"I am frequently asked for my PowerPoint slides, which basically function for me as lecture notes.'
What is this guy's problem. I frequently present to my companies C suite and I've never considered not sending them my unredacted presenters notes...If there's value in them for me why wouldn't their be value in them for others trying to learn about my topic.
You don't grade your company's C Suite on their ability to learn from your presentation. Do you really think a Professor in college should just facilitate the students to not come to class and take notes??
Yes. Not because it's a good idea but because facilitating learning is their primary job and uploading the slides is generally helpful for all students, including the ones that do take notes.
Not doing so because it allows students to put in less effort only makes sense if you view college as transactional.
They are not facilitating learning if they help the students to not come to class. So many studies show class attendance is linked to better outcomes and learning of the knowledge.
The author doesn't have a problem with students getting the notes. He only has a problem providing the notes.
> It is unimaginable to me that I would have ever asked one of my professors for their own lecture notes. No, you can’t have my slides. Get the notes from a classmate.
The notes from a classmate are a distillation of the lecture, not the professors own material. Again, it's all pretty sensible for a teaching, grading the students on how they learn, environment
Tit for tat is not a winning strategy in the game theoretical iterated prisoner's dilemma. It is a winning strategy in a competition between strategies, but the incentives of these competitions do not align with the actual game.
In fact, the strategy by definition never leads to a win and is weakly dominated by just never cooperating.
No, we judge the rules based on merit. If the other person kicks you out, you don't usually follow suit blindly by applying their rules to them. That is following other people's rules rather than your own and lacks integrity.
I think the characterizion of this as tit for tat lacks nuance. If you look at China's actions over the last while, in the South China sea, in regards to Taiwan, banning western apps, "accidentally" damaging subsea cables, industrial espionage at huge scale, and probably a thousand other small and large things I don't know about: if we put this into human terms, it's like a child who is constantly testing you and pushing the boundaries to see what they can get away with.
The correct thing to do in this case, as an adult, is to have firm boundaries and push back strongly but fairly whenever they are crossed.
However, while it's an interesting thought experiment, anthropomorphasizing nation states in this way will only get you so far. China is not a child, nor is the USA, and they're not adults either. While it does sometimes seem apt, the concept of maturity, in human development terms, cannot be applied here.
The concept of maturity is for us. We have the freedom to choose what we believe about the actions of nations. Besides a nation cannot do anything without the actions of people.
We conveniently describe people's actions as being of a nation, but we should be careful in not taking this too literally. It's a convenient linguistic device that doesn't reflect the reality that underlying all national action is the action of people.
Because if they did the 9$ ads would plummet in price paid to the platform because it implies to the advertisers the consumers have no purchasing capability and may be price sensitive or else they would shell out the extra dollar. If they don't offer it and still sell adds they can demand advertisers pay the premium as the consumer has disposable income to buy the service and is likely price insensitive since they are now paying for something that was free.
Is this actually true? It's one of those bits of "telephone wisdom" I've heard passed from commenter to commenter on Hacker News (and Slashdot before that) for as long as I can remember, but nobody ever seems to have a primary source for it, it's always been a "just trust me" bit of knowledge.
What's wrong with the Boeing case on needing to be rebooted.
It doesn't seem much worse then memory leaks in missle guidance tracking systems that exceed flight time. We have finite resources, if the effort to correct is minimal what's the harm?
> We have finite resources, if the effort to correct is minimal what's the harm?
That mentality at Boeing as, literally, costed many lives.
The harm is that nobody knows why there's a memory leak requiring a reboot (or if it's even a memory leak). What happens when that very same issue is combined with a rare case and causes the death of hundreds of people?
"Have you tried to turn it off and on again" may be fine for a $20 Internet-of-insecure-and-shitty-Thing bought on alibaba. Not so much when lives are at play.
> This condition is caused by a software counter internal to the GCUs that will overflow after 248 days of continuous power. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of all AC electrical power, which could result in loss of control of the airplane.
> A simple guess suggests the the problem is a signed 32-bit overflow as 231 is the number of seconds in 248 days multiplied by 100, i.e. a counter in hundredths of of a second.
This seems sane given that the planes don't operate for 51 days constantly (I'm not in aerospace so please correct me, it seems a reboot could occur with refueling without issue)
Usually planes are turned around too fast to be waiting for them to fully reboot every time they fuel. Typically they would prefer to keep them running for weeks at a time to minimize any issues or delays with extra steps when the clock is ticking and customers are waiting to board and fly
Commercial aircraft need continual software updates to operate. They are, in a sense, living, breathing machines. Things like navigation and terrain databases are updated inside of 30 days.
Adding a scheduled reboot is one more item on a checklist that was already being run through.
It's counterintuitive, but performing a reboot as a scheduled maintenance item is far more risk averse than going in and touching code that has been otherwise thoroughly tested and signed off by regulatory authorities.
The chances of introducing a new bug when attempting to repair the former presents additional risk to what amounts to a convenience issue.
Mainframes in the late 80s got so good nobody was rebooting them. Then in the 90s someone's mainframe had the powerbackup generators fail in a power outage and the system went down (a once in 500 year event, but with more than 500 mainframes around the world it was statistacally bound to happen). the system didn't boot correctly and it took months to figure out all how to start all the services it was running that the person who started them left without add them to the startup configs. Now everyone reboots a couple times a year so that when things don't restart correctly the person who knows about them still remembers something about it.
> it took months to figure out all how to start all the services it was running
Having had to migrate a 12 year old dying server this weekend, yeah, I was 24/7 strongly cursing the idiot who didn't document anything[0]. On the plus side I did get to update a bunch of stuff to more modern practices.
[0] You will not be surprised to learn that idiot was me.[1]
[1] My other servers are much better - anything that hasn't yet been properly service'd has its own `RUNME.sh` which runs whatever it is in the correct way.
