There are definitely a lot of reckless cyclists, but it's worth keeping things in perspective.
According to the Department for Transport's report, there were 41 pedestrians and 7 cyclists killed in traffic collisions in Greater London in 2022. Pedal cyclists were listed as the "other vehicle" involved in fatal collisions 0 times, while cars were listed 39 times, and goods vehicles 23 times. As stated "other vehicles" does not directly describe who is to blame for a collision, but it's a proxy measure for it. https://content.tfl.gov.uk/casualties-in-greater-london-2022...
This map looks cool but it doesn't tell us a lot about the safe and unsafe places to cycle in London. Because it's based on collision data by location, but we don't know how many people cycle on each road per year, so can't normalise for that.
To compare two examples, you can pick out Richmond Park in south-west London due to the low number of collisions in it. But this is actually a highly popular location to cycle. The relatively low amount of vehicles, 20mph speed limit, ban on large vehicles, high visibility, and few junctions, makes it a great place to cycle.
There are also a low number of collisions in the boroughs of Bromley and Bexley in south-east London. But this is not because they're safe, but because very few people cycle there. There are loads of fast roads in these boroughs and little cycle infrastructure, and more of an hostile attitude from drivers compared to many other places in London.
Are you sure you're thinking of the right author? Filippo used to work at Cloudflare so I can't imagine he got the technical details about it too wrong.
HackTheBox (https://www.hackthebox.com/) is the largest and most active hacker challenge website. Focussed mainly around black box pentesting of vulnerable Windows and Linux machines, but they have lots of other types of content these days too such as CTF challenges and paid lab environments.
Yes while some challenges overlap, we also explore more deeply the mathematics of cryptography, as well as its practical use in protocols like TLS. We recently added challenges on lattice-based post-quantum cryptography. In this way it makes a great complement to CryptoPals.
But it's not all harder, our introductory section gradually introduces concepts like base64 encoding and the modulo operator one challenge at a time.
> - higher lifeforms are more valuable than lower ones (cat vs lobsters)
Choosing between preserving the life of one cat vs one lobster seems straightforward enough. But the trolley problem was asking whether one cat was more valuable than five lobsters. According to the stats, many people agreed, but how about one cat vs a million lobsters? Or one cat vs all the lobsters on earth? Most people would think that making lobsters extinct would be very bad (unless they really hate lobsters).
The difficulty is when we can no longer rely on intuition and have to come up with a precise exchange rate of when one being's life is more valuable than another's, which, like you say, is impossible to do in the complicated world we live in and our limited understanding of consciousness and neuroscience. In absence of that, deferring to the first law "whenever possible, do no harm" seems sensible.
To pick an extreme but well-known thought experiment. You are walking past a pond, and see a child drowning in it. You glance around and there is nobody else nearby. You could easily jump in and save the child. It will certainly die if you do not.
If you choose to do nothing and ignore the drowning child, are you really not morally responsible in any way for the child's death?
> I'm curious, why do you think that these requirements won't spread to the rest of the internet
I didn't say that, I only said that we currently have two Internets, but that there has been a shift towards the walled gardens of identified accounts over time. The proponents of the law probably would end up creating loop holes just because their main beef is with the big tech firms, and it would be challenging for a single country to enforce legislation on the rest of Internet.
> Verified accounts, as I understand them, on the social platforms are only for people who publicly want to build a brand around their identity. While people have to use a "real name" on Facebook and Google, there's nothing requiring to get verified.
We may be getting mixed up with the meaning of "verified", I'm talking about accounts where the platform has associated you with your RL identity through some method, not just the process to get a public blue tick.
And, while there may be nothing formal requiring verification, there are many reports of people suddenly getting locked out of their accounts and being required to provide ID or at least a phone number shortly after registration. In fact a phone number is a pretty widespread requirement and it's getting harder to obtain a phone number that's not linked to your identity in some way. I don't see the contradiction in what I wrote, I have simply pointed out trends, not absolutes.
> I think it’s pretty clear at this point that the notion of the web as a self protecting organism that naturally rejects misinformation and stops bad actors is completely wrong.
It's an interesting question, but the point isn't as clear to me. First of all I believe most people are able to see through misinformation. The biggest blame should be laid on algorithmic feeds that optimise for engagement, and are therefore designed to lead people into self-reinforcing loops where their ideas never get challenged. That's the main bad "innovation" that social media platforms brought; the arguments about dangerous ideas, censorship, and bad actors echo all the way back to the dawn of the printing press.
> But I also think you can’t ignore that misinformation from anonymous actors has pushed democracy to the brink of collapse, and “that wasn’t the original idea of the web” isn’t the best rebuttal.
I think this is overstating the role of "anonymous actors" - plenty of misinformation comes from well-known politicians and simply normal people. Are you referring to FB's concept of "coordinated inauthentic behaviour" and troll-farms in authoritarian countries? This is definitely a problem which platforms have to tackle, but again I don't think it's as huge a factor as people make it out to be and certainly has not pushed democracy to collapse on its own.
I still remember the days when almost everyone on Internet forums used pseudonyms and closely guarded their identities. It was even taught in schools not to reveal who you are online.
Google, FB and other tech giants changed the norms around this completely for most Internet users. Once these platforms realised it was easier to monetise their users, and control abuse when dealing with real identities, they pushed hard for verified accounts (e.g. Google Plus) even though this is antithetical to the founding ideas of cyberspace.
