This comments and many of the others on this thread strike me as written by people who have either never worked at a real restaurant and/or tend to order bland and fatty food (eat like a toddler) by default when they patronize restaurants.
This is fine but really not reflective of good restaurants and the majority of the food they serve.
What do you mean? Even in the linked article, the food critics consistently pointed out that restaurants make food very rich so that it's more appealing. And how they suffered from eating so much rich food.
Because they cost time and money to implement and there is no incentive to avoid data breaches. This should be up to legislation, if we as a society actually care about privacy we need to give data privacy laws some teeth and start really enforcing them.
I’m sorry but sometimes it’s not money, it’s employees who are malevolently careless. Yes, you can spend huge sums of money locking up their computer so much that it would require 5 or 10 people to do the job of one because they only have a text editor, but we should also get into law that installing a remote desktop incurs liability on the employee side. I won’t say get the company off the hook, but employees are actively malevolent.
Maybe you should trust information from FEMA for instance? Or just the Department of Homeland Security in general? While there is certainly an aspect of consumerism in some prepper communities the actually serious people tend to default to advice given by actual authorities that deal with disasters in the real world. Serious preppers tend to focus more on rotating their potable water supplies and making sure the backup batteries are charged than buying whatever tacticool new PDW is being marketed on instagram
https://www.ready.gov/ Is the most obvious resource and has a whole bunch of valuable information.
Ahh yes two decades ago there was some issues. This clearly makes any disaster preparedness advice from this organization totally useless. You know what while we are at it we should all reject libraries, freeways, the park service, and the postal service as I am sure at some point all these institutions had a clear and public failure and that obviously totally invalidates anything else they do.
Runoff from mining? Activist groups I'm sympathetic to have been screaming for years about certain types of mining specifically open pit mining obliterating watersheds. At a guess I would say either new mining interests are being developed around the relevant rivers in Alaska or old mining interests are being improperly decommissioned. Either way id bet my guess is right or close to right.
Why? How is that relevant? Isnt it well established that open source security research is the number one way to have a secure app/ecosystem? Why should tooling be kept secret when another team can potentially find more exploits using these/similar techniques?
> The sole possession of hardware, software or other tools that can be used to commit cybercrime can constitute a criminal offence according to Sec. 202c of the German Criminal Code.
Well that is kinda the point of these vague laws. Just like they eventually nailed Al Capone with taxes in the US - if you can't hit someone directly, you can hit them with the "three felonies a day".
I'm German... our politicians, at least most of them are a bunch of pathologically technologically incompetent buffoons. A lot of that was masked during the Merkel era because she herself was a literal nuclear physics doctorate, but now that she's gone, it's painfully obvious what's going on.
Except §202c StGB https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st... isn't actually vague. The simple reason it doesn't outlaw compilers is that compilers aren't built for the purpose of giving unauthorized access to other people's data, even though they can help achieve that aim.
It's similar to how weapons designed to be used against people are regulated differently from tools that merely happen to be usable as weapons.
In the concrete case of sharing tools to explore the attack surface of KakaoTalk, this is not a crime under §202c StGB as long as you do not intend them to be used to hack accounts you do not own.
The burden of proof is supposed to be the other way around, as presumption of innocence is a thing in Germany (Unschuldsvermutung).
Good luck to the prosecution trying to prove that you did intend to hack other people's accounts when you can point to this blog post where the author demonstrates hacking their own account and reports the vulnerability to get it fixed.
I think people who get convicted of one of the "preparation to commit a crime" crimes mostly:
1. fail to come up with any alternative explanation for their behavior
2. put their plans in writing or told someone about their intentions
> The burden of proof is supposed to be the other way around, as presumption of innocence is a thing in Germany (Unschuldsvermutung).
Theoretically.
Unfortunately, judges who are actually fit in IT topics are rare, especially in the criminal courts. They tend to rather believe what the prosecutor tells them. I'm just happy we don't have US-style juries because that would be even worse given our collective love as a society for faxes and writing information on highly processed dead trees (i.e. paper).
That is not in fact well-established at all, though as someone who came up through vuln research I expect we have similar takes on the public policy of vuln and exploit disclosure.
Work is half of your waking day 5 days out of 7 - it’s probably your primary source of face time whether you like it or not. You might have more valuable face time elsewhere (family, friends, hobbies) but those 40-50 hours should probably be taken more seriously than they are.
How would thinking be determined by exterior stimulus, when we all vary to some extent to the same stimulus? Behaviorism was found wanting because it didn't account properly for goes on between the ears. And the rest of the body, which makes us individuals. The idea of free will comes from the fact that people do make different choices. We make different choices than our past selves did. From a compatibilist perspective, one could say free will comes from being part of determining what goes on. Things don't just happen to us. We participate in what does happen. We're not simply puppets on the string of the external world. We're just as much a part of causing things as everything else is.
> How would thinking be determined by exterior stimulus, when we all vary to some extent to the same stimulus?
Because, and this may shock you: we are not all the same person
You make an excellent point that people respond differently to a given stimulus. This is explained by those people having had different genetics, environments, upbringings and even breakfasts leading up to the point of the test. It has been demonstrated that your metabolic state will vastly change your response to stimuli throughout a day.
I ate something different for breakfast today than yesterday because one sounded tastier than the other. I made this decision not because I have an eternal soul making randomized decisions like a roulette machine but because yesterday I craved salty food and today yogurt sounded better. I am different person today than I was yesterday. My gut, brain and everything else has been changed by all the stimulus I experienced yesterday and is now influencing my responses today.