Also in case of emergency, eg after a power loss or whatever, you might have to do a reboot anyway. So you might as well make sure that this code path is well exercised.
I'd rather deal with a ground hog day of the system being for the millionth time in its first day of operation, than dealing for the first time with the system being in its millionth day of operation.
> Usually planes are turned around too fast to be waiting for them to fully reboot every time they fuel.
To be clear, this affected the Boeing 787, a plane usually focused on long-haul between medium sized cities. It is incredibly rare to see a long-haul flight turned-around immediately. Normally, they have max two flights per days, and for longer routes, just one route per day. There was plenty of time to reboot. I don't think anyone was ever in danger.
Also, I am starting to grow tired of "anything Boeing does is bad" on HN in the last 6-12 months. The Boeing 787 was a huge hit, both technically and commercially. (I would say the same for the Airbus A350.) I certainly never worked anything as important or cool in my career. The endless booing from the HN peanut gallery adds little new and/or useful information to the discussion. Yes, I expect to be downvoted for this last paragraph.
TIL. I had thought a computer reboot was snappy compared to filling those fuel tanks, that's so counterintuitive to me. That does make it more of an issue then.
"Let's build something that we KNOW will catastrophically fail, because we deliberately ignore to take account limited resource availability of that system."
For a critical systems, that's just lazy and unacceptable.
As an ex-firefighter not based out of antarctica, you are absolutely right. Sea water is extremely damaging to pumps. We use it as a last resort, and often have to refurb pumps when we do.
Do the Australian citizens not vote their politicians into the role? It hardly seems the fault of the companies to not exploit the politicians weakness. Surely such weakness would allow a more capable candidate to campaign on such a platform.
I could answer that but the explanation would be long and painfully dull.
I'll just refer you to graffiti once painted on a Besser block wall that surrounded a trotting course not far from where I live. To quote:
The Australian people are bloody-minded sheep.
It remained there for decades and no one—no even the local council—ever attempted to remove it or paint over it. Why? Because all too many know it's true.
The graffiti eventually disappeared when the wall was knocked down when the trotting gave way to high-rise apartments. I always meant to take a photo of it and I'm now kicking myself that I didn't.
"What is the federal minimum wage? Who benefits from it being $7.25 an hour? Not the common people"
Can you give a source on this one, you state it like it's something obvious and studied but I don't follow? I'm curious how this policy doesn't result in increased off shoring in a world where USA doesn't control 100% of resources, and a theoretical world this would result in inflation normalizing against the increased monetary supply.
In Australia, the minimum wage is 16.12 USD. Minimum wage employment is not vulnerable to off-shoring (shelves must be packed in the local warehouse), but is to automation.
Looking at a few studies online, it seems as though there is no long term correlation between increasing the minimum wage and inflation.
I think you hit my points nail on the head. Automation is the upper bound, I'm not convinced on your latter point because market forces typically act before minimum wage, which I think a different comment or brought up in relation to McDonalds.
Just so it's clear I think if there is a legal solution to this it's on taxing the high end of incomes, inheritances, and capital gains, not the low end.
> I'm not convinced on your latter point because market forces typically act before minimum wage
If there were a long term inflationary effect, then industries particularly sensitive to minimum wage costs should have significantly higher prices in Australia compared to the US. That doesn’t appear to be the case; perhaps they absorb the additional costs in the profit margin. It can’t have no effect, but it’s clearly not as simple as you were implying.
There are offshore clothing manufacturers that arrange the clothes on racks and pack them in the containers.
Once the package reach the destination they do directly on display. This "saves" the company from having to pay someone higher wages for arranging clothing displays.
The companies will always chose lower costs wherever they can get away with.
Nobody pays $7.25/hr in 2024, as nobody will work for that. McDonald's here is paying $15/hr and in the past 10-15 years have completely rebuilt their stores and kitchens and preparation processes to reduce labor needs.
From that link, "that is only 0.15% of the working population" and nearly half of those workers are teenagers, i.e. it's a first-time, likely part-time job.
I stand by my claim that (essentially) nobody is working for minimum wage in 2024.
these are people specifically choose to work under the poverty limit to be eligible for safety net welfare: EBT/SNAP/WIC/Medicaid and then work for cash unrecorded.
like they work 4hr/day and accumulate ~1000 hours/year and then work off w2-payroll
The 7.25 rate was set in 1996.
Adjusted for inflation, 7.25 is worth 15 today.
There are thousands and thousands of jobs paying less than 15/hr.
In NC, where I live, the average wage for an entry-level crew member at McDonalds is $12.16, effectively 20% lower than the original purchasing power of the 1996 minimum wage.
For the hacker news crowd I agree, but for the average public and law I feel this at least warrants thinking about if we need additional protections as I feel the surveillance we have today and what we had when the laws were written and what the general public expects mismatch drastically.
If I get a password prompt in public am I expected to run into the nearest private property because legally I could be recorded and my input recorded and extracted ?
With respect to passwords, biometrics and password managers (or better yet, public key infrastructure) is the solution. Not privacy booths. If I had my way, apps wouldn't let users pick their own passwords: they'd email users 30+ character generated passwords that they couldn't possibly memorize and thus force people to use password managers.
Unfortunately, enforcing strong passwords drastically discourages new user signups. I remember when the security team enforced stricter password policies at Dropbox new signups dropped by a factor of 10 (by "stricter" I don't just mean length + special chars, they experimented with banning all of the 100K most common passwords). It just isn't economically sustainable to enforce strong passwords.
What is this guy's problem. I frequently present to my companies C suite and I've never considered not sending them my unredacted presenters notes...If there's value in them for me why wouldn't their be value in them for others trying to learn about my topic.