Today we have two Internets, one where anonymity is still possible but you can reveal your true name if you want (e.g. HN), and another of walled gardens with verified identities. The UK government is proposing to enshrine the fully identified concept of the Internet into law. While this will prevent some abuse it's a sad reflection on how some of the early values of cyberspace have been lost, where people could be who they wanted to be, and freely discuss topics they might not wish to have associated with their real names forever. Politicians whose main interaction with the Internet is through their Twitter accounts just don't get that.
This is fascinating and a great bit of work by Stefan Marsiske. Loved the technical writeup in PoC||GTFO too. This quote from the TFA really shows just how difficult it was for the public to access decent cryptography at the time:
> In her book Operatie Vula, Conny Braam explains how one of her people met a guy, by the name of Floris, in a pub in Amsterdam, who allegedly had developed the PX-1000 [5]. From him they learned that the device had been taken off the market as its encryption was too strong. It had been replaced by a calculator but he suggested to find the older version with built-in crypto.
In all I would say it was a pretty good backdoor for the early 80s, showing how far ahead the NSA's internal understanding of cryptography was. I wonder if they would have anticipated the world we live in today where state-of-the-art cryptography is available and used by everyone on the Internet.
Absolutely right, the essay writes from a comfortable UK perspective and ignores large amounts of the world where well-regulated, trustworthy financial institutions aren't available. And even UK banks aren't immune from failure or just mistakes which can freeze people's savings and put them in terrible situations that take months to resolve.
To add to your counterpoint, the OP's praise of going cashless as opposed to the problems of cash is another fine example. It's certainly more convenient to use your card everywhere, but if everyone did it then just a handful of payment processors would gain immense power, with the ability to track, monitor, and censor all transactions. Plenty of dystopian fiction like The Handmaid's Tale covers what can happen when this infrastructure is abused. Cash may have problems but it plays an important role in an open society, and redundancy when a major payment network goes down (as Visa did across Europe on 1st June 2018, causing retail chaos). But many vendors no longer accept cash and this will only accelerate as more people never use it. In praising going cashless as protecting ourselves from being our own banks, the OP misses the forest for the trees.
Inspiring interview, as the interviewer says there's a zen about Joey where he's dedicated himself to producing great open source software (git-annex, debhelper, ikiwiki) instead of trying to make millions.
Surely he can look back over the last few decades and feel proud of his work and the benefit it has brought to so many users. The tech treadmill can cause us to lose focus on the things that really matter or that really inspired us to begin with, so this is a refreshing perspective.
Transhumanist philosopher David Pearce has a fascinating piece arguing along these lines. The dystopic Brave New World "has come to serve as the false symbol for any regime of universal happiness", and Island offers a counterpoint, however hardly anybody has read it compared to Brave New World: https://www.huxley.net/
It would increase disk usage by a significant amount, since transaction IDs appear twice in tuple headers (xmin/xmax). Essentially they are overhead on every database row. This submission has a discussion on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19082944
PostgreSQL is one of the most powerful and reliable pieces of software I've seen run at large scale, major kudos to all the maintainers for the improvements that keep being added.
> PostgreSQL 14 extends its performance gains to the vacuuming system, including optimizations for reducing overhead from B-Trees. This release also adds a vacuum "emergency mode" that is designed to prevent transaction ID wraparound
Dealing with transaction ID wraparounds in Postgres was one of the most daunting but fun experiences for me as a young SRE. Each time a transaction modifies rows in a PG database, it increments the transaction ID counter. This counter is stored as a 32-bit integer and it's critical to the MVCC transaction semantics - a transaction with a higher ID should not be visible to a transaction with a lower ID. If the value hits 2 billion and wraps around, disaster strikes as past transactions now appear to be in the future. If PG detects it is reaching that point, it complains loudly and eventually stops further writes to the database to prevent data loss.
Postgres avoids getting anywhere close to this situation in almost all deployments by performing routine "auto-vacuums" which mark old row versions as "frozen" so they are no longer using up transaction ID slots. However, there are a couple situations where vacuum will not be able to clean up enough row versions. In our case, this was due to long-running transactions that consumed IDs but never finished. Also it is possible but highly inadvisable to disable auto-vacuums. Here is a postmortem from Sentry who had to deal with this leading to downtime: https://blog.sentry.io/2015/07/23/transaction-id-wraparound-...
It looks like the new vacuum "emergency mode" functionality starts vacuuming more aggressively when getting closer to the wraparound event, and as with every PG feature highly granular settings are exposed to tweak this behaviour (https://www.postgresql.org/about/featurematrix/detail/360/)
> Though my relationship to time fluctuates, the gravamen of my disclosures remains constant. In the past eight years, the depredations of surveillance have merely become more entrenched, with the capabilities that used to be the province of governments now in the hands of private companies, too, which employ them to track and tether us and attenuate our freedoms.
On the other hand, I feel the show also pushes a positive view of American go-getter mentality: optimism and infectious enthusiasm which is sorely lacking in the British characters.
Ted Lasso is a show that I didn't think I'd like at all based on the synopsis. But after a rave review from a friend, I gave it a go and found it to be compulsive watching. It just goes to show that music, movies, and art that is way outside your usual tastes can still appeal if it is really good.
According to the Department for Transport's report, there were 41 pedestrians and 7 cyclists killed in traffic collisions in Greater London in 2022. Pedal cyclists were listed as the "other vehicle" involved in fatal collisions 0 times, while cars were listed 39 times, and goods vehicles 23 times. As stated "other vehicles" does not directly describe who is to blame for a collision, but it's a proxy measure for it. https://content.tfl.gov.uk/casualties-in-greater-london-2022...