Netflix. Or even to buy an iPad.
The issue is the means of enforcement requires taking away other rights they shouldn't be able to.
What if I want to require (for anti-piracy reasons) that to use my software you must also give me complete access to your computer, all the data on it, and all your communications. You might say, "Well, if anyone is stupid enough to make that deal, let them." But it's easy to sugar coat what you're doing, especially with less technical users. I think it's better to say, "That's just not something you are allowed to do. It's trampling on rights more important than your anti-piracy rights."
In the same way, you cannot murder someone even if they agree to be murdered (an actual case in Germany).
> What if I want to require (for anti-piracy reasons) that to use my software you must also give me complete access to your computer, all the data on it, and all your communications.
That's exactly what happens with anti-cheat kernel modules. As one might expect, ordinary people couldn't care less, as long as it works good enough.
We cannot expect those rootkits to be properly supported long term for any security issues they may cause. I would think that the solution is simple: nobody forces them to make their IP available in non hacked computers...
If they want a hardened computer to deliver their IP, then they should sell their own hardware. But forcing their blocking into the whole stack is not acceptable.
For instance: I cannot see any udemy or netflix content from my computer, because their IP protection blocks the lenovo docking station I use to connect my monitors to my MBP... each part is standard! And somehow nobody tested that scenario. So, no, that tech is barely tested, it must not be forced into any computer.
As I understand it, Netflix wishes to authenticate the device, and DRM their content. I'm not aware of anything beyond that (but I'm also not paying attention. )
Now you may have used the example of what might happen, but then Netfix seems a strange example. Surely Apple and/or Google are more likely players in that example?
For Netflix sure. I don't care. But when it comes to banking and you are forced to use between two OS or this means no access to your bank digitally, this is a massive problem and restriction to citizens' freedom. Everyone needs a bank to operate, and they need to maximize the options available to use them.
I mentioned that in another thread, but banks have a legal obligation to to assess and mitigate risks in the service they give to you- you, personally, might be tech savvy enough to understand what you are doing but most people are not and the bank is held accountable when something bad happens.
This is why they limit service to certain devices or OS versions, even when it comes at the expense of convenience.
well no one to force you to do banking from smartphones
You can do manually like the old days, EXPLICTLY ALLOWING NON GOOGLE/APPLE to do banking in their own mobile phone meaning THERE ARE MILLIONS OF USERS that can fall victim to scammer+cracker
how cant you see all of that???? ITS JUST NOT ABOUT YOU
edit: please educate first, y'all need to know differences between mobile banking and internet banking
You can downvote me all you want, but I don't want to hear lecture from non-security compliant engineer about what to do about security
Locking down a website to only be available to users on Apple and Windows doesn't make it safer. It just reduces the cost of building it because you don't have to bother testing it on any other platforms. Rather than tell users "Danger, we haven't tested your choice of OS" companies prefer to lock it down.
Users on Apple and Windows are not safer because a bank has chosen to block Linux.
Until they decide to force you to use the mobile app as a 2FA for the website. My bank did that, I literally had to buy a new phone because the old one couldn't update their stupid app. It locks you in to the latest N versions of Android/iOS.
Before you ask, no, other banks aren't any better where I live. They all stopped using physical 2FA keys years ago. And no, they won't let you come in physically for things that can be done online.
For now, until they come up with some stupid 2FA solution that requires installing and updating their Android/iOS app. Banks where I live already have and there's literally no way around it (they don't use physical 2FA keys anymore).
Because it's bad for consumers to lose choices, even if they don't normally exercise those choices. The choice is the distributed power we have against the consolidated corporate power. We can choose not to let them restrict those choices, for example with interoperability regulations.
Sure, Netflix may not be as important as, say, housing, food, or whatever else, but I think there is something to be said about the cultural importance of [at the very least some] film and television.
There's a lot of media worth studying, analyzing, and preserving. And in that sense, between the constant churn of catalog items, exclusive content, and the egregious DRM, I think these sorts of streaming services are, unfortunately, kind of harmful.
Doesn't your second paragraph run against the grain of your first? If streaming services like Netflix are harmful then we should avoid using them. Thus it should not be important for our freedom-preserving computers to be able to access Netflix.
Now, if you want to do an in-depth study of film and television material as a whole, you're actually better off avoiding Netflix and making use of archives such as public libraries, university libraries, and the Internet Archive.
