It's obvious. The harder you make it to down or hijack a plane, the fewer downed planes you will see. It didn't have to be perfect to prevent and deter. Some security is better than no security. If you had no security at all you would see planes go down all the time.
And it wouldn't surprise me if some of the detection technology were classified.
It would not be "great" if governments were more open about their detection capabilities; that would cause more terrorism attempts and is one of the stupidest things one could do here.
The LLM will know how the user operates, their proclivities and brain structure, and will design UX perfectly suited to them, like a bespoke glove. They won't have to learn anything, it will be like a butler.
Google loves to reinvent shit because they didn't understand it. And to get promo. In this case, ASN.1. And protobufs are so inefficient that they drive up latency and datacenter costs, so they were a step backwards. Good job, Sanjay.
Really dismissive and ignorant take from a bystander. Back it up with your delivery that does better instead of shouting with a pitchfork for no reason.
This bystander has been using protobufs for more than ten years. I'm not sure what I need to deliver since ASN.1, Cap'n Proto and Flatbuffers are all more efficient and exist already. ASN.1 was on the scene in 1984 and was already more efficient than protobufs.
Protobuf has far better ergonomics than ASN.1. ASN.1 is an overcomplicated design-by-committee mess. Backwards compatibility in particular is much harder.
I don't doubt your experience, but with X.509 having evolved substantially, and ASN.1 on billions (if not tens of billions) of devices, in practice it seems OK. And it was formally verified early.
ASN.1 on billions of devices doesn’t make it less of an anti-ergonomic, design-by-committee piece of crap. Unless your goal is to be binary-compatible with these devices, one should be free to explore alternatives.
By all means, keep using it, but it might be worth figuring out why other people don’t. Hint: it’s not because they’re more stupid than you or are looking to get promoted by big G.
(Personally, I like the ideas and binary encoding behind Capn Proto more than all the alternatives)
One of the advantages of of protobuf I never see anyone highlight is how neat and well-designed the wireformat is, in terms of backward/forward compatibility and lowlevel stuff you can do with it. Very useful when building big and demanding systems over time.
For high performance and critical stuff, SBE is much more suitable, but it doesn't have as good of a schema evolution story as protobuf.
Yeah, like a really shitty ancient version of bash. If that's what UNIX means to you, I'm not gonna yuck your yum, but what could be more UNIX like than letting license issues make life worse for your users.
These products are targeted towards high school teens and middle schoolers, carry a number of serious health risks, and anyone involved in making them can rot in hell.
The only realistic risk so far is addiction and a nicotine addiction doesn’t ruin lives. Other than that it’s marginally bad for the heart and so far atleast not carcinogenic.
> Nicotine in tobacco can form carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines through a nitrosation reaction. This occurs mostly in the curing and processing of tobacco. However, nicotine in the mouth and stomach can react to form N-nitrosonornicotine, a known type 1 carcinogen, suggesting that consumption of non-tobacco forms of nicotine may still play a role in carcinogenesis
The dose in urine is 1-3% of that of cigarette smokers so it is a significant, order of magnitude decrease in risk based on the paper another GP has posted below. In the mouth the levels also seem to be an order of magnitude lower than cigarette smokers (though similar in a majority of cases). Those are relatively acceptable risks for a vice I would think.
Nicotine gets metabolised into several compounds within the human body which are carcinogenic, even if pure nicotine in itself isn't.
Cancer risk is more complex than just carcinogens. Nicotine is known to promote the growth of existing cancer cells, and in multiple ways.
A big thing with cancer that not many people are aware of is that we all have cancer cells, and get new cancer cells all the time — but that the human immune system is normally effective at detecting and killing them before they have multiplied too much. Old cancer mutations can lay dormant or kept in check for many years, but if promoted and/or the immune system gets stressed or suppressed, they'd grow and you'd "get cancer".
Different types of E-juice also contain additives for flavour, and we still don't yet know the long-term effects of some of those — when ingested as vape — which is a different to being swallowed. And by long-term, I mean 20 years or more, which in some cases is the time a cancer cell can take from formation to detectable tumour.
As stated by a sibling comment, at least the carcinogenicity part isn't true. Unfortunately, even nicotine gum should be carcinogenic (and is of course not intended to be used for consumption besides of alleviating withdrawal effects).
You cannot say "better" in this context without an almost endless degree of quantification that could fill textbooks. By what metric? Public health? Cost effectiveness? Environmental impact? How do we measure these things? I assume you're arguing a health perspective (which, at this point all we can say is probably better), but in the context of TFA "better" is more likely to be interpreted in an environmental context, of which I haven't really been convinced either way.
And it wouldn't surprise me if some of the detection technology were classified.
It would not be "great" if governments were more open about their detection capabilities; that would cause more terrorism attempts and is one of the stupidest things one could do here.
reply