HexagonalKitten

Can't be emulated efficiently, or at all? Has it been tested or is it based on this comment from Intel?

"Emulation is not a new technology, and Transmeta was notably the last company to claim to have produced a compatible x86 processor using emulation (“code morphing”) techniques. Intel enforced patents relating to SIMD instruction set enhancements against Transmeta’s x86 implementation even though it used emulation"

The point isn't a guiding rule for you, so it's not limiting on your actions. It's where I see red flags. And yes, but judgement is a good thing.

Or, accept that many women enjoy being nurses and doctors, such that man->doctor | woman->nurse/doctor isn't weird.

It's not a competence thing, or stopped being since woman doctors are a thing, and is a motivation thing. Not to a 'better' place, but a different one.

Right, like we extensively worked out the ethics of automobiles before we allowed them.

Can you imagine if we let cars contribute to inequity by allowing rich people to own them and not poor people? Or if it was possible to just aim a car at people without the self-driving stopping you.

I imagine the people most annoyed about this don't have any, or know that they needed to. (Because you're hogging them all. Way to go!)

Right, because the issue of calling people 'enablers' of bad policing is generally so bipartisan that I'm coming from nowhere with my group labels... What's the # of the one about psychological projection?

I didn't dwell on my identity (because those aren't the words I'd choose to use if I had to). It was a way of self-disclosure like saying if you work for the company being discussed. It's to say "while I'm probably one of the people you're talking about ...".

> an attack on you personally so that you don't feel a need to defend yourself from an imagined attack.

Oh, no. You're out to left field. I'm explaining, not defending, everyone who tends to be misunderstood. I'm trying to say that people can support a thing without being 'enablers', and that two people who both see the same problems (police violence) can see different solutions.

I'm sharing my personal views to help explain how, regardless of labels, that most of our group hatreds are based on intentional (by others if not us) misstatements about the others, not their own words or actual views.

I agree about the red-flag part for avoiding all your exes, but I also find it a red-flag when someone says how well they get along with their exes. "If so, why do you have so many, and why aren't you still with any of them?"

If you were with someone with serious intent of trying to be a compatible partner, and failed despite your best efforts such that you and your partner agree the best thing is to not be together, then probably your instincts aren't as good as you would want... Maybe you don't fully understand why "being friends" won't be as helpful for either party as desired.

It's important to be capable of being friendly with your exes, all the more so the less you actually get along. But it's probably unwise to put this to the test.

The advice would be to not let a label tell you that you don't like it. If you don't like dancing because men don't dance then that's silly, no matter if it's your deepest held conviction or not.

Nuance is sort of counterproductive here because most people don't recognize how many things could trigger an interrogation. Any little personality quirk, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the officer is suddenly taking note of every word you say.

Watch the video about this and how the law professor says that your casual honest comment to a cop might be taken to be a lie based on nothing. Not just wrong, or potentially incriminating, but a lie, and because of that they can and will start to try to fit the evidence to you.

> This perpetuates the mantra that cops are an evil force out to get you.

That's not a requirement for this rule to be useful, but I'll act carefully to protect myself rather than to test that theory in either case.

Many conservatives (that's how I'm labelled on here, so...) do not support the police as is. I've specifically witnessed more than one instance of absolutely treasonous behavior by police - threatening to hurt people and make up charges. It's counterproductive to think that only 'the left' is against bad police - nobody wants to pay people to ruin the system.

However, those people probably don't think that the police "committed acts of brutality against protestors", they likely see the videos of BLM peacefully protesting and police standing by, and Antifa committing arson and attacking police and police fighting back. (Portland, Chicago, Kenosha) And they think that fighting and arresting rioters is exactly what they pay police for.

> their enablers being too ignorant or too hateful to recognize the stupidity of the action and how 2020 has set them back decades in getting people to trust them.

You were talking about BLM here? Because "Breona" is just as fake as Jussie Smollet's story, and Jacob Blake would have been shot if he was white, etc. Watch the videos of woke white people in Portland shouting racist slurs at black cops to show how much they care about black people in general.

> a lot of the DEI initiatives are pure PR.

Of course.

> Additionally you cannot deduce whether an entire institution is "institutionally" X or not X just because one individual behaved one way or the other.

