Eisenstein

Joined 4 years ago

Karma
4,663
Submissions
2,973
Member since
Feb 28
View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 10 days ago
I think the concept is exactly the same. When you detect something, that means you have found the ones that made a mistake or got unlucky enough to get caught. You must assume that some haven't.

Not every malicious actor is a financially driven crypto-miner or credential stealer. It seems likely that some exploits are going to be sat on or used in a highly targeted manner such that we may never know they exist.

Comment · 10 days ago
When they catch a shipment of drugs being smuggled across the border, do they say 'we got them all'? You have to assume for every number X that you intercept, you miss X * Y.
Comment · 10 days ago
It would be nice if you weren't dismissive and belittling. You know there are a lot of good conversations we could be having about the role of firearms in American life, but it seems like whenever the topic comes up, it turns into this debate where facts are pulled out and theories proclaimed and no one is convincing anyone of anything because we aren't talking about anything productive. Do you really, honestly think that that convenience isn't a huge factor when you know that any extra click in an payment process will lose a percentage of potential purchasers, or that a tool designed to be incredibly good at one thing isn't better at doing that thing than something designed for something completely different that can accomplish the same thing if someone is motivated enough? Of course not. Why are you acting as if they are ridiculous?

Let's sit down and have a productive discussion about how we can actually move forward and do practical things to reduce gun violence. I have some ideas:

1. Reporting for lost and stolen firearms: stolen firearms go into the illegal market and make everyone more unsafe. If personal responsibility is the crux of safety, isn't this a no brainer?

2. Training for concealed carry: have you driven on the road with other people? Would you want those people aiming a gun at a crowd of people in a panic situation trying to get a bead on a shooter if they have only fired their weapon twice in their life?

What do you think? Let's drop the patronizing tone and the made up 'what if' arguments and talk about this seriously.

Comment · 11 days ago
> Somehow, suburbs both have the best amenities and the lowest taxes but they are unsustainable?

The best amenities? What does that mean, specifically?

> In reality, since suburbs have low crime, the policing is cheap.

Are you sure?

"The average spending on police for jurisdictions with more than one million people was 10 percent in 2017. The average for jurisdictions with fewer than 50,000 people was 13 percent."

- https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative...

> But somehow the large city next door, with billions in debt and all the jobs (and thus the payroll taxes) has terrible services and terrible schools.

Not sure what that has to do with the sustainability of suburbs.

> I think you just don't like suburbs and will twist your logic into knots to claim a rational reason for it. Truth is, you just don't like suburbs. Most people do, get over it.

That has nothing to do with whether what they are arguing is correct or not.

Comment · 15 days ago
> but we’re comparing a death rate of 14/100,000 to 10/100,000 which really isn’t that different

Its 40% more.

> As for other acts such as domestic disputes, fists are far more prevalent because the intent is rarely to kill, and all households have knives if the intent is to kill, so I’m not sure if firearms are a major factor in the actual rate of disputes.

It wouldn't be a factor in the rate of disputes, it would be a factor in a dispute that turned into deadly one as opposed to not.

> Firearms do not increase suicidal ideation nor intention, they merely provide a more fatal means to do so

They are also extremely convenient and instant.

> So I really don’t consider the argument that restricting a population from firearms is good just due to that

I don't think people are making that argument.

> As for #1, cars are still widely accessible,

Cars are only practical for killing more than a few people when there are large, condensed crowds with road access into them.

> and those who go on murder sprees would have far worse chances if more people carried weapons for self-defense.

"But armed bystanders shooting attackers was not common in the data — 22 cases out of 433. In 10 of those, the “good guy” was a security guard or an off-duty police officer."

"It was twice as common for bystanders to physically subdue the attackers, often by tackling or striking them."

- https://portside.org/node/28842/printable/print

> Do you have a meaningful way to protect yourself if you were attacked? You should, your safety is a God-given right that only you can properly defend in the heat of the moment.

That is not a strong argument for anyone who doesn't feel that they will be likely in a situation which requires them to kill someone for their own safety.

Comment · 18 days ago
Comment · 20 days ago
I think it is appropriate to invoke 'in loco parentis' for this.
Comment · 21 days ago
Would 'regulated utility' be a good fit for what you are describing?
Comment · 21 days ago
256GB means you are going to be using system RAM instead of completely offloading to GPU, I assume? If so, you should make sure your CPU has AVX2.
Comment · 22 days ago
> As soon as you start making allowances and exceptions the entire subject is moot.

> you have to draw a line somewhere.

So the entire subject is now moot, I gather.

Comment · 25 days ago

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton