I found one using a program: [('row', 0, 1), ('row', 1, 2), ('row', 2, 0), ('row', 0, 3), ('col', 2, 3), ('col', 1, 2), ('col', 0, 1)]. It says it's the optimal.
This is made for people in China under censorship I think. I've used it personally in China and it's a welcome alternative to shadowsocks (it even uses a similar flow of a local socks5 server) if you have an unblocked server you have access to (China fingerprints normal socks5 traffic).
It's slightly better in terms of robustness (since its less used) but eventually the firewall realizes you're only connecting to one server so it blocks outgoing large amounts of traffic to any IP. I've found using shadowsocks on one IP, using hysteria on another, and using proxy.pac to intersperse the two works best.
I'm surprised at all the negative comments here, its clear that the context of the project was not understood.
I heard that he turned Galileo around for publicity: NASA got more funding because there was this picture that showed exactly how small we were compared to the universe, inspiring people for exploration.
I'm reading about the "extensive planning enhancement" here on comments and I'm wondering why that would've got him more prison time... If he picked a time where there was no one and a spot to crash the plane where it wouldn't have started a fire (he probably didn't want to kill anyone), wouldn't it have been a less harmful act?
I'm just saying, the "potential to cause harm" is vague here, it could be equivalent to throwing down a table off the Empire State Building according to careful physics calculations and precisely avoid killing anybody. It's still harmful (because the calculations can be incorrect), but less so.
(honestly had he not destroyed the evidence and made the plea that he constructed the crash in a way that was designed not to harm anyone, and it ended up not harming anyone, I suspect he might've gotten a lower sentence)
The pundit's claims are part of the speculation. If you speculated that the pundit's words would matter, you'd short or sell out grain, making the pundit's words matter. Supply and demand are only sometimes good measures of people actually using or producing these products (and when they fail bubbles occur), but are always good measures of the spending of both people actually using the product, and the investors buying it in wanting to sell it.
In any case, as the investors buy the product they eventually have to sell it, meaning over the long run demand and supply are good measures of "actual" usage and production. You know this because there's never a bubble that doesn't collapse and return to equilibrium.
An inverse example would be any bubble, for example the housing bubble that happened over a decade ago. Prediction of house prices going up eventually reached a point where house prices were going up, despite low "actual demand" (of course, if you count "demand for investment", then prices are absolutely a measure of that).
To ask for an expert quote on a thread on hackernews sounds like a little bit overkill for me, and for me (and probably parent), it does feel a little obvious.
Let me try to answer this though: one example out of many is how Kodak speculated that the transition to digital cameras would lead them to lose profit over the long run, so they chose not to pursue the route. This was a long term plan that lead them to bankruptcy. (of course, they changed course once they realized that digital cameras were competitive options, but the original long term goal was to continue the film camera route, shown by their unwillingness to even try to produce digital cameras as an possible option)
I don't think others share that opinion, especially in the public sphere. GPT-{number} and ChatGPT are, for me, valid trademarks as they identify OpenAI's specific product; but somethingGPT is such a generic name at this point, and GPT such an alternate name for language-based AI, that it really doesn't identify OpenAI. (even ChatGPT is an alternate name for any chat AI at this point, but I feel it's fair that OpenAI doesn't let anybody else call their product "a ChatGPT" (I'm not too sure about trademark law but I think that leaves "a ChatGPT-like AI chatbot" open))
I actually think sites like HN would thrive in the AI era. There's 0 incentive to "farm Karma" here using AI. There's no point in being here except having a human conversation.
I mean, unless somebody wants to manipulate people by training AI to spread crypto misinformation, but with the quality of ChatGPT at this point, it's going to be obvious and have the opposite effect.
That was what I was thinking about too. Unfortunately, I think since the noise is coming from a point source and the entire room has to be denoised, it is difficult. I doubt there would be a speaker configuration that perfectly destructively interferes with anything like that, unless you got a row of speakers (and there wouldn't be software for that either).
(I'm no expert in this though, so am probably wrong)
"I am completely baffled by folks defending Marak, or putting any sort of blame on GitHub."
Github's actions are unwarranted. (Marak should have at least been able to verify his ownership of the account and get it back)
"1,2,3"
Honestly, these ARE better things to do (and probably more effective) than what Marak has done.
"replaced his code with an infinite loop that was a DoS attack"
So far I haven't seen anything about this actually causing harm and denying service.
"The fact that his attack wasn't more severe (like, say, encrypting someone's hard drive) doesn't mean it wasn't an actual attack."
The fact that his attack wasn't more severe shows that he wanted something that would make an impact without hurting anyone.
" guarantee no legal system is going to let an actual malicious act be defended by a license. "
That's the legal system's problem. The license is the license. Somebody's violation of an EULA (because they didn't read it) may be in all ways justified, but that argument probably won't hold up in court.
I wish he did something less controversial while still impactful, but it is incorrect to put it under the same term used to describe real cyberattacks that severely harm and kill innocents.
I don't think that this is quite a good idea. The weight feels a little too heavy to hang on a wall consistently, and the mechanisms are a bit too intricate. I'm also not sure the string would take that much weight, and because the weight falls slowly it might be prone to being stalled. I think it's easier to have a hand-cranked lamp that recharges a battery, which is probably much cheaper and easy to use.