No, the Trump administration is an enormous supporter of propaganda outlets, just not the ones that already existed. They don't care about maintaining the rules based world order. Their propaganda is much more inward-focused.
Nothing? China is solving the problem on their own. They already make substantially less carbon per person that most of the west. If we want to be like China it's a simple proposition: be OK with Manhattan project level investments in power transmission from places that have lots of renewables to places that need renewables.
Climate is determined by total CO2 output, not per capita.
That’s a real problem, because China, and all the poor countries in Asia and Africa aren’t going to stop increasing their CO2 output per capita until they reach western standards of living.
Actually climate is determined by cumulative CO2 emitted. The US and Europe have emitted far more than China ever has.
As of today, solar and batteries are the cheapest source of electricity. All the "poor countries in Asia and Africa", except the ones that have oil and gas, will leapfrog straight to renewables. It just makes good sense, unless your politicians are paid off by the fossil fuel lobby.
Sounds like we should pioneer better low-emissions tech, then, and pass it along to them. We've got more expendable income and a better tech base from which to do that.
Except that they will stop. China has already stopped, because they’re bringing up renewables for new capacity. In 5, max 10 years it will be ludicrous to spin up a fossil fuel power plant. Solar power is already cheaper than coal and prices are dropping like a stone as China ramps production capacity / techniques/ process.
Edit: Ah ok an IP ban. I guess time to use a proxy. Moderation has rules. Censorship does not.
Censorship is bad dang mmmkay?
Editing again to post later cause you nuked replies for some reason:
Sorry I don't conduct in personal attacks. I think you're confused. Feel free to list whom I attacked and where.
No, censorship doesn't change definitions based on who uses it. Unless you want to pretend like you're not censoring. You seem to have convinced yourself that your censorship is a form of moderation, very sad. You're free to censor whom and what you want, it's your site. Don't pretend it's moderation though.
Your guidelines are meaningless if censorship is so heavy handed and moderation non-existant. It's hard to moderate. It's easy to censor.
Anyway you have curated, through censorship, a place where people are afraid to share valid opinions that break no guidelines (except those magical ones you can produce in order to censor). You can congratulate yourself on that if you want. You've got a ghost town, whether you like it or not.
An entire thwack of personal attacks, for starters. Not allowed here. I don't think that's so confusing.
> Censorship is bad dang mmmkay?
It's one of those words that mean different things depending on how people want to use it. I wouldn't personally use that word as opposed to moderation, curation, etc., but then I would say that wouldn't I. In any case, HN isn't an anything-goes site and never has been. If we didn't do some version of moderation/curation/censorship/befugioning, it would be an entirely different place. Probably not one even you would enjoy—I don't suppose you like ghost towns or scorched earth any more than the rest of us.
No, censorship doesn't change definitions based on who uses it. Unless you want to pretend like you're not censoring. You seem to have convinced yourself that your censorship is a form of moderation, very sad. You're free to censor whom and what you want, it's your site. Don't pretend it's moderation though.
Your guidelines are meaningless if censorship is so heavy handed and moderation non-existant. It's hard to moderate. It's easy to censor.
Anyway you have curated, through censorship, a place where people are afraid to share valid opinions that break no guidelines (except those magical ones you can produce in order to censor). You can congratulate yourself on that if you want. You've got a ghost town, whether you like it or not.
Unfortunately, I can imagine the ignorant Americans who don’t realize that all those poor people want SUVs too. You know who doesn’t talk about climate change? Anybody in my family in Bangladesh. They want to live like Americans.
I don't believe those numbers will ever come close to converging, let alone bounty prices surpassing black market prices.
It seems like these vulnerabilities will always be more valuable to people who can guarantee that their use will generate a return than to people who will use them to prevent a theoretical loss.
Beyond that, selling zero-days is a seller's market where sellers can set prices and court many buyers, but bug bounties are a buyer's market where there is only one buyer and pricing is opaque and dictated by the buyer.
So why would anyone ever take a bounty instead of selling on the black market? Risk! You might get arrested or scammed selling an exploit on the black market, black market buyers know that, so they price it in to offers.
Even though I agree with the conclusion with respect to pricing, I don't think this comment is generally accurate.
Most* valuable exploits can be sold on the gray market - not via some bootleg forum with cryptocurrency scammers or in a shadowy back alley for a briefcase full of cash, but for a simple, taxed, legal consulting fee to a forensics or spyware vendor or a government agency in a vendor shaped trenchcoat, just like any other software consulting income.
The risk isn't arrest or scam, it's investment and time-value risk. Getting a bug bounty only requires (generally) that a bug can pass for real; get a crash dump with your magic value in a good looking place, submit, and you're done.
Selling an exploit chain on the gray market generally requires that the exploit chain be reliable, useful, and difficult to detect. This is orders of magnitude more difficult and is extremely high-risk work not because of some "shady" reason, but because there's a nonzero chance that the bug doesn't actually become useful or the vendor patches it before payout.
