I might not have built my car myself; but have made several after market upgrades to it. My current car features an after-market head unit and tire pressure sensors that I installed myself.
Computers are just the most obvious example because they are expensive, easy to assemble, and have a high markup (which can be obscured on Tim's like now, as there is a larger lag time for component price increases to effect them).
That can only go so far. Assuming there is no container/VM escape, most software is built to get used. You can protect yourself from malicious dependencies in the build step. But at some point, you are going to do a production build, that needs to run on a production system, with access to production data. If you do not trust your supply chain; you need to fix that.
If you excuse me, I have a list of 1000 artifacts I need to audit before importing into our dependency store.
There is a theory that primordial black holes formed in the very early universe. I'm not sure when this process would happen relative to the formation of atoms. But, if it actually happened, it would have been long before stars started forming.
Upto 0.7 per mile I think? That includes an allowance for depreciation so it's not really a true marginal cost, however for a moment let's assume it is. If the bus was $3 do you think it's wise that it's cheaper to drive a 4 mile journey than take a bus?
Most people are not ML researchers. Most of the AI industry is not AI researchers. Most of the AI spending is not going to AI researchers.
AI researchers came up with an architectural improvement that made a lot of previously impossible stuff barely possible. Then, industry ran with it. Scaling that particular trick to the limits by throwing as much raw compute and data at it as humanly possible.
You don't need to be an AI expert to know that there are probably more advances to be had and that funding foundational research is the way to get them.
IANAL, but I can imagine the prosecutor's pushback on that: "at what point did you attempt to straighten out your own lawyer about their misinterpretation of your evidence? Can you point us to the line in the transcript where you tried to explain the correct interpretation in court?"
Like, if my life was on the line, and my lawyer was screwing up my evidence, I think I'd try to point that out to someone.
Thank god that isn't the bar for ineffective assistance of counsel.
A vast majority of defendants don't know all the ins and outs of law... that's why we have a profession to deal in this domain. Asking the average defendant to check their counsel's work is ridiculous.
I disagree. Clients shouldn't be expected to know the ins and outs of legal procedure and rules of evidence and a million other things like that. I think they should be reasonable expected to say something when their attorney is making factual mistakes, like "when my client wrote this, they meant...", when the client knows that's not at all what they meant.
To give an example that might resonate to HN folks, suppose your attorney says "I know my client had a bunch of hacking tools on his computer, and that looks bad". Now suppose the laptop in question is your work-issues computer, and you work in pen testing, so you possess all of those for legitimate work-related reasons. I think it'd be hard to appeal on those grounds. "My attorney should have said something?" "You just sat there and went along with it, though." Appeals aren't meant to be an infinite series of do-overs were you get to relitigate every single thing you wish you'd said differently.
If your attorney messes up on legal issues, that's on them. When they mess up on the basic facts, and you don't say anything about it, I think that's kind of on you.
For starters, most attorneys won't allow their clients to utter a single word to law enforcement or on the court record.
Your proposal is that the client has to have enough of a grasp on the legal strategy related to self-incrimination that they could challenge and disregard their attorneys advice, in order to save themselves from something the attorney misinterpreted.
I personally think that's way too much to ask of a defendant. You even see the accused who are lawyers themselves just hire other lawyers and promptly stfu. Counsel always decides and implements the strategy.
No one would expect the defendant to address the court, but if you’re on trial and your counsel is screwing something up, you need to let them know. “Psst, hey, that’s not what I said.” So is the defendant claiming that their lawyer overrode their correction, to their disadvantage? Because, if not, they should have said something.
In this case, the file fails quickly. A pretest that consists of just attempting to load the file would have caught it. Minutes is more than enough time to perform such a check.
As far as I can tell, gotos are essential for maintainable c-code.
In particular, having an end label in a function that handles freeing intermediate variables that may or may not have been allocated is vital for functions with multiple (logical) return points. As are fail labels where appropriate.
Appropriate use of goto is literally written into the internal C style guide where I work. This is not about performance; it is entirely about avoiding memory bugs.
Maybe this will go away when defer becomes a thing. But seeing as people still target C99, that might take a while.
> Isn't it Wisconsin law that lets the Governor change any numeric digits in a law while it's on his or her desk?
Pretty close.
> (b) If the governor approves and signs the bill, the bill shall
become law. Appropriation bills may be approved in whole or
in part by the governor, and the part approved shall become law.
> (c) In approving an appropriation bill in part, the governor
may not create a new word by rejecting individual letters in the
words of the enrolled bill, and may not create a new sentence by
combining parts of 2 or more sentences of the enrolled bill
> Evers’s veto is part of a dubious Wisconsin tradition. In 1975, Gov. Patrick Lucey struck the word “not” from the phrase “not less than,” reversing its meaning. In the 1980s, Govs. Tony Earl and Tommy Thompson crossed out individual letters to create entirely new words. And in 2005, Gov. Jim Doyle reappropriated over $400 million from its intended use by striking all but 20 words from a 752-word passage, creating a new sentence bearing no resemblance to the language approved by the legislature.
Random trivia: Memes in that format are known as "speed of lobsters" memes, where you take a screenshot of some text/post/tweet/whatever and then delete/hide words and letters to make up completely different sentences.
I'm not in the US so I've no dog in this race only curiousity.
I can understand allowing a governor to change the text of a bill. But I cannot understand allowing them to sign those changes into law. It seems like that would mean they could creatively reverse the meaning of any bill.
It seems like a governor should be able to approve the text as written, or change it and send it back.
The original intention was to allow for what is called a "line-item veto." Let's say you had a bill (and this is not uncommon) with a lot of basically unrelated provisions. It creates programs A, B and C. This would allow the governor to approve A and C but not B, and would prevent the sort of "horse-trading" that legislators like to do ("I'll support your pet idea if you support mine").
That was the idea. But Wisconsin has twisted into something else entirely. Arguably, the idea was not a good one to begin with, anyway.
Okay that makes a kind of sense in the case stated but even there seems open to creative abuse in cases where those lines are not wholly independent. Thanks for the information.
Computers are just the most obvious example because they are expensive, easy to assemble, and have a high markup (which can be obscured on Tim's like now, as there is a larger lag time for component price increases to effect them).
reply