Other ships, who can say. But if you are at about 60 degrees south of the equator and keep going due west (or east, of course) you can keep going forever without ever hitting land. You'll pass just below the southernmost point of Chile and just above the nothernmost parts of Antartica.
> if you are at about 60 degrees south of the equator and keep going due west (or east, of course) you can keep going forever without ever hitting land.
No, this requires you to constantly steer left (or right, of course). So you are not traveling on a straight line.
I wasn't sure if there literally wasn't a great circle route that didn't include land in it. I am moderately surprised to find out there isn't[0]. But I would be more surprised if there wasn't some line of latitude you could follow around antartica that never hits land.
There’s a quote attributed to adam smith “there’s a lot of ruin in a nation”.
A large enterprise such as Google, GE, or IBM can be poorly managed for decades before being economically forced to change.
I observed a team making 25 MM per engineer in a large company that made one change per year. There are products at google that require 400+ pages of documentation/proof to change.
Blockbuster v Netflix is odd though, in that Blockbuster actually did pivot to the DVD by mail subscriptions really well.
Well at least operationally it was a good product, and imo better than Netflix's, but I have no idea if helped or hurt them financially.
But Blockbuster's established sources for content/disks should have been an advantage against the stories of Netflix having to go buy retail copies of movies in cases of uncooperative distributors.
It was just Phase 2 and moving to streaming where they fell so far behind. (Plus Redbox's uprising didn't help, which is a separate failure to pivot.)
That wasn't necessarily inability to steer. Blockbuster had an opportunity to own Netflix at one point and said no. Just like Docker was given a chance to steward Kubernetes and decided to compete against it instead.
"Their heart rates change in unison" seems like a perfectly fine interpretation of "their heart rates are synchronized" that matches the observations. It is in fact what I expected when I read the headline. Maybe the headline could have been even more explicit, but I don't think it's intentionally deceiving.
I find your two quoted lines as vastly different. The first is accurate and the second is not. Synchronized means to happen at the same time. For a rate to be synchronized, I expect the same rate value at the same time (each person at say 65bpm). If the rate change is in sync, I expect the same rate of change value for each person (everyone is slowing their heart rate at 2bpm per minute). In unison means at the same time (but not the same value).
One headline means we are excited at the same time, the other says we mysteriously communicate the state of our heart to our neighbors.
Edit; a concrete example. Let's synchronize watches, you move yours forward quickly and I'll move mine forward quickly. Even though we moved in unison, we are not synchronized and showing the same time together.
I assume the ‘mysterious communication’ would be the cadence of the reader, which could have been a remarkable feat. Can we influence heart beats externally (indirectly), say with sound, and nudge it into holding a rhythm? The story can increase/relax it, so perhaps individualized broadcasts could theoretically be used to synchronize the beats precisely (in the second sense)?
A headline which gives people the wrong impression is still misinformation. It makes the world less informed than before, as people rarely read articles after reading the headlines.
Edit: And it is super important to point out this misinformation in the top comment to an article, so that we can correct as many people as possible. So stating that this is misinformation isn't just some pedantic complaining, it helps correct the view of a lot of people and maybe will help make more people think a bit before writing headlines.
When is an index more useful than full text search? I derive a lot of pleasure when I can open a huge text on my laptop and instantly find exactly what I'm working for by searching for one or two words.
Indexes are conceptual and semantic, they're curated.
Full-text search is typographical, it finds string literals (if you're lucky, regexes). But common terms or strings which appear frequently as substrings of larger words will trip you up (again: regexes can handle word-boundary search).
But trying to find a concept, such as the C, B, D, S or R programming languages, the X Window System, the band The The, or Alex Jones, journalist, vs. Alex Jones, batshit crazy conspiracy fraudster, won't be well servee you by FTS. An index will reveal those.
The distinction has some similarities to how Web search these days tends to expand search terms entered to attempt to interpret meaning rather than literal text. At Web scale, that's sometimes useful, often not. Within a single book where context is far more likely to be constrained, and the search space a few billion times smaller, the approach is much more useful.
Another thing an index offers is the ability to turn to it and get a conceptual overview of a book independent of the table of contents. At times when there are combatting ideas or authorities, it's helpful to be able to open a book, flip to the back, and see if it mentions some concept at all, as well as to see, at a glance, if it's a very brief mention (a single page), an extended discussion (several pages), or repeated occurrences throughout the work (numerous sections and references). (Mortimer Adler's How to Read a Book specifically recommends doing this as part of an initial assessment of a work.)
An index will also break down complex topics by listing out subdivisions, say, "policy", with breakdowns of military, foreign, domestic, energy, trade, crime, justice, civil rights, etc., etc.