That's not required here. Even if the diversity push is pure PR, it's still coordinated company-wide and reflected in all their messaging. Even if it is pure PR, they still stand to gain from supporting it.

> The fact that Jeff Dean hired Gebru doesn't tell you anything.

It tells you quite a lot. Google is willing to hire ethicists, blacks, and women. They're willing to let them publish many papers, and go to many conventions representing Google.

> Actual statistical measures, such as retention rates, percentage of work force, percentage of leadership etc. need to be consulted

No, that's only to disprove the literal conspiracy theory that Google is secretly racist and is hiring black people as part of a white-supremacy program. There'd need to be something to make that likely before it's even worth investigating.

As long as the most likely theory is a disgruntled employee... Did you read her papers?

> This seems contradictory.

Because there are two entirely different things - one is producing an unbiased bitstream from a potentially biased one (the topic of the article) and the other is keying an individual encryption.

When you're trying to generate a bitstream and you expect uniformity (ie, a prng) then seeing obvious non-uniformity over time is a sign that it's biased. You need the type of algorithms from the article to unbias it while preserving the actual entropy. This is what a system's designer should be doing to produce useful output from a hwrng in the first place.

But, looking at an individual piece of randomness, a key, you shouldn't be looking for uniformity at all. Here you want all zeros, all 1s, and any mix, to be equally possible.

> Interesting. Why do you hash the ECDH secret then?

Well, EC is a bit magical and I don't know. Wikipedia says that it prevents 'weak bits' from the handshake. That means correlations, but I don't know why this is true. At any rate uniformity here means what you think, that it's not a random bitstream and should not be used as such.

> One of the biggest learnings was how much speculation would dominate over anything non-financial

Yup. And still does. There was a huge sea change circa 2013(?) when everything became about currency and speculation. Every idea had to pivot to being its own coin, or including some useless utility token (a bit later) because that was 99%+ of the value to investors.

> Is there any reason that Bitcoin doesn’t have Turing completeness, faster blocks, oracles, etc? Not really; but ...

It feels like the first implementation couldn't have gotten it right if it aimed for too much more than Satoshi did. But technically, yes, BTC is a plausible base for this as much as anything else.

> debate inside the smart contracts community about the halting problem and how it could be used to attack the network. This is probably practically solved with transaction costs alone, but I think it was a practical software engineering compromise do scripting without looping and backward jump instructions because they made the software much more complex and vulnerable to attack.

Unbounded loops are an issue, but functional constructs (foreach) have 99% of the power and little of the risk. Ideally we'd have Satoshi take three months now and make v2, which would be BTC in spirit but with the lessons of the last ten years.

> To go further, the gas price itself doesn’t solve the problem of computational complexity because only the miner that wins the block actually gets the reward, while all others downstream are expected to verify it, but they have no incentive to do so, and frankly, today, most don’t.

This seems like where we need a mechanism that allows a script to be audit-executed, and if its outputs don't match expectations a deposit can be claimed by the auditor and the script will be marked as unreliable. If the precondition of the code is that it returns the correct public key, make sure that key works. If it doesn't you can claim the QA/Security prize - which can be set at whatever amount the script author wants depending on their belief in their code.

> Most of the early eth discussions I was involved with implied doing this in snarks or some other provable computation in the initial discussions, but that never made it into eth. So no; that problem was never solved, although we are getting closer.

Is there a specific blocker for this or just that the complexity is 1000x what is currently supported?

I've seen conservatives say they feel (have empathy) for the women in Jacob Blake's life, and the children, but not for Jacob himself. Or at least not since he became an adult and chose to perpetuate the cycle.

I think it's more complex than that all (or even most) republicans are racist.

I imagine that when you think yourself better than "them", you're thinking about mask-refusers, literal nazis, and (((dog whistlers))). And when they think of "you" they think of antifa druggies living in a park and burning down stores. We can't really demonize someone if they aren't a bit radical so we have to focus on the radicals.

What I'm trying to say is that the idiots you see probably are dumb enough to think they're geniuses, but there's a huge invisible support base (on all sides) of non-radicals who are fairly rational. And I think experience is the biggest difference between the groups. If you've seen a neighboring store burned you feel one way, if you've seen a neighbor threatened you feel another. The problem then is sharing experiences honestly so we can construct a mutual view of reality and then discuss the same issues.