I mean, I agree that you should be able to avoid things like Netflix and make use of libraries and other archives, but that's sort of the point; there is a ton of media that never even gets a physical release anymore; once one of these platforms goes under, or something enters licensing hell, or whatever else and gets removed, all you can do is hope someone out there with both the know-how and access went out of their way to illegally download a copy, illegally decrypt it, and illegally upload it somewhere.
I say "know-how" and "access" because, while I'd still argue decrypting, say, Widevine L3 is not exactly super common knowledge, decrypting things like 4K Netflix content, among other things, generally requires you to have something like a Widevine L1 CDM from one of the Netflix-approved devices, which typically sits in those hardware trusted execution environments, so you need an active valuable exploit or insider leaks from someone at one of the manufacturers.
But also on top of all of that, you also need to hope other people kept the upload alive by the time you decide to access it, and then you also often need to have access to various semi-elitist private trackers to consistently be able to even find some of this stuff.
The legal issues with DRM here are hardly exclusive to Netflix and other streaming services, but at least in the case of things like Blu-rays or whatever — even if it is technically illegal in most countries to actually make use of virtually any backed-up disc due to AACS — you usually don't have the same time-pressure problem nor the significant technical expertise barrier.
>If streaming services like Netflix are harmful then we should avoid using them. Thus it should not be important for our freedom-preserving computers to be able to access Netflix.
I generally do avoid them whenever possible, though, yes. And I've explicitly disabled DRM support in Firefox on my computer. But I am just one person and I don't think my behavior reflects the average person, for better or for worse.
>decrypting things like 4K Netflix content, among other things, generally requires you to have something like a Widevine L1 CDM from one of the Netflix-approved devices, which typically sits in those hardware trusted execution environments, so you need an active valuable exploit or insider leaks from someone at one of the manufacturers.
Or just use a cheap Chinese HDMI splitter that strips HDCP 2.2 and record the 4K video with a simple HDMI capture device.
But if you are talking about preserving media or making media accessible, then it's not like we NEED 4K.
There exist dozens of online services where you can store your photos, doesn't mean companies should be allowed to do whatever they want with your photos...
TBH I don't care if Netflix wants to abuse such an asymmetry. I don't need Netflix in my life, so I'll just cancel my subscription(already have). I honestly don't want my lawmakers to spend even a second thinking about Netflix when we have so many large issues in the world right now. If we were talking about something like financial services where I have to engage I would be more sympathetic.
Capital doesn't really care what you want, it will exert control regardless. So in this case Netflix will continue to be part of capital that normalizes the need for DRM to access videos, write IP law, and generally force you into either accepting the world they want or forcing you to become a hermit.
Edit: i mean to say this is true whether or not you've even heard of the company.
The whole notion of DRM and penalties if you circumvent it comes from the entertainment industry, and it's written into law/official treaties. This already affects everything from secure boot to HDMI standards.
It's sort of antitrust adjacent. They are big enough to set market rules on the manner of distribution, like DRM and hardware-software lock-in, which doesn't directly stifle competition in their field (only a little) but in another field, and the results are arguably anti-consumer. That sort of power should not be in the hands of a single company.
This is an interesting insight. The OP's constraint that no two adjacent squares are the same color ensures non-randomness. (Which reminds us why people are so bad at producing "random" sequences.)
Yeah, it’s a funny coincidence that all those constraints to make it look random produces exactly one solution. I guess the OP knows this is not ‘random’ in the mathematical sense.
PG is an excellent writer, but this essay seems remarkably misleading. The unstated premise seems to be that well-educated adults already know everything they want/need to know about everything, which is silly. I'm older than PG, and pretty well educated, but I am constantly learning new things. I don't think it's because they are not important or I am obtuse. I think it is because I am (still) intellectually curious.
Sometimes I learn new things because they are new. And sometimes I learn new things (that are well known to people in other fields) because while I know a lot about some things, I know very little about others -- so little that I don't even know those things overlap with my interests.
Those of us who enjoy learning appreciate that we will never know everything we would like to, and in fact we will never know the boundaries of knowledge for topics we care a lot about. It's not that it is unimportant to us, it's just that we hadn't learned about it yet. That's why we read essays.
In the protein annotation world, which is largely driven by inferring common ancestry between a protein of unknown function and one of known function, common error thresholds range from FDR of 0.001 to 10^-6. Even a 1% error rate would be considered abysmal. This is in part because it is trivial to get 95% accuracy in prediction; the challenging problem is to get some large fraction of the non-trivial 5% correct.
"Acceptable" thresholds are problem specific. For AI to make a meaningful contribution to protein function prediction, it must do substantially better than current methods, not just better than some arbitrary threshold.