I'm also a fan of FTS, and it can be exceptionally useful. But it is not a total replacement for well-constructed, thoughtful indices.
An index is a curation of content. If done well it saves you the time that you would otherwise spend trying to craft exactly the right search expression to find what you're looking for from a full-text search.
The TikTok app may have camera access and location access. It could capture images and send them to China when it detects its on a military base without the user even knowing. It’s so annoying to see “what about X” comments on every story with almost no thought put into the response.
While Tiktok is technically slightly worse, focusing on that rather than the gaping real problem of publicly posting top secret info is missing the forest for the trees.
Solve the problem of people posting this to social media and it won't matter if the company is US owned and operated or foreign owned and operated because neither will have anything to work with.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Publicly posting confidential information is definitely bad. Bringing a device that can covertly collect information for adversaries is even worse.
> I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Publicly posting confidential information is definitely bad. Bringing a device that can covertly collect enemies for adversaries is even worse.
If you aren't posting top secret data, you also aren't sharing it with enemies on accident.
Sure. I was a little less clear in this thread than I was in the other. I'm more making a case for a more sane policy on what apps people can run, or even devices they can have, to make it so this is not a problem that's normally possible. Whether the info is shared with China or the U.K. isn't really a distinction worth making if it never should have been shared with either, period (and let's not act like the U.K. wouldn't want to know just as much, we do with out own allies as shown through some of our exposed wiretapping programs).
Who is disputing that you shouldn't share secret information on social networks? TikTok's ties still changes the potential impact of this breach. That's relevant information that gives context to the basic facts of the case that we usually call "the news".
I don't think you're understanding what the person you're replying to is saying.
If the app is made by an adversary, you don't need to post it publicly for there to be a problem. The app has the ability to send it directly without you even knowing.
By "Solve the problem of people posting this to social media" I mean the more general "you shouldn't be accessing apps that are security problems while in a secure area, which I covered in a separate thread on this article.
In that respect, whether it's TikTok or any other social media makes little difference. If it's use of apps like that is prohibited, then it's either not a problem or it's a personnel following policy problem.
That said, if people really think TikTok is a problem they should be worried about some other app that's ties are far less known that might get far less public scrutiny and do far more. By the time we're nitpicking which specific social media platform is the worst to have posted to in this case, we're so far down the path of problematic behavior that we're in absurdist territory. The fact that someone's walking around with the equivalent of a video camera taking movies of what appears to be top secret material is the problem, and whether they put it up on TikTok or YouTube, or sell to the Washington Post or to RT is just bikeshedding mostly irrelevant details.
The solution to this all is probably along the lines of "don't allow smartphones in secure areas" or only allow smartphones that have been vetted by security.
Responding to your other comment: the app has access to your camera. Nothing is stopping it from using your camera, without your knowledge, and then uploading what it captures while a user browses their TikTok feed.
Then don't allow people to keep smartphones while in secure areas?
My point is, the problem is posting to social media, or using a device that's insecure. There's plenty of apps that a user could be tricked into installed that are much worse than TikTok and that will have much less public scrutiny.
That TikTok is affiliated with the China in some way is a red herring. There's no reason to solve the problem of TikTok if you solve the general problem of people using unapproved applications (which all social media would obviously be unapproved in secure areas) or insecure devices.
Otherwise what you'll find is that Facebook as some Cambridge Analytica type situation going on, and some Chinese shell company ends up using it to get special access and details, and the same thing as this happens through Facebook and China has special additional info and "TikTok fix" helped solve exactly nothing.
Bringing up that TikTok is associated with China in the article is useful in showing people some of the ramifications of the problem. Focusing on that as the problem leads people to think banning TikTok is the answer, when it clearly is not, since it doesn't go nearly far enough in combating the problem.
On a base with top secret information, I'm amazed there would be private phones in operation there. The government may be pretty stupid about some things, but they absolutely know the 1000+ threat vectors within modern mobile phones.
The permissions of the app are one thing, whether the app does it is another. In theory what you say would be possible, yes, but does the TikTok app have a feature which allows remote enabling of the camera, i.e. without user interaction? The code is public and can be decompiled. TikTok is not in charge of application distribution either, Google is, so if they add such a feature, people might notice.
Modern apps are obfuscated and use certificate pinning to avoid network traffic introspection. It's really not simple to decompile an app into something understandable.
I'm not making China out to be an omniscient bogeyman. The U.S. has used companies to gain access to secure systems in other countries. It's just a reality that ANY country can do this. To deny that is to either be a shill, or woefully ignorant.
Did you watch the video? Someone is clearly recording this object intentionally. The camera pans and zooms to follow the truck. Whether this is secretly being sent to China via TikTok is somewhat irrelevant if an individual is breaking protocol by intentionally taking video on their smartphone.
