I wrote this some years back and used it to help me find a job. It is dead-simple and definitely not as fancy as some of the other browsers. But it is purely local and your data doesn't leave your machine.
I'm reading the transcript and it's interesting. There must be a transcription process done by someone who is not one of the participants of the conversation. Perhaps automated but (roughly) vetted by a human afterwards.
> When the iPod shipped originally, it only worked on _max_ and it used the HFS plus file system, which was Apple’s file system. And then at some point they said most of the world uses Windows. And so we want to be able to sell a Windows version too. And so we added support for _Phat 32_ so that you could hook the iPod up to a Windows.
Hi, podcast host here. I got the transcript done through rev.com and didn't proof read it because usually they are pretty solid. That was a mistake, I am fixing it right now.
"You use one less gate, if you do it little NDN rather than big NDN and so Intel and I guess arm chose little NDN because it used slightly less hardware"
I understand what you are saying about copying someone to learn. I'm just not sure I agree it applies to digital media or bits especially in the exact same context (in response to the same article).
Given he's a UK prof if he was told the paper was given an 'A' in the UK that can be anywhere from 70-100, while in the US it is 90-100. He might have initially split the difference, and then corrected it/was corrected for the article.
I really did not enjoy getting 40% on every test in math and physics and receiving a B. I do not feel like I learned the material that well. My very first freshman mechanics midterm grade, a 67, was an A+, and gave me a false sense of adequacy. Maybe they could figure out how to teach better?
It's perfectly human to want to pass with a perfect score, but this undermines the purpose of a test.
A test which has a significant fraction of scores at the right side of the distribution has saturated the range: there are differences in comprehension and mastery between one 100% and another, which aren't being measured by the test.
The platonic form of a perfect test would have exactly one student per class who got every question correct, but that's impossible to reach except by luck. So a teacher is stuck between writing a test which is too difficult for everyone, and one which is too easy for a substantial fraction of the class. They should pick the first over the second.
While that can feel frustrating (I know, I've been there!) it's likely that you in fact learned the material better than you would have in a class where your level of mastery allowed you to score perfectly for an A+ and in the mid 80s for a B.
> So a teacher is stuck between writing a test which is too difficult for everyone, and one which is too easy for a substantial fraction of the class.
No, the teacher is not stuck here. It is rarely the purpose of an academic test to plot students on a wide distribution. That’s just something fun for teachers to do to look for exceptional students.
If the purpose of a test is to determine if an individual student passes some bar of understanding, then there is absolutely no reason to make it extremely difficult and then give A’s to those who got >50% correct.
You aren't supposed to learn everything in one semester. You are supposed to make adequate progress, and the tests are broad enough to catch as much as possible of what you've learned.
When I held the information security basics course back in the university, I always made sure the grading scale was included on the exam sheet. 55% to pass, 95% for top grade.
Because of its wide applicability to business environments overall, the course was mandatory for some non-CS students. And boy, they hated it.
I assure you neither "high priced" nor "private" are necessary for this. In fact, those institutions have more to lose for doing so than a "low price public US university"
Those private US universities are actually free. Their endowments are large enough they can provide 100% tuition aid if you can't afford them. The problem is getting in.
I thought the same thing. Through the twitter thread references a magazine article, while the original article on talks about "something [he] wrote", so they might be different pieces.
EDIT: Or the imposter gave the interview and added a mark up ;)
Having done tertiary coursework in both the UK and the US, I can tell you that it's much much much more difficult to get an 80 in the UK than a 95 in the US. Even a 70 is hard. A 70 is like an A in the US thirty years ago.
It's funny you read it that way, you may understand it correctly but I came away with a different interpretation, that they allow-listed the developer's IP and returned good non-phishing-warning responses to the monitoring check, but not to end-users.
They said their test scripts worked but people using Chrome got an error. So I take that as in their scripts weren't using Chrome at all.
To be fair, I've not had this happen yet so I am going to try and find a site that chrome won't let me visit and see what happens when I visit it programmatically.
When that warning page is thrown, is a 200 returned?
It could “load” ok, but be blocked by a flag for chrome that isn’t http flag.
Total guess.
Anyone have any insight on that page showing up?
After a bunch of searching I found a test URL. https://testsafebrowsing.appspot.com/s/malware.html via my Chrome script I get a 500. And when ignoring it in chrome manually it returns a 200 so the web url works.
This is totally an edge case I didn't even think of until I read that blog. Super happy that my monitoring approach picks up on it.
For others wanting to do the same I'm using chromedp. It does take up way more resources tho. I worked out I can do 90 per minute per 8-core 16gb server.
I read about half of this post and I've paused there. It screams to me "Let's have a Universal Basic Income" already.
> And one day your wife calls you and tells you the water is off, and there’s nothing you can do; maybe some family member can help you out, or maybe you live without utilities for a week or so until you get paid and start the next pay cycle that much more behind.
These are people with children we are talking about. Why can't there be simple equity for these beings who are facing their demise through no fault of their own? Like seriously, WTF?
I want to support:
- sustainable electronics
- living wages
- right to repair
- removal of slave labor from any supply chain I am involved in
What do I have to do to make this happen?
--
> When I’m trying to explain to my sons how a company decides what to pay someone, it usually goes something like this: A company is looking to pay a person as little as they can and keep them, so a person’s pay is determined by how rare their skills are and how much demand there is for those skills.
> [...]
> This isn’t evil on anyone’s part, and you shouldn’t feel bad about it - I’ve made a lot of choices in my life that led to this point and I have a lot of responsibility in terms of where I find myself.
_Yes it is evil._ I'm sure we cannot exist as a fundamentally secure, sane, healthy, fair, equitable, respectful, productive, diverse, healthy, robust society until this rot is done away with once and for all.
>It screams to me "Let's have a Universal Basic Income" already.
I don't think people want poor people to exist. However no-one has solved the supply side of "Give everyone free money". Every time I ask if someone has actually figured out how to do this that isn't 3-4 times the current Federal Budget you get a bunch of hand waving.
Handing everyone $10,000/year (not even UBI levels) requires gathering $10,000/year in either service cuts, or increased taxation.
Even if we presume everyone over the poverty line gets $10,000 added to their taxes to cancel the benefit out. That still leaves us with a $10,000 hole for every person under the poverty line.
12.5% of American's live below the poverty line. That's 41,025,000 people. Which is an insane number. The $10,000 a year would be around $410 billion per year.
So if America eliminated the Military budget, they could pay for $10,000 to each person below the poverty line... however odds are laying off 70% of the Military would result in more people living below the poverty line.
It's possible, however no-one wants to highlight what 410 billion dollars a year can be cut from a budget, or who wants to pay 410 billion dollars a year in extra taxes.. additionally that number is based on a _very_ low amount of $10,000. If you wanted to hand out top ups to the poverty line in America it would cost even more money.
Choose one of those and focus on it. Make a campaign around it, create a Facebook group. Study the topic and argue for it and finally try and get elected to make a change.