"Clearly" refers to the obviousness or self-evidence of the statement. In this context, "just" means "similarly" or "in the same way," or ig "exactly" if you like.
"Clearly" because exterior stimuli clearly influence both thinking and feeling, a concept supported by common experience and scientific understanding of human cognition and emotions.
Theres actually a ton of different ways. The most obvious is probably MRIs of which many have been conducted with the subject having a huge variety of different stimulus. Then theres the good old fashioned behavioral studies ranging from the classic "does the subject jerk their hand back in the presence of heat?" to the more recent hungry judge phenomenon.
I wouldnt think the fairly self evident assertion that exterior stimulus changes both the internal state of a person as well as their behavior would be controversial.
At this point in history "free will" is really just the god of the gaps and those gaps shrink every year. Its probably a useful religious concept but as far as reality goes its the least interesting question one could ask about the whole human experience.
Well, above you seem to be describing "how things are". What if what you're describing is not the things themselves, but rather only a model of the things?
Like, where are the details of how you are "measuring" these things? And what measurement instrument returns values like "is clearly" and "is really just"? I can think of only one.
Still not entirely sure what exactly youre getting at here.
Yes what I am describing is my opinion which I have formed from looking at evidence. My opinion isnt really a measurement in the sense that one can measure activity in parts of a brain with an MRI. It is really just the state of the system.
I'm not really interested in abstract epistemological definitions of free will because they arent useful in the way that neurology psychology and biology are generally. I am interested in predicting or explaining behavior or observations mostly. You might be interested in that kind of exploration which is great! If you think it does have bearing on such things I am totally interested in hearing how.
Have you an opinion on whether your opinion is necessarily true?
> If you think it does have bearing on such things I am totally interested in hearing how.
I happen to believe humans have > 0 free will, and that if we do it derives from cognition, at least primarily. If this is the case, I believe that it would be advantageous to be able to exert control over cognition on demand. I also believe that doing something often requires trying to do it, and that if one doesn't think something can be done, it decreases the chances that one will try to do it, in turn decreasing the chances that it gets done.
I believe this to be > 0 "true", and that it has extremely broad applicability.
So yeah I dont disagree with you that attempting to exert control over oneself is a desirable thing or that it generally results in things that wouldnt have happened if one didnt work to have control over ones cognition, behavior etc. This isn't at all at odds with my deterministic view in my opinion.
I guess what I am asking is what is causing you to exert control over cognition?
I would say its the sum of too many variables to count (including previous states of the system) acting on you to cause you, the system to be in such a state that that is just what it does. Given enough time and resources we could probably come up with a half decent accounting of the most important of those variables and be able to explain why the system is doing a given thing. In this example that means explaining why the system is modifying its own state in some way.
What would you say is the cause?
> Have you an opinion on whether your opinion is necessarily true?
Yes my opinion is that my opinion is likely true as I believe it is supported by evidence. I would bet on it but I am not certain about it.
> ...or that it generally results in things that wouldnt have happened if one didnt work to have control over ones cognition, behavior etc. This isn't at all at odds with my deterministic view in my opinion.
Can you explain how it is not? As I see it, my theory is directly breaking out of determinism.
> I guess what I am asking is what is causing you to exert control over cognition?
Consciousness (self-awareness, will & determination, etc...the "how" of which I make no claims of knowledge about). I absolutely agree that it is substantially out of our control and thus at least semi-deterministic, where we would differ (at least) is on the 100% part.
Yes it is indeed possible that in that small and shrinking gap of behavior that isnt explained by some complex set of circumstances and stimuli there lies some magic immaterial soul that grants the ineffable quality of free will. Bbbut since we have yet to find any evidence for such a thing I wouldnt keep my hopes up. Also theres much more interesting questions to be asking.
Well most of the explanations I personally am interested in have a public and therefore high epistemic value. Since they are published and repeatable. Certain behavioral tests or self-report surveys on the other hand have lower value because of the private nature of what were intending to test. They still have some value though.
Private experiences may be very important for individuals and like I said elsewhere, free-will is certainly a useful idea in religious contexts. I do not believe this has any bearing on practical matters such as our ability to predict or understand the actions taken by any given system such as humans or computers.
> Well most of the explanations I personally am interested in have a public and therefore high epistemic value. Since they are published and repeatable.
Are you saying that these two claims have some sort of scientific ~proofs:
1.Thinking isn't even a path to "free will".
2a. Thinking is pretty clearly determined by exterior stimulus
2b. just like feeling is.
Note: a definition for "determined by" (in percentage of total causality) would be required in the specification, as would a non-ambiguous definition for "just like".
> Are you saying that these two claims have some sort of scientific ~proofs
No. I think this statement is a conclusion only indirectly supported by scientific fact. This is a logical leap from more and more behaviors and internal states being correlated with various external stimulus over time. I believe it only a matter of time until it becomes entirely possible (though silly and will likely not be done because it only serves to prove a foregone conclusion and would be a unfathomably huge undertaking) to provide a complete accounting of all the factors that influence a system bringing it to the state where it reacts in a given way to some stimulus.
The only other conclusion I can see is that human beings are not deterministic and there is some magical spark IE everlasting soul making randomized decisions for us.
This is fine but really not reflective of good restaurants and the majority of the food they serve.