It's true that Trader Joe's in Manhattan are jammed with lines going out the door and shopping there is mayhem regardless of whether there's an ongoing pandemic.
In Go, there's a lot of common terminology reflecting the concept of "evaluate your own move independently of your opponent's move", from direct terms like "tenuki" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenuki) to strategic koans like "play away from thickness[strength]" (https://senseis.xmp.net/?PlayAwayFromThickness). I think this type of thinking is something that all journeyman-level Go players learn in order to progress, more so than in Chess.
the requirements are easy to meet - you just need to be able to time operations at a suitable precision. The exploits are possible in Javascript running in a browser.
Yeah, I saw the PoC in the Spectre paper, but I was wondering if a JVM language could meet those reqs.
I have absolutely no idea if using the JVM would for example, mess with the required precision since I'm guessing one would need to use JNI/JNA to get the timing and that could maybe not be suitable?
While I understand NN is a hot topic in these past few months, I'm having a hard time understanding the connection here. Are we suggesting that there should be some sort of mandated cross-platform compatibility requirement for all cloud video services on all devices? Meaning, do we really want to require that Google provides access to all YouTube content on everyone's device? What if I post a video on my own homepage, am I then required to make it available on all devices?
I think both Google and Amazon are acting like jerks here, but I can't think of federal-level rules I'd change or put into place that wouldn't make things worse.
> Meaning, do we really want to require that Google provides access to all YouTube content on everyone's device? What if I post a video on my own homepage, am I then required to make it available on all devices?
No, I think the point is once you've uploaded the video, please don't single out a particular device and actively prohibit access. Web is Web. Let the Web clients make Web calls to Web content. (I'm referring to them actively blocking the workaround which was to access the regular Web version.)
Except it doesn't, by definition. It's "Network neutrality", not "absolutely anything anybody thinks of when they say 'The Net' neutrality."
Similarly, "Road Neutrality" only applies to actual roads. It doesn't mean the local McDonald's has to let anybody could use their drive-thru for any reason, or that you're allowed to park in your neighbor's driveway, or that you can freely wander around a NASCAR track.
Fair enough. In this case, "Road Neutrality" protects the consumer's access to a restaurant or bank. However, in reality there are civil rights laws that in turn forbid those restaurants and banks from refusing service to customers based on their ethnicity and gender.
I don't think it's a stretch, if we're comparing Networks to roads, to also compare network services like Google and Youtube to public accomodations like restaurants, hotels and banks, and discuss a set of protected classes for internet nondiscrimination.
I wasn't convinced about the value of Paul Graham's recent "General idea, small delta" essay until I noticed how easily you can just use those 4 words to justify these things.
Even the obviously laughable stories like Juicero - surely there's issues with bad execution, but as long as there are "juice bars" selling a glass of pulped vegetables for $8 that people are willing to buy, I'm willing to say that there's a niche for a better-executed and perhaps better-targetted juice-related tech product.
