Re: Wandering totally offtopic
To me it's WFH. First time I've seen WAH is in the post I'm replying to.
864 publicly visible posts • joined 7 Jan 2015
See https://what-if.xkcd.com/73/ for the reference on lethal dose of neutrinos from supernovas.
They need full volume because these days they hold the mic to their ears...
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/07/13/no_seriously_why_are_you_holding_your_phone_like_that/
The Ecole Normale Supérieure is actually the golden highway for future politicians and high-level functionaries.
Its primary mission still is to train high-level academics (teachers, researchers), hence the large number of Nobel Prize recipients for the science-oriented ENS. The training of high-level civil servants is more recent.
Ecole Normale just used to be a generic name for the institutions in charge of forming teachers.
From the WP article:
Trump sent hundreds of emails last year to White House aides, Cabinet officials and her assistants using a personal account, many of them in violation of federal records rules [...]
she often discussed or relayed official White House business using a private email account.[...]
Trump used her personal account to discuss government policies and official business fewer than 100 times — often replying to other administration officials who contacted her through her private email, according to people familiar with the review.
Another category of less-substantive emails may have also violated the records law: hundreds of messages related to her official work schedule and travel details that she sent herself and personal assistants who cared for her children and house,[...]
Trump continued to occasionally use her personal email in her official capacity [...]
Trump had used her personal email for official business far more frequently than known, according to people familiar with the administration’s review.[...] “She was the worst offender in the White House,”
That's true for O365 webmail (and can be changed in a single click). In Outlook the Reply and Reply-All buttons are the same size, Ctrl-R is just Reply, you need Ctrl-Shift-R for Reply-All.
Actually 95% or so of my replies are Reply-All, so I wouldn't mind it being the default. I just happen to know when I'd better do a simple Reply and when I should put recipients in Bcc (rarely, as part of my job).
But sure, let's blame the tool rather than the users who still can't grasp a few simple concepts 20+ years after the email entered our daily lives.
If sending to more than three people (or more than 1 domain) then any decent client should default to BCC
In my organization we frequently have triparty exchanges where everyone could contribute. BCC-ing everyone would just make it impossible for people to know who they need to reply to. But I agree there should be a soft or hard cap on the number of recipients, above 10 you can be almost sure that some people don't belong in a discussion.
that they were able to steal just from credentials stuffing.
I'm on the UK version of the website, if I log in without 2FA, the only information I'll be able to access is my account numbers, those of my payees, my transaction history and my postal address (the latter by downloading a statement). All other information (email address, DoB, phone number..) is protected by 2FA, so the security of the US website must be absolutely terrible if that's not the case.
Here's what it says, how do I figure out what encryption it's using?
Disk volumes that can be protected with
BitLocker Drive Encryption:
Volume C: [OSDisk]
[OS Volume]
Size: 165.60 GB
BitLocker Version: 2.0
Conversion Status: Fully Encrypted
Percentage Encrypted: 100.0%
Encryption Method: AES 256
Protection Status: Protection On
Lock Status: Unlocked
Identification Field: Unknown
Key Protectors:
Numerical Password
TPM And PIN
True in a sense, but the assumption behind disk encryption is "Losing a drive is bad, but if it's encrypted then recovering the data without the key should be near impossible". My company downplays the severtity of laptop/phone losses when the device was off and Bitlocker enabled.
The article shows that some implementations leave you vulnerable to 'easy' data recovery even if encryption is enabled.
Re: Pascal, you should look into his contributions in fields of mathematics and physics.
There were also the Louis Pasteur, the Marie and Pierre Curie, and the Gustave Eiffel (ok,this one was more an engineer than a pure scientist). All in all, scientists were not that underrepresented on banknotes.
Maybe that's a case of "finding the solution is hard, but checking it is easy"? Say the AI is right 50% of the time, in those 50% cases you can quickly confirm the solution, in the other 50% you're back to the classic method but have hardly wasted any time.
"Because you're confusing macro with micro."
I'm not confusing anything. I know full well that if I'm the one behind the wheel, I'll choose to save my kid and sacrifice 5 strangers. This doesn't change the fact that the society would be better off if self-driving cars ruled the roads.
"The Trolley Problem tends to force the "you" part of the problem."
And this is precisely why it's pointless to try to solve it for the whole population.
How was El Al 1862 a trolley problem? As you said, the plane lost 2 engines, became uncontrollable and finally crashed in a tower. It doesn't appear that the pilots had to make a decision of whether to crash into the tower or the nearby school/hospital/prison/lawyers' office.
and NO ONE wants to be the victim of a drunk driver.
Over the last decades, road casualties have largely decreased, thanks to better cars, tighter regulations on speed and drugs and a general awareness that the road is not a jungle. Now we can achieve another step by removing the human factor. There will still be casualties because no algorithm is perfect, but we can get pretty close to 0.
As others have pointed out, stick to a few simple rules and don't try have a solution to all situations: protect the passengers (they have put their trust in the car), stay on the road, brake, don't swerve.
Doctors face difficult choices every day, and our societies as a whole have accepted that not everyone can always be saved, however hard it is for the dead's families. Why wouldn't we accept it for cars?
@Spazturtle
in order to avoid a tree that has suddently materialized in front of your car (*), leaving you no time to brake but just enough to swerve towards the pavement.
(*) yes, the tree is a joke, but there have been recent reports of idle youths in Morocco throwing big rocks from bridges onto approaching cars, so it's not entirely hypothetical.
@Voyna i Mor
Bang on.
No 1 root cause for accidents lie between the wheel and the brakes. Eliminate that and you will make the roads statistically much safer.
An autonomous car follows the road rules, doesn't drive when tired or under the influence, doesn't think it drives better than the other cars, and can react much faster than a human to an obstacle appearing in front of it.
All these trolley problem variants are extremely marginal situations, and whatever their outcomes the number of victims will be peanuts compared to the lives saved by self-driving cars.
That's the problem with these binary choices, they don't allow for much nuance. In the 'young vs. elderly' situation, people will assume the elderly is a pensioner whose costs to the society (pension, health...) outweigh their current contribution, whereas the young person still has a lot of potential.
Note that another scenarios favors the higher status (which often correlates positively to contribution to society) or executive-type persons.
Also, if your 'selfie-taking, facebooking, instagramming twerp' is jaywalking, they'll be categorized as 'unlawful' and deservedly Darwinated.
Tried it also last year. Went quite smoothly with RoyalMail, although the photo ID verification was done with low quality selfies that bore little resemblance to my passport picture.
Then SWMBO tried it and failed. Tried again once or twice, making sure the photos were as crisp as possible and matched her passport hairstyle. Fail again. Tried another provider, failed again and gave up.
Gave me zero confidence in their verification process.
Fortunately, someone has been keeping count:
Surely you're able to tell the difference between "our servers were attacked by this widely available toolkit, so we have no idea who's behind it" and "Dutch police find 4 Russian guys with diplomatic passports, in a Lada with WiFi antennas directed at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons headquarters"?
Next step is to teach them arithmetics: