Adding to this wishlist, if it were available on Windows then it would be an option for a cross-platform webview widget, but it hasn’t supported it for a while now.
Is there a good example, doc, or is it even a thing, to use GraalVM Isolates to defend against Java supply chain attacks, nevermind other languages? I guess it might be possible, going by a comment on another thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38278131 but require careful construction of anything you'd want to have only the capabilities you pass to it?
(Naive questions, apologies, I should really learn by trying it out instead!)
I believe it should work with any other Graal language (currently, JS, Python are the bigger ones and Sulong can run LLVM bytecode. There is also Espresso, which runs “java on top of java”, making it also eligible for these security boundaries).
I don’t think it is too commonly used yet, but yeah, it can even do stuff like limit CPU usage within an isolate, so it should be more than possible to limit the scope of such an attack.
To be precise, the US does have life+70 for works published after 1978. The rest of the world went that route and the US begrudgingly followed, but the works published before the switchover date are grandfathered into the old system. The US copyright regime is a real rats' nest of complexity, see https://guides.library.cornell.edu/copyright/publicdomain
I've always liked the visual effect of the East Asian typographic rule that commas and periods at the end of a line hang. Makes the entire block of text look better aligned.[1] Probably matters more for text in those languages since the width of normal text characters doesn't vary as much as Latin text characters do.
e. More to the specifics of its use in CSS, it looks like Safari doesn't support the attribute to aggressively follow that rule,[2] as in the bottom right example of the previously linked image.
In addition to what the sibling comment said, the developer does in fact have a recourse to the legal system, which they wrote that they are preparing to make use of. Attempts to analogize the TOS dispute mechanisms of companies to the legal system frequently fail to note that, at least where money is involved, they exist within the legal system, not in a bubble.
I think it might become a little more useful in some contexts at least once ECH gets wider adoption. In that case afaik only the DNS server and the remote host you’re connecting to would know what FQDN you're connecting to—anyone else would only see the IP of the remote host. If the host serves requests for lots of different FQDNs, that’s less information going around.
Of possible interest to HNers, kinship terminology of different cultures is a subject that has a very elegant taxonomy. It was a major line of inquiry in early modern sociology, which tried to link other attributes of how societies were structured to how they named relations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinship_terminology
Something I find sad about this is that many people really don’t know how to think about themselves in that context; in this way we aren’t a someone to other people so much as a something.
I know this isn’t a firm rule, but there are many people in my life who I’m certain wouldn’t have a good grasp of how they fit into their family and community beyond fairly superficial platitudes.
Maybe this has been true in the past as well. I wouldn’t know.
Back then almost everyone was a peasant so you wouldn't get any information about their interests, social status, etc. from just their career like you (somewhat) do now.
People still do this in small US towns. Your last name defines who you are to the town heritage. If you have the wrong last name, then you don't matter.
As non-contrarian as it sounds, I'd argue that as someone who came from a small town, having to define yourself by your "tribe" last name is worse, because if it the "wrong" last name, there's nothing you can do about it. You can, within reason, change what you do for a living.
Sure, I could logically make that connection. But I guess comparing it to something like Nigerian where all friends/family of an equal level are "brother"/"sister" or higher level "aunty"/"uncle", it seems weird to see English flattened so much. The language is specific to level (grand), node depth (x removed) and colinears (brother, sister, cousin, 2nd cousin, etc) that you can accurately describe pretty much any lineage.
When you compare it like that, it gets the author's point across even better to show how the language and culture play into each other. That being that anglophone cultures are very cold/distant to the importance of family on your life, outside of social convention (and how important that structure/convention is); while others (Hawaiian or Nigerian, for instance) treat family as a fluid and inviting unit of kinship.
You see this in the more "warm cultured" English regions (a good chunk of the US, Australia, etc) where it's common to refer to family friends as "aunt"/"uncle", or "cousin"; almost in defiance of the linguistic history.
In other words, I think the topic is fascinating and deserves even more depth compared to how it was broken down there.
> I guess comparing it to something like Nigerian where all friends/family of an equal level are "brother"/"sister" or higher level "aunty"/"uncle", it seems weird to see English flattened so much.
I don’t know what you mean by ‘Nigerian’, but that sounds to me like a Hawaiian kinship system, which is different to the Eskimo kinship system found in English.
> The language is specific to level (grand), node depth (x removed) and colinears (brother, sister, cousin, 2nd cousin, etc) that you can accurately describe pretty much any lineage.
My understanding of the kinship system classifications is that they’re focussed on the most basic terms. You can refer to ‘my mother’s father’s sister’s son’ in pretty much any language, but it’s most interesting to see which terms are considered basic (because that in turn reveals ‘how language and culture play into each other’, as you say).
Interestingly, when we were hosting some Ukrainian refugees recently, "sister" or "brother" could refer to a literal sibling or a cousin. I was unaware of different kinship terminologies until today (thanks again, HN), but that kind of nomenclature is similar to the Hawaiian system.
The answerer does say that either the perfect past (Latin’s closest to -ed) or the pluperfect past (Latin’s closest to had -ed) would work, they just chose perfect past. Maybe that choice was because the perfect past has a sense of finality that English’s simple past doesn’t, so it isn’t necessary to reach deeper into the sequence of tenses as it is in English.
The term FUD makes sense in low-risk applications where the benefit of the doubt ought to be given. In safety-critical contexts it should be completely reversed, and confidence, certainty and trust should be looked at extremely critically.
Human drivers kill 30,000+ per year in the US alone. Development of an automated driving option is a safety-critical context, and that requires real-world deployment experience.
The precautionary principle is not what is called for here.
Your argument has the form of: "We have to do something. This is something, therefore we have to do this."
You've failed to establish automated driving as a safer alternative, let alone the best practical solution. The fact that these cars can't even move out of the way of emergency vehicles proves they aren't ready for testing on the public now.
> requires real-world deployment experience.
Not at this stage it doesn't. They haven't exhausted the utility of simulated training and training on closed courses. They're testing on the public (human experimentation without informed consent) because it's cheaper and they can get away with it, not because they must.
> And you've failed to establish anything as a safer alternative.
I don't have, but since you've asked here are some possibilities, pick and choose as many as you like: ban cars, mandate breathalyzer interlocks, revise safety standards, improve collision avoidance systems in human-driven cars.
> Get out of the way of the people who are trying to make things better, please
Trying to make things better doesn't give you license to actually make things worse. Good intentions don't count if I think what you're trying is actually making things worse.
I believe you’re citing a stat corresponding to the number of traffic fatalities. That doesn’t mean in all of those cases one person killed another as you implied. For example if someone dies after drunk driving and crashes themselves into a tree that doesn’t seem right to say “the driver killed someone”
> As well as being genetically related, Langley says it’s likely that the people who inhabited these islands in the Pleistocene era, 12,000 years ago, had “an image of an inter-island ‘community of practice’ with shared values and worldviews”.
How can you determine that from a poorly attested material culture? The way it’s worded makes me deeply suspicious that it’s backporting the doctrine of Indonesian national unity into the Stone Age.
My impression is that Indonesian people aren't under any delusions that the country matches any specific historical borders. They're well aware that their country's borders are a product of colonization.
That said, it seems to me like there's increasing evidence that the Austronesian expansion was more than just random refugees getting swept to different islands by fluke storms as is sometimes implied. There is wooden pole art all around the pacific rim, DNA evidence in south america, linguistic evidence in south america, and now this. It seems reasonable to suspect that the austronesian expansion was supported by a series of large trade networks and societies that provided logistical support for the expansion.
