> I always found the Perl "community" to be really off-putting with all the monk and wizard nonsense
The Perl community introduced the world to the first language module repositories via CPAN. No more manually hunting down tarballs off FTP servers
As a language, Perl is extremely expressive, which is amazing for one-off scripts, and awful for code that's meant to be shared and/or reread. For pure text-munging, Perl is still unbeaten, when using Perl-Compatible regexes in other languages, I feel the language getting in my way.
You can write easy-to-read Perl (TIMTOWTDI, and all that), but it doesn't force you like Go (small language size) or Python (by convention and culture, on what counts as 'Pythonic')
That'd be the belief in good old American exceptionalism. Up until recently, a common meme on HN was "freedom" is fundamental to innovation, and naturally the country with the most Freedom(TM) wins. This even persisted after it was clear that DJI was kicking all kinds of ass, outcompeting multiple western drone companies.
It's probably true that free enterprise helps a lot, but China has that in large part. Even though the CCP calls itself communist, China is very capitalist in a number of ways. But I guess China is showing us that capitalism can exist without democracy.
You can exfiltrate data from a machine which is not connected to the KVM. A high-security machine may be even air-gapped most of the time, but be physically nearby.
I don’t think too many of these devices will end up in server rooms as opposed to home labs. And the ones that do end up in a datacenter are very unlikely to be allowed to ever reach the internet.
If the microphone was used for exfiltrating data, it would work against random targets that happened to let the KVM connect to the internet, and who have a nearby machine infected with some malware. That kind of non-targeted attack can be damaging but is semi-useless to the attacker.
Flock cameras are oriented to read rear plates. One would need a camera similarly configured + a billboard some distance in front, or perhaps 2 billboards, a 1-2 setup + payoff combo, the camera behind the first billboard, and the dynamic text on the second. Pulling up other public data correlated to the plate - where legal - may make a splash. I'm thinking addressing the car owner by their first name.
Right, but also remember that they're set up to analyze other vehicle traits, including but not limited to: color, make, model, body damage, panels that are a different color to the rest of the body, wheels, decals, bumper stickers, tow hitches, roof racks, etc., so even if they can't read your plate they can try to build a vehicle identity, and when they do get a plate capture, they can retroactively apply that to all other sightings of the vehicle.
That is a fair point. But then it just reveals that the comparison was contrived from the outset and there was no point to be made. It has never been the case that products in different markets were priced in coordination. The price is always whatever the market will bear, it has zero relationship to the cost to produce unless the market has a lot of competition.
> So, we probably need to make ads prohibitively expensive, and legally risky, such that the volume of them decreases dramatically.
i.e. those with lots of money get a lot of ad time and no one else gets any. I can think of a number of ways why this is inadvisable, across multiple axes, social, economic, and political.
Advertising is not particularly expensive as it is, go look up the "rate card" for your favorite broadcaster, even if you increased those rates by an order of magnitude they would still be approachable by most clients. You would also expect that if the cost of ads go up then the number of "avails" for them would go down.
Collective industry groups would advertise more and politicians would advertise a lot less.
A poor choice of words. They're so cheap now advertisers can spam the channel. That's the behavior you want to prohibit, not overall access, which again, even facing an order of magnitude increase, would still be viable.
They are completely ignoring the context of this whole thread, which exists because the highest court in the land (Kenyan land, that is) has affirmed that right.
Ggp's is as absurd as a North Korean commenting on a SCOTUS ruling on the right to a fair trial by saying "This is a new human right I didn't even know I had."
The rights of particular countries' citizens aren't usually construed with 'human rights.' I believe 'human rights' is of UN origin.
The rights of US citizens, for instance, don't currently apply to the folks getting deported. It's a big controversial point, but of course the rights of the constitution aren't guaranteed to some guy in France.
Human rights aren't those.
In this case, Kenyan citizens gained a right, not humans.
What are they, then? If you can name one, I'll find you a jurisdiction where that right is not respected.
Your (incorrect, IMO) definition of human rights based on the lowest common denominator whittles them down to nothing. Fundamentally I suspect what you and I are calling "human rights" is not the same thing at all.
> 1. A linear continuum (like wavelength for light) from "no autism" to "really bad autism"
This is the least helpful metaphor, when applied to anything with more than one dimension. "Really bad autism" can describe a multitude of unique symptoms.and is nearly information free, similar to describing someone as having "A really serious illness"
Generally under "really bad autism" is not meant as part of the spectrum of conditions, but a very narrow behavioral problem that parents have to deal with. The difference between what makes autistic person a "really bad autism" also differs for various social situations, so let's not go there...
> a very narrow behavioral problem that parents have to deal with
Let's not define autism in relation to what other people have to deal with. For years, autism has been discussed not in terms of what the autistic person experiences but what the people around them experience. That's kind of BS. Someone else being autistic isn't about you, it's about them.
You're welcome to talk about people with "high support needs", or people who have certain struggles in social situations, but discussing "really bad autism" just reinforces that negative stigma that autistic people shouldn't be thought of as people but rather as problems that "normal" people have to deal with.
The Perl community introduced the world to the first language module repositories via CPAN. No more manually hunting down tarballs off FTP servers
As a language, Perl is extremely expressive, which is amazing for one-off scripts, and awful for code that's meant to be shared and/or reread. For pure text-munging, Perl is still unbeaten, when using Perl-Compatible regexes in other languages, I feel the language getting in my way.
You can write easy-to-read Perl (TIMTOWTDI, and all that), but it doesn't force you like Go (small language size) or Python (by convention and culture, on what counts as 'Pythonic')
reply