ISP operations/back-end systems perspective, there's indeed tons of RRA files out there still getting charts drawn based off them with rrdtool, but increasingly everyone is trying to store metrics in things like influxdb and draw them using grafana. Or similar. Even Cacti, a truly old and crufty thing that's been around for a long time has migrated to drawing charts as SVGs.
> even though 2,977 people died while 42,116 died from car accidents that same year
I have trouble understanding your logic. A lot of trouble is made to prevent car accidents. We require driving licenses, we develop whole categories of law and do plenty of research to make driving safer.
We’re certainly not trying 15x harder to prevent car accidents as done to prevent another 9/11.
Prior we had metal detectors for people and hand luggage x-ray. Now we have x-ray backscatter for people, ID and facial photography, and a whole lot of other nonsense. Liquids banned, visitors at the gate not permitted, and the list goes on…
I don’t entirely agree with the actual measures taken purportedly to prevent a recurrence, but it’s hard to argue anything other than significant steps were taken.
Roughly a million people have died in car accidents since. Was there really nothing possible to prevent a fraction of them?
Where’s the new government organization? What new laws have been passed to prevent? What safety features are now required to mitigate such?
Ok, we have backup cameras and the funny headlights that turn off when the turn signal is on. Mission Accomplished?
This is America. We see constant mass murder of random citizens, often children, via mass shootings. So maybe the question is, why was 9/11 special among murder?
Because it was a terrorist group killing people to make a point, not somebody who has lost their sanity and, failing to have any other outlets, takes it out on the weak.
Do you seriously believe that among the thousands of mass shootings to have taken place in America since 9/11, none were the work of sane people trying to make a statement? The shooting death toll of people trying to make a statement since 9/11, exceeds the death toll of 9/11.
Maybe you missed that since it's diluted by all the other shooting death of children and random citizens.
Though it would be unkind to accuse you of being that dense.
The observation you replied to is that 9/11 is not so different from the mass shootings as you erroneously thought was obvious. You've now been educated to understand differently. I never faulted you for your ignorance.
Yes, I know. 99.9% of those shootings are kids who have zero emotional self-control, zero outlets, zero friends, and access to a gun. It's not a terrorist. There is a dictionary definition of a terrorist. I don't know how much more literal I need to get in order for you to understand you've got zero education to pass on here.
Exactly, that incorrect statistic about the percentage of who perpetrates the shootings is among the things forming the foundation of your argument.
Getting more literal with madeup numbers you imagined that present interpretations incompatible with reality doesn't convince anyone else of your view, though I'm sure you find it effective in showing others that, as you said, any education they have to pass on will be reduced to zero when encountering you.
Pretending to be too stupid to understand my point isn't helping you as much as you think it is. Rewording my jokes also isn't helping you like you think it is.
You made an insane statement that only a complete fuckin moron could support, then acted high and mighty when you are the one with the onus of evidence while pretending you aren't. But hey, at least you're clever enough to pretend that I'm goofy because I don't think children are terrorists. Maybe it wasn't an act. Maybe you just are that stupid.
Nobody thinks children are terrorists. If you want to make the claim that they are, prove it. Otherwise, I'm just going to keep calling you a dipshit, dipshit.
I'm neither stupid nor pretending to be. Rather, this is HN. The guidelines state I should try to take the best interpretation of your comment.
So, I've been twisting myself in knots trying to find interpretations of your comment that don't make you look like an unintelligent, bigoted asshole who loves to tell others they're wrong regardless of reality.
Since it's clear from your last comment that any alternate interpretation wouldn't be accurate, that's the end of my replies to you. If you're interested in why you're wrong, feel free to read back on how I talked about mass shootings, which you decided meant a subset of school shootings. Dipshit.
hn comment threads on most articles have rapidly taken on the character of Reddit threads ca. 2009. This argument in particular was a classic back then.
I’ve started downvoting inanity and flagging one-liner, content-less snark, but unless the mods get serious on stuff that hits the front page, I don’t see that trajectory changing.
To be fair, even before LLMs could spot my bugs in an instant I really only regularly used debuggers in C because it can't display arbitrary types in debug print statements.
Debuggers still have their place in algorithm heavy work, or to pull apart heap dumps to try and figure out obscure bugs.
Even LLMs use debuggers. I asked Claude to reverse engineer a closed source binary the other day. It used gdb to trace its behaviour. Didn’t even use ghidra.
> even before LLMs could spot my bugs in an instant
I guess it depends on the bugs.
LLMs even INSIDE the (VS) debugger couldn't work out some of the more recent bugs I have been looking at. Never mind by statically looking at the code base.
Scraping would be costly in this world: scrapers would have to spend tokens in order to get the webpage.
But, in this world, the website owner would receive tokens that they can then use to do whatever they want, including paying for servers and bandwidth. This is the sense in which the cycles aren’t wasted: the website owner now has cash to spend.
Effectively, both scrapers and ordinary users would be paying for the privilege of getting website bytes.
This also solves the problem of having to wait for your phone to solve the challenge while you’re browsing: you can buy or mine some tokens ahead of time and pay them as soon as challenged. So can the scrapers, but because they’re accessing enormous numbers of pages it’s hopefully prohibitively expensive for them.
Yup was thinking the same: make honest people pay $0.00001 when they visit the site (in electricity/compute), have the challenge made so that only the website wins a tiny something. Bleed the bots dry.
> This makes Anubis challenges use a memory-hard proof of work function (argon2id) instead of just a CPU hard one. It also means that the "hey Claude vibeslop me a CUDA Anubis solver" route is on its way to being fundamentally dead.
I want to do this eventually, but it's hard to split things into the micro-tasks that would be required to make this work on Anubis. One of the ideas I'm throwing around is a world where Anubis helps fuzz old games to find timesaves in tool-assisted speedruns. It's harder than you think.
The tools that exist for fuzzing speedruns (TASers call it "botting") are fairly primitive, excluding a few game-specific ones. Because of that, there really aren't that many TASes where a distributed randomised search could make improvements which don't get immediately overshadowed within a day of human attention. Improving botting tools and increasing their adoption would be more effective IMO. (Incidentally, TASVideos.org recently banned one of the people pioneering bot development.)
Meanwhile BOINC is well-established as the platform for distributed computation. If you can figure out how to squeeze its work units into Wasm challenges, I'm sure a lot of researchers would thank you.
BOINC isn't really built for "small tasks", afaik. Once you get small enough, the work the server is doing to manage the tasks gets to be around the same cost as the server just doing the tasks itself.
Yeah, I'm using PoW-based "DDOS defense mechanism" for a current project and had this thought too. I briefly looked into what it would take to exploit PoW to do something economically valuable like folding@home, and it looked a bit tricky. At first glance, these sort of projects seem a bit unsuitable for real-time PoW because they were designed to be run on desktops and so tend to do things in large batches. There probably are other use-cases that could be more suitable though.
Might be worth chucking that thought into Astra, especially if someone springs the $$$ money for it?
There is no possible interpretation under which JS fits “simpler protocols and formats,” and no world in which JS could form part of a truly secure network client environment.
I think American passports have those as well because I remember all the hax0rs making videos showing where to smash the NFC chip with a hammer or to buy wallets with special NFC blocking properties to keep folks from “stealing their identity” from the NFC chip. Personally I never cared but your comment jogged a memory.
Recently I added my passport to my Apple wallet but I’m not sure if that’s used anywhere.
Is that still the case? I recall "back in the day" that part of the reason for smashing these NFC chips was because of security failures like this, but I figured over time they'd be addressed.
I'd love to read more about what security features US passports are missing and what they have implemented. Just out of curiosity.
reply