Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | nullc's commentslogin

To review documents received from a hostile and dishonest actor in litigation I used disposable VMs in qubes on a computer with a one way (in only) network connection[1], while running the tools (e.g. evince) in valgrind and with another terminal watching attempted network traffic (an approach that did detect attempted network callbacks from some documents but I don't think any were PDFs).

This would have been useful-- but I think I would have layered it on top of other isolation.

([1] constructed from a media converter pair, a fiber splitter to bring the link up on the tx side, and some off the shelf software for multicast file distribution).


We need the commodification of higher dram GPUs. The effect of masses of people using a thing can't exist until the hardware is ubiquitous.

Why is polymarket worse than cell phone games? At least polymarket essentially self identifies as gambling and isn't specifically marketed to children.

Cell phone games are knowingly losing money for fun. Polymarket is a sign of a failing, rapidly deregulatory economy.

And that's before we get into discussing the social damage to country that already sees more school shootings than weeks in a year (actually, 4x more), with rising political and civil tensions including assassinated politicians, adding potential "lose your house" to random events. As if it'll help calm things down and let us all keep a level head.

Or the implications of news companies reporting on these odds as if they reflect actual statistical likelihood, and how that gives the ultra wealthy yet another lever to control the view of reality the common people have.


> That and the stupid shit schools do to make sure you aren't using AI.

What makes you think they care? https://youtu.be/JcQPAZP7-sE?t=881

I've been following a conman fantisist for a number of years and of late he's gone full LLM powered and has been churning out graduate degrees from respectable sounding places. Years ago he merely claimed to have varrious degrees, but now with the help of chatgpt he's just pumping them out.

While I'm sure a few places care many very clearly don't.


The advice here is now increasingly out of date in the era of LLMs. Trisectors are more numerous and voluminous than ever, while being less obvious and more effective at wasting your time, and approaching a far greater variety of subjects, and any kind of response to one has a much greater risk of outright aggressive and even threatening responses as sycophantic AIs escalate their users otherwise benign hyperfocus into outright paranoid delusions.


Out of date?

If what you say is true, shouldn’t that make the understanding of trisectors more urgent and important? If anything, this is more relevant than before.


I'm not sure. I think LLMs makes different people into trisectors and they trisect in different ways-- so not just much more numerous but also somewhat different in character.

LLMs are trisector factories.



It isn't what you were expecting-- but it's really good. Give it another look with no expectations.


There are some places where a car ferry is essentially a bridge and just operate as part of the highway, e.g. there are two such instances in sacramento: https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-4/d4-projects/d... The rides are about a minute long and you very much wouldn't want to change vehicles.


Another common scenario is vastly different population density on the far side of the ferry route. It seems unlikely to me that autonomous vehicle companies would want to maintain a giant seasonal fleet at such destinations.

In a lot of cases rather than seasonal it will be a surge every weekend.


Home energy usage is knocked down people that don't that don't do anything at home and where almost their energy use is externalized (at places that make the goods they use, or other places where they spend most of their their waking hours).

So it's a useful figure if you want to make a shocking headline. "Uses as much power as infinity of something that uses no power!"


Have you considered that it's used as a unit to represent capacity of our power grid?

As in, we have now have the energy capacity for 300,000 fewer homes given this operating data center.

So not only is it a relatable unit, but it's an incredibly meaningful unit for those who care about ensuring that energy availability actually support something of value (families) rather than something wasteful (crypto mining).


Surveillance technology doesn't stop property crime, so it isn't a tradeoff question.

The necessary and sufficient steps to stop property crime are:

1. Secure the stuff.

2. Take repeat criminals off the street.

Against random 'crime of opportunity' with new parties nothing but proactive security is particularly effective because even if you catch the person after the fact the damage is already done. The incentive to commit a crime comes from the combination of the opportunity and the deterrence-- and not everyone is responsive to deterrence so controlling the opportunity is critical.

Against repeated or organized criminals nothing but taking them out of society is very effective. Because they are repeated extensive surveillance is not required-- eventually they'll be caught even if not in the first instance. If you fail to take them off the streets no amount of surveillance will ever help, as they'll keep doing it again and again.

Many repeat criminals are driven by mental illness, stupidity, emotional regulation, or sometimes desperation. They're committing crimes at all because for whatever reason they're already not responding to all the incentives not to. Adding more incentives not to has a minor effect at most.

The conspiratorially minded might wonder if the failure to enforce and incarcerate for property crime in places like California isn't part of a plot to manufacture consent for totalitarian surveillance. But sadly, life isn't a movie plot-- it would be easier to fight against a plot rather than just collective failure and incompetence. In any case, many many people have had the experience of having video or know exactly who the criminal is only to have police, prosecutors, or the court do absolutely nothing about it. But even when they do-- it pretty much never undoes the harm of the crime.


Can you explain in more detail how the repeat criminals get caught in your scheme? I can see how surveillance could help in identifying the criminal, finding him or her, and as evidence of crime in the trial, but what exactly happens without it that gets them identified, found and convicted? As of now clearance rate of property crimes is <15% according to a quick search.


There is already lots of surveillance and was even before modern technology. I'd agree that having some at all is of value, my argument was that you don't need much past that to get what we need and certainly don't need the kind of pervasive surveillance that some want: It won't move the needle on crime much past a baseline level but it will enable abuses that are much worse than the level of property crime we see today. Authoritarian governments are the number one mass murderer throughout human history by a wide margin.

Low clearance rates for property crime are significantly because nothing is even done much of the time -- police just take a report and often won't even follow up on an obvious lead (including stuff like "find my phone says my thousand dollar phone is in that house over there").

But in any case to more directly answer your question: If the clearance rate is 15% then they have a 90% chance of being caught after ~14 crimes.


>There is already lots of surveillance and was even before modern technology.

Do you mean that all the people who are installing Flock cameras now do that not because they think there is not enough surveillance but for some other reason? Like help a YC company to raise more money? Or help LEOs to stalk their exes? Or some other crazy reason mentioned in these threads?

Do you have a neighborhood social network (NextDoor and its kind)? If you do, check out reports of theft, they rarely have any surveillance and ones that have are very poor quality, usually not showing the perp enough to ID.

> But in any case to more directly answer your question: If the clearance rate is 15% then they have a 90% chance of being caught after ~14 crimes.

This does not follow. If your math had been valid we'd have to agree that hunting elk in a forest where 15% of animals are bears would result in 90% chance that every 15th elk would turn out to be a bear.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: