"A manager can never be held accountable, therefore a manager must make every computer decision"

HuggingFace incident strong precedent.

You want to do a crime, subtly hint your AI about it.

the dolls stay winning

they know plenty about you, they just don't care what you want.

there is NO LEGIT v2.1.313

here is the ddworken comment confirming https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50300683#50305148

unlike macos's curl, powershell's curl alias for Invoke-WebRequest checks the revoke list and will protect you from mitmproxy --emudhra

Unfortunately, it's not cURL. Not even cURL for Windows. It's build against the Schannel library. That is curl.exe, not iwr. Stemberg wrote a Blogpost you can find here https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2023/04/24/deleting-system32curl...

No Idea what MacOS ships with but I'd mistrust that. But if you're running shell scripts...

Why doesn't curl check revoke list.

i don't know, man. i don't know.

f(n) = O(g(n)) means as n increases, f(n)/g(n) must not grow beyond a constant

f(n) = o(g(n)) means as n increases, f(n)/g(n) must shrink

Nitpick:

s/must shrink/must eventually shrink, after finitely many n/

Equivalently, must go to zero in the limit.

depends on what you think shrink means. If you mean decreasing, that's false even eventually.

Hmm you're right it's no more rigorous what I said. (For each positive number the expression must eventually, after finitely many terms, always be smaller than that number thereafter)

But you're not right in that the upper bound of that expression eventually stops decreasing, in fact for simple f and g as long as f is positive and eventually bounded by g the expression will decrease infinitely often if my intuition is correct

Those are complexity classes. It makes more sense to use '∈' instead of abused '='.

the speedball begets the gas station holdup

military grade SSL

Seed is '123456', much more random than '4'

Remind me to change my luggage combination.

exactly, defeat.

generally, you need to spend more than one defensive missile per attacking missile, because you might miss.

defensive missiles need to very fast and more maneuverable than attacking missiles, or the attacking missiles simply fly around them.

the fastest-accelerating vehicle ever built was a nuclear missile for intercepting nuclear missiles. they gave up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile)

> you need to spend more than one defensive missile per attacking missile, because you might miss

It's almost always the case that you'll expend more than one interceptor per incoming missile as interception is probabilistic. In general, you can estimate the number of missiles you'll need to achieve a certain probability of interception with the following formula: 1 - (1.0 - sspk)^n, where sspk is the single shot probability of kill (i.e., successful interception with a single interceptor) and n is the number of interceptors.

Shameless plug here, but I wrote up a post about this problem: https://smu160.github.io/posts/missile-defense-is-np-complet...

i remember that article, it's really good :) thanks for linking it here