The things you see people make $500k for on the gray market and the things you see people make $20k for in a bounty program are completely different deliverables even if the root cause / CVE turns out to be the same.
*: For some definition of most, obviously there is an extant "true" crappy cryptocurrency forum black market for exploits but it's not very lucrative or high-skill compared to the "gray market;" these places are a dumping ground for exploits which are useful only for crime and/or for people who have difficulty doing even mildly legitimate business (widely sanctioned, off the grid due to personal history, etc etc.)
I see that someone linked an old tptacek comment about this topic which per the usual explains things more eloquently, so I'll link it again here too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43025038
That is why I said "also", it should not be the only factor.
The conversation was moving between two possibilities only: either collect bug bounties or sell on the black market. I believe most (again: most, not all) security researchers collecting bug bounties right now would not start selling on the black market in case bounties disappeared. They would change their focus to something else to sustain themselves
The market is priced at the point that the most economic for the business. Apple buying an exploit for $100m is not worth it (to apple) vs the potential loss of life of people who might be killed if sold on the black market. Buying an exploit for 1m prevents them being used to jailbreak, is good PR, and is ass covering PR insurance in case an Apple exploit cause loss of life (‘the seller could have sold to us, but instead they sold it to an evil corporation’).
You can work your day job and make $20-500k/yr or pursue drug dealing and make $5-5000k/yr. I don’t think that’s actually a compelling argument for the latter even if the opportunity cost is better.
Drugs are illegal, exploits are not illegal. Selling them to someone associated with illegal activity is probably illegal, but there is a legitimate fully legal exploit market with buyers like intelligence agencies, and an illegal market with buyers that run oppressive regimes and commit genocide.
You could say that cameras want to be free. A camera left unattended is likely to walk away.
Some rules are about adjusting incentives and disincentives to maximize value for everyone.
There is a lot of room to argue where that balance is. But the "its easy to copy stuff" argument isn't even grappling the kinds of context that result in more creations.
Most copyrighted material doesn't hurt you in any way if you can't have a copy. So someone creating something and not sharing with you should not be something to complain about.
Nor should it be a problem if they are willing to share with you, if you do something for them.
You are also completely unfettered to create anything for yourself that you feel you are missing.
The local reference frame (which is what matters for proton decay) doesn't see an outside world moving slower or faster depending on how much mass is around it to any significant degree until you start adding a lot of mass very close around.
reducing or removing property taxes for legitimate historic properties seems like a good thing to me. I don't want every community to look like a slightly randomized version of every other community. Historic stuff is interesting. If we can encourage it to stay interesting and not get torn down to build a TGI fridays that sounds like a good thing to me. How much did your crusade to tax local historic structures save the average taxpayer? How many of those places will be lost?
None of the covered properties in Berkeley are legitimate landmarks of genuine architectural merit or historical importance. Every one of them was established by flim-flam for the purpose of claiming the tax abatement. Over the years this lovely property claimed more tax breaks than any other. Judge for yourself whether the public interest was served.
This phrase is stupid and it gets repeated so much. It's pure vapid mangement consultant dreck. Imagine I told you that my car was running kind of hot and I needed to replace old coolant to make the system work better. If you told me 'ThE PuRpOsE oF a SyStEm Is WhAt It DoEs' I would think you were missing some braincells.
Sometimes the purpose of a system is what it's supposed to do and it needs some small maintenance to make it work right.
Strong disagree. If something has value, then the community should decide to preserve it as a group or the state should preserve it for us. I suspect that most of these schemes are some form of tax avoidance for wealthier people. The idea that some politically connected and likely wealthy group of people need some sort of help "preserving" historic buildings seems... dubious.
What do you think the community deciding to preserve it looks like? The government is the community. It's made out of the community. It's elected by the community. What mechanism are you suggesting?
Then they should be owned by governments outright. Provided that the community consent to it and are aware of the cost.
Government provides crucial services that increases land value, offsetting any losses in tax revenue through public utility. Perhaps the same thing can happen with historical buildings.
However, let us note that cities are for living in. It is not a museum.
Ultimately, only the public can determine the balance of concerns to be struck.
I get that the LLM wrote the code but can you at least write the description? I am getting second hand halitosis of the soul reading all these obvious slop project posts. Use your human mind to write human words to tell us about why this is important to you.
Yeah, this is just a low-quality post with mostly empty words. Even if this was human generated, it's not up-to-par.
At the risk of helping train the bots to generate more convincing garbage, the commit history is unrealistic for a human dev and "the amalgamation image below" is not something a human aware of how HackerNews works would write. Those are hints, as well as the heavy use of LLM-generated content on the devs domain. There's no apparent acknowledgement of the AI use in the repo, either.
Ajay Soni
axiys
| AI Architect & AI Software Engineer
| Building “Glass Box” Agents for FinCrime, Defence & Complex Systems
| C++, Python, LLMs
| Author of “You Are The Navigator
reply