HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

IIAOPSW

7,612 karmajoined há 11 anos

comments

IIAOPSW
·há 3 dias·discuss
This is frustratingly close to amazing. Obviously you went through all the trouble of pulling all the data from all the trains and displaying them in 3d, but then lock our view on to just one train or one station while all that interesting information zips around in the periphery. The view port needs to be more free form...less on rails.
IIAOPSW
·há 21 dias·discuss
As a non-attorney that has also used PACER, I don't think of it in quite these terms. Sure maybe there's some level of public subsidy by making it free, but like you say, relative to the legal profession that subsidy per lawyer is at the noise floor. On the other hand, the value of making it free to people outside the legal profession is well worth the degree to which we'd be subsidizing the people in it.

For example, journalists. There's enormous investigative journalism value in the documents that have been filed in court. People say all sorts of shit in affidavits which turns out to be relevant outside the context they intended it for. PACER should be free, if nothing else than for the public interest value of its content (outside as well as inside the court).
IIAOPSW
·há 29 dias·discuss
For the most part it didn't, but to the extent it did, the answer is in the later Mollen Commission Report.
IIAOPSW
·mês passado·discuss
I'll give you a read.

If you haven't read it already, I strongly recommend the Knapp Commission Report. Its about police corruption in New York City in 1972, but its lessons on systemic and institutionalized corruption are highly transferable to other contexts.

Probably the most common naive mistake I see is people thinking their subfield is special and they are the first to really notice / understand fraud within it. I've certainly seen people in the "sleuth community" (scientific fraud whistle blowers) reinvent the wheel a few times.

All fraud is basically the same. Financial, scientific, police corruption...it almost doesn't matter. I'm not even the first to say this. A really good summary can be found in Ashforth 2003 ("The Normalization of Corruption in Organizations").

So, with the caveat that I haven't read your work yet and maybe you already know, I'd say look at past corruption far outside your area of interest / expertise. There's a lot you can learn there. Police corruption reports are usually great because of how accessible they are in several senses (more numerous, usually simple to understand), but I have no police related agenda to push here and it really doesn't matter where you decide to look. Just pick any Commission and read their findings.

In the opening words of the Knapp Commission "We found corruption to be widespread".
IIAOPSW
·mês passado·discuss
Its a real shame we don't have any transcripts or other court records from that hearing...for obvious reasons.
IIAOPSW
·mês passado·discuss
Gather round kids and grab your muskets. The Qui Tam Clan ain't nuthin to fuk wit.
IIAOPSW
·mês passado·discuss
https://awakenedcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/share...
IIAOPSW
·há 2 meses·discuss
wheres the part that had anything to do with subway stations?
IIAOPSW
·há 2 meses·discuss
Hold up. you can't just have the train take the parenthesis off screen and hand wave away what happens to those cars. What happens when your forced to keep the garbage of a computation because you can't delete anything?

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_computing)
IIAOPSW
·há 2 meses·discuss
Wow, there were actually principles behind the rules and they bothered to reason about them. That's way different than my experience with school teachers.
IIAOPSW
·há 2 meses·discuss
Jokes on you, you learned to program.
IIAOPSW
·há 2 meses·discuss
I learned programming on that calculator. I learned programming because of that calculator. I owe so much to that calculator.
IIAOPSW
·há 2 meses·discuss
>More generally, the best bet to solving a problem more efficiently is always to use more information about the specific problem you want to solve

It is both obvious and profound, the more information you already have, the more information you already have.
IIAOPSW
·há 2 meses·discuss
Its a honeypotpot
IIAOPSW
·há 3 meses·discuss
You could also do your weak equality test by taking the sum 1+2+3+4+5, or the product 12345, or any other commutative binary operator.
IIAOPSW
·há 3 meses·discuss
I'll throw my hat in the ring of other "xor" tricks.

So we all know addition swap. One generalization that comes to mind is doing some other in-place transform on the two input variables. Lets keep it simple and suppose that its a linear transform. Thus the problem is to apply some matrix [[a,b],[c,d]] to two input variables [x,y] using entirely in-place operations.

We can do this by realizing that our basic operands can be expressed as matrices. x += ky is the same as the matrix [1, k] [0, 1]

likewise y += kx is equiv to the lower triangular matrix [1, 0] [k, 1]

and lastly, the = operator is equiv to a matrix with an element on the diag. x = k [k ,0] [0, 1]

y *= k [1, 0] [0, k]

From this point on it becomes a challenge of if you can construct any desired matrix into some combination of these available ones (spoiler, yes you can).

The next generalization one could contemplates is doing operations in place on more than 2 variables. Well, if one has already solved arbitrary 2x2 matrix operations, then that can be rigged to implement larger matrices one submatrix at a time.

The final generalization that comes to mind is what can we do with non-arithmetic operators? We've already seen an example of this with using xor-swap rather than addition-swap. But is there anything out there vaguely like xor-2x2-matrix-multiply?

I legit don't know. I have some thought, but I won't meander out loud if its not going to lead anywhere.
IIAOPSW
·há 3 meses·discuss
Well rather than our respective anecdotes, I cite page 252-253 of the Knapp Commission Report on Police Corruption in New York (1972).

>It is clear that the risks of severe punishment for corrupt behavior are slight. A dishonest policeman knows that, even if he is caught and convicted, he will probably receive a court reprimand or, at most, a fairly short jail sentence. Considering the vast sums to be made in some plainclothes squads or in narcotics enforcement, the gains from corruption seem far to outweigh the risks. Both William Phillips and Edward Droge said that they assessed the risk of meaningful punishment and determined that they had little to fear.

I've read enough reports of this nature and experienced enough regulators to be really convinced that where you see apparent stupidity you are also likely to see a table like the one on page 250 showing virtually no prosecutions prior to the Commission.

Neither Drodge nor Phillips were wrong in their calculation. I hate to say, your estimate of a 10% chance of getting caught was way too optimistic. Going by the data, it was much much lower than that.

(My axe to grind is not with the police in particular, reports on police corruption just happen to be the most available and easily understandable).
IIAOPSW
·há 3 meses·discuss
Something I've learned is that in a certain social strata when people do audaciously stupid, its rarely because they lack the common sense to have covered their tracks. Its because they've learned they don't have to. No one is working hard to try and catch them, and even if by some miracle someone does (and people believe them), no government or regulatory body is really interested in punishing them anyway.

This broadly goes for non-criminal acts too. Sometimes powerful people do seemingly dumb things because they are only dumb in the context of the incentive structures if one of us tried to do it. In their context, it would be stupid not to egregiously take advantage.
IIAOPSW
·há 4 meses·discuss
Same, but it was a TI-84, and the game was tic-tac-toe with a perfect "ai" that would let you enter "number of players: 0" [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s93KC4AGKnY
IIAOPSW
·há 5 meses·discuss
Dare I say, the Revolution will not be Televised.