Yes, of course it's ok. The role of a government is to do what is in the best interest of its citizens. If there is a possible threat from a foreign adversary, the government should deal with it.
There's a difference between the government banning an app from a country entirely, and banning anyone in their military from using an app or even a smart phone or anything with a camera, especially inside a military base!
Yes. I was agreeing with the parent comment that the social media platform is irrelevant. Presumably, video taken of secret military hardware is not ok in any circumstance. It's the smartphone, the attached camera, and the individual that is at fault.
What’s more likely? A service that vacuums up every piece of data vacuuming up microphone data, or the same service intentionally excluding this one random piece of data? Every time this comes up, people jump up and say “they’re definitely not listening!” But why do people think that? Facebook gathers as much data as possible, including buying a VPN to inspect supposedly private traffic. Why wouldn’t they listen to a microphone? As an anecdote, I know someone who worked on smart TVs. Part of what they implemented was a system to turn on the tv’s microphone to get an audio fingerprint of the content being watched.
Network infrastructure is just a microcosm of the issues facing small countries. They need protection, access to markets and resources, investment, and access to technology just to name a few.
"Natural gas that is consumed on the site and would have otherwise been vented or flared under the authority of the Wyoming oil and gas conservation commission has no value and is exempt from taxation as long as the natural gas is certified by the Wyoming oil and gas conservation commission as to have originated from a qualifying well,” the new law reads."
They have almost 0 community spread. A fact which many in the west respond to by saying that they’re faking their numbers, which completely ignores all of the counter measures they’ve taken. I have colleagues in China, and the Chinese lockdowns literally looked like a Zombie movie. It’s not surprising they were able to contain spread.
He’s talking about how the system architecture would be sanely designed.
He is correct on how it should work.
Now how long the secondary system holds the data is a business decision. Maybe a month/year, maybe forever. Record retention laws may have impact on this.
Now If Google decided to hold the records forever or far beyond any legal requirements then yeah that’s getting evil.
Google has a poor record on GDPR requirements. And in fact, common themes among the issues that they have are undisclosed secondary uses and unreasonable data retention.
Is that true? From what I can find the total amount of their fines is not more than $100M, which is less than I would expect given their size if they were conducting willful ongoing violations. And neither of the two biggest cases involved willful data retention like this: one was about cookie consent and one was about right to be forgotten.
Fine amount is a poor measure of compliance, for a few reasons. First, European regulators prefer nudges and strong words before fines. Second, Google is incorporated in Ireland and the Irish regulator is clearly and blatantly sandbagging enforcement against US companies. The fact that they get fined at all is actually pretty damning: France had to twist and wiggle to be able to fine them without involving Ireland, and part of that was limiting the scope of the violations to things touched on by related laws, which is why the fine only covers cookie consent (governed by ePD).
However, several DPAs and local governments have reviewed Google software for their own GDPR compliance. Several of those findings are available online. These findings don't result in fines, because it's not technically an investigation of Google. But it does involve a thorough investigation of the legal issues of using Google's services, and the results are illuminating.
For example, below is a link to a report the Dutch DPA complied on whether Dutch government agencies can use Google Workspace (formerly GSuite). The conclusion is that Google's privacy protection are catastrophically terribad (for a paid product!). It requires linking to a personal account, purposes of processing are not defined, there's definitely processing going on that's not covered by the contract, etc. Google's linking to personal data in a way that cannot be disabled by administrators means they are a Joint Controller instead of a Processor, and it's not possible for them to comply with various obligations because they're too vague about the purposes of processing.
Again, doesn't result in a fine, because they're not be investigated for violations. Someone is just asking "can we use a Google product?" But the results of that research indicate some deep structural problems.
Also that fine that France issued, where they somehow avoided invoking GDPR directly? Still the third-largest GPDR fine on record. So your expectations for fine amounts are a bit off.
Voters not wanting to pay for comprehensive care for everyone is a 4th head. The current system of healthcare is great for allocating different amounts of healthcare to different classes of people, so that it is great for 20 to 30% of people, okay for 20%, and not good for 50%, and that is why it persists.
There is no reason Medicare should be restricted to those over 65, or why Medicaid is implemented differently (and reimburses providers more poorly than Medicare). Or even Tricare. We have at least 3 different taxpayer funded healthcare programs specifically so not everyone can get access to equal care, but so that various classes of people can get healthcare proportional to their political power (which usually scale with money, but also votes in the case of old people).
> There is no reason Medicare should be restricted to those over 65, or why Medicaid is implemented differently (and reimburses providers more poorly than Medicare). Or even Tricare. We have at least 3 different taxpayer funded healthcare programs specifically so not everyone can get access to equal care, but so that various classes of people can get healthcare proportional to their political power (which usually scale with money, but also votes in the case of old people).
Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements are insufficient to support most medical practices. Tricare is for military & their families. Most active duty military are young & extremely healthy compared to the general population.
Medicare/Medicaid combined are the largest single item on the federal budget. More importantly, they are still growing in costs because of an aging population, and are heading towards 30% overall of the federal budget [1]
Tricare operates as an employment perk. Medicare has a cap on benefits, but is effectively mandatory for 65+, and medicaid operates as a payor of last resort, after folks have run out their lifetime benefits on medicare.
However, an argument in favor of your suggestion is that the vast majority of medical resources are spent on the last 2 years of life, often for terminally ill patients with a ton of co-morbidities that are at death's door anyways. Most medical spending happens in the latter part of life [2]
> 25% of Medicare’s annual spending is used by the 5% of patients during the last 12 months of their lives [3]
Medicare reimbursement levels are sufficient to support most medical practices. They charge more because they can, not because they have to. If reimbursement levels are cut then they'll find ways to improve efficiency, and then cut salaries.
Is there a reason that US doctors should get paid significantly more than their peers in other developed countries?
> Medicare reimbursement levels are sufficient to support most medical practices.
Big Nope.
Most practices have fairly fixed costs:
Medical malpractice
Facilities rent, or mortgage
Front office
IT & EMR
Privileging/Credentialing
Practice
CME/required education
The only highly variable cost is physician compensation, and considering the limited availability, this will merely cause the retirements and limited access to specialists.
Perhaps you have some evidence to support your extraordinary claim?
I'll provide evidence to the contrary, based on Hospitals and practices refusing to accepting Medicaid [1] patients, or, not accepting/limiting medicare patients[2], [3], [4]
The simple fact is, there is a limited supply of physicians, and many of them don't want to practice the higher volume, 5 minutes per patient, 5 minutes for notes x 12 hours a day type of practice. Not only is the higher volume more dangerous for the patient, it is also more risky for the medical provider, both in terms of quality of life, and also, the risk of an error, or inadequate information exchange.
If the AMA isn't going to fix the physician and residency pipeline, could we not offer visas to physician immigrants who meet first world medical credentialing standards to deepen the supply and therefore support demand? If supply is the issue, we should fix the supple, not destroy necessary demand.
> Basically, you are saying American trained doctors only then, as American doctors are much better trained.
Considering how much healthcare costs in the US and the quality of care received [1], I assert American doctors are not better trained, simply that they are more expensive and there are less of them per capita than other OECD countries [2] [3] [4]. I'm suggesting bypassing the undersized US doctor development pipeline until it is fully funded to produce enough doctors to meet demand and drive down costs.
https://www.ajmc.com/view/the-quality-of-us-healthcare-compa... ("A 2014 report from the Commonwealth Fund revealed continued trends that were along the same lines—despite the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in the interim. In the report, the US “ranked last overall among 11 industrialized countries on measures of health system quality, efficiency, access to care, equity and healthy lives.” Significantly, the US was noted to have the highest costs while also displaying the lowest performance.")
[3] https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/practices/how-u-s-stacks-up... ("When it comes to practicing physicians, there are only two physicians for every 1,000 Americans, nearly half the ratio of countries with nationalized public healthcare. Countries with nationalized systems saw the greatest increase in the number of physicians relative to their population.")
> Voters not wanting to pay for comprehensive care for everyone is a 4th head.
M4A is overwhelmingly popular, at points taking majorities of Republicans. Also, the US government already spends as much on healthcare as Britain and the NHS; US healthcare is just allowed to cost twice as much.
Maybe now, but it was not true in 2009/2010 when ACA was being hashed out. As I saw it, lots of people said they wanted everyone to get healthcare, but when the chips were down, there was lots of balking at costs.
==We have at least 3 different taxpayer funded healthcare programs specifically so not everyone can get access to equal care==
Add in CHIP and the VA (Tricare). We've taken every vulnerable part of society (older, poor people, poor children, injured veterans) and given them government-paid, universal healthcare. This is around 100 million people.
Everyone left over is thrown into the private insurance pool. These people are typically working age population (18-60), making them both the richest and the healthiest. This is around 200 million people.
This is meaningless if the quality of healthcare is not the same. There are numerous hurdles placed for various different people to get the healthcare, effectively restricting access to healthcare itself.
No doubt. I wasn't trying to comment on the quality or access, just a point on how we have "solved" the healthcare problem over time.
Taxpayers cover the neediest, leaving the healthiest to for-profit insurers. The healthiest have no incentive to make sure the programs for the neediest actually work or are accessible.
Oh yes, I agree with you. I remember how pissed people were when ACA caused their premiums to go up, because they were now subsidizing everyone who used to simply not get healthcare.
