f-

Well, potato is one of the higher-calorie crops, and one pound contains around 350 calories. If you produce 3,120 lbs a year, that gives you about a million calories.

Now, let's assume a family of three - an average person needs around 2,000 kcal a day. That's 2,000 * 365 * 3, or around 2,200,000 kcal a year. So, you come quite a bit short. And that's on a good year; you're gonna have bad years, too.

Also a function of climate and soil. In the 19th century, settlers in the plains - Nebraska, Wyoming, etc - often couldn't make it work on 640 acres granted by the government. In contrast, there are eastern states where 20 acres would be more than enough.

(Farming in the West is now much more viable thanks to deep wells and mechanical irrigation, but that's a capital-intensive and resource-intensive approach that works best at a scale.)

If you do that, you're merely trading one grievance for another: "evil company marked my bug as duplicate to avoid paying" for "evil company claimed to have gotten duplicate reports to weasel out of paying the full amount". More people upset, although individually, maybe to a lesser extent.

The core issue is not the reward division algorithm, it's the inherent lack of visibility. One solution here would be to just open all reports after a while, but this creates problems of its own. One is that it gives ammo to people engaging in dishonest or clueless PR. Another is that some researchers don't actually want visibility, because their employers have murky rules around such engagements, or because they have some far-off disclosure timeline in mind (as a part of a presentation at a conference, or whatnot).

As a photographer, the comparison to "raw" results without color balance or noise removal seems somewhat deceptive. The effects visible in the video seem easy to quickly replicate with existing techniques, such as the "surface blur" filter that averages out pixel values in areas with similar color.

This happens at the expense of detail in low-contrast areas, producing a plastic-like appearance of human skin and hair, and making low-contrast text unintelligible, which is why it's generally not done by default.

One of my design goals for AFL was to make it very simple to use - because there's plenty of fuzzers that work OK when you dial in 50 knobs just right, but fail spectacularly otherwise - basically ensuring that nobody but the author can really use the tool to its full capacity.

While AFL++ is cool, it sort of ditches that philosophy, giving you a lot of options to tweak, but not necessarily a whole lot of hope that you're going to tweak them the right way. So, that's one gotcha to keep in mind.

(Author here)

The funniest part is that this ugly hack kept working across platforms for many years; whereas when somebody else implemented a "proper" integration with the clang / llvm API, their solution proved to be extremely fragile. The API wasn't stable between compiler versions, and because it wasn't really used much, it had all kinds of bugs, including being outright unusable at times.

Also, most distros packaged clang in a way that made it impossible to compile the plugin, because of missing or mismatched headers, missing companions tools, etc. So you had to download and rebuild the whole compiler, which took hours (and that's if you didn't get stuck in a dependency hell).

So yeah, this was very much a lesson in "worse is better".

Does objective reality exist, my friend?

You can refuse to accept an inheritance. It goes to whoever is next in line. If everybody refuses, the state gets to keep it.