Ok, but if the passwords are stored in a broken sha hash, and the server is compromised, how do api keys prevent users who use “packers123” for every site from having their passwords exposed?
I think the more interesting conversation goes like:
How many CPU seconds should I burn for every user's login attempt to compensate for the remote possibility that someone steals the user database? Are we planning to have the database stolen?
Even if you spin for 30 minutes per attempt, someone with more hardware and determination than your enterprise could eventually crack every hash. How much money is it worth to play with a two-layer cake of unknowns?
Has anyone considered what the global carbon footprint is of bitcoin mining for passwords? How many tons of CO2 should be emitted for something that will probably never happen? This is like running the diesel generators 24/7/365 in anticipation of an outage because you couldn't be bothered to pay for a UPS.
grain and 24fps and widescreen trigger certain contextual emotions around the movie-watching experience. remove them and your brain contextualizes the video very differently.
this is likely the result of ~100 years of film-based filmmaking and projection. hell, we still call it filmmaking.
Yes, it is only the result of familiarity. We could gradually increase the frame rate of movies made in a year by 1 fps per year and then no one would even notice after 24 years every new movie would be 48fps.
no i will be watching 24fps films for the remainder of my life, which may be 40 more years. if all new films went up 1fps per year i would still go out to the movies in 20 years and be like “wtf is this crap?”
it would take a generation or more to eradicate this cultural context. casablanca is never going to be in 48fps.
Where did I refuse to watch anything? No amount of this attitude is going to make Casablanca or The Godfather or Pulp Fiction or Infinity War or Star Wars or Fight Club or 2001 or Top Gun be in any framerate other than 24fps.
If they start making films in higher frame rates today, that won’t change that fact. Do you think people are going to stop watching films from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s?
It would take a concerted effort, beginning now, at least an entire generation (30-50 years) to remove or reduce the cultural impact of the 24 frames per second widescreen tradition. No such effort is presently underway, because higher framerates don’t help movies’ visual storytelling, and they may hurt it.
The Hobbit was Peter Jackson’s attempt. It went nowhere.
"no i will be watching 24fps films for the remainder of my life, which may be 40 more years. if all new films went up 1fps per year i would still go out to the movies in 20 years and be like “wtf is this crap?”"
The Hobbit looked great at 48fps. Higher FPS failed only because reactionary people as yourself irrationally rejected it because "it looks weird!".
You need to understand that 24fps is a compromise chosen to save film. It is the bare minimum frame rate to have smooth motion under most but not all circumstances. It really hurts action films because anything moving too fast has excessive motion blur.
Only if you are aware of it, which 99.9% of people consuming video content are not. It’s simply an unimportant implementation detail (from a viewer’s perspective who doesn’t really care about bitrate-as-cost).
Most people in meetings don’t type very fast, and find it easier to talk than to write.
This means that prior to AI transcription/summary bots, there wasn’t much written documentation about the decisions and conclusions from meetings. Now hopefully that will change.
In my org we have rotating minutes takers - it effectively takes them out of the meeting, but they do pipe up if an issue affects them directly. Of course people's meeting taking skills vary widely but I still find the human-made minutes far superior and accurate to whatever Copilot cooks up.
I wasn't so much saying that there should be plenty of documentation generated during a meeting as saying that there should be plenty of documentation prior to the meeting. That the meeting is based on.
I've also read a thing (dunno if it was opinion or fact) that posited that people's reading ability is directly correlated to a preference for video, I suspect it's the same with meetings. I read / write all day (including on here lmao), meetings are draining in comparison. But the people in those meetings don't read / write nearly as much as I do.
I did once think that if the meeting were to be transcribed, people are outputting paragraphs of text in a short amount of time, just verbally. But keeping up with that is pretty draining, as you have to listen and process it, whereas with reading you can skim and re-read things easily.
I sometimes think people's basic skills - reading and typing - are underdeveloped or not assessed, and they should be assessed when applying for a job that involves reading and typing. But I don't even think people consider reading/writing skills when looking for staff since the assumption is that everyone's is good enough.
I administer reading comprehension tests and typing speed tests to all candidates I consider hiring.
It’s overlooked.
Good ones who can’t type fast, I assign them typing lessons their first few paid days on the job, and a half hour twice a week thereafter for a while.
I’m an outlier and can type 120wpm without trying very hard, but I expect 40-50wpm (touch typing, not hunt and peck) at a minimum from staff that work with computers and aren’t disabled.
> Good ones who can’t type fast, I assign them typing lessons their first few paid days on the job, and a half hour twice a week thereafter for a while.
This is very interesting to me - I’ve actually been building https://www.typequicker.com recently and was curious about potentially adding features and marketing it towards businesses who then can use it to train their workers.
Typing quickly is extremely overlooked and since I learned touch typing, it completely improved my productivity and career trajectory. (Went from 40ish to about 100-120wpm depending on what I’m typing)
What are some tools that you use when you say you assign lessons?
Automatous vehicles are absolutely inevitable and Waymo has completely lapped Tesla. It's not impossible for Tesla to catch up, but it's not likely. Their tech is insufficient, their public record is non-existent, and Musk is famously inept at working with the many local governments and bureaucracies he needs to appease if he ever hopes to start pilots in the biggest markets. Meanwhile, Waymo is maybe a year away from becoming the Kleenex brand of driverless taxis, with over 10 million rides sold and a truckload of bureaucratic good will already built up.
No need for an in depth explanation? Waymo has sold 10 million rides with another 300k being sold every week. How many has Tesla sold, a few hundred by now? In one city, with paid staff in the car, only during certain hours, etc, etc.
> 75% of the trips I take in my Model 3 across a standard US city (admittedly one without snow) are handled by FSD with no interventions on my part.
Is that meant to be making a case for Tesla's robotaxis? Because 25% of trips requiring interventions sounds dismal for a service that is rolling out now.
I shortly tried FSD during their May and November freebie month last year. There were times when an intervention wasn't strictly required, just like you can't intervene when your angsty teenager with learning permit is at the wheel, but it was still shockingly bad.
I have no doubt that there's a good percentage of FSD users out there who don't intervene to avoid lowering stats even if they rationally know that they should have.
Why would I care more about “stats” than my own car and my own safety? I am not penalized in any way for disabling FSD when the car does something dumb.
Many people, after spending a good chunk of money on something, become part of the tribe and feel the need to justify their purchase. It’s just human nature.
Not saying that you’re one of those, but as others have pointed out: 25% of rides with a force intervention is absymal and didn’t have the impressession that you thought so too.
25% puts it in party trick category, not something that should be allowed on the road.
> autonomous taxis are inevitable for Tesla and others
I agree. But I think the autonomously native are going to eat the legacy manufacturers, including Tesla, for lunch.
We haven’t even started seeing partisan regulatory backlash against Tesla’s autonomous taxis yet. I’d be shocked if they’re ever permitted in New York or California, for example. I wouldn’t be surprised if they wind up banned in Europe, China and India, too. And that’s before weighing how Trump could dick Tesla around.
This idea that you can publish data for people to download and read but not for people to download and store, or print, or think about, or train on is a doomed one.
If you don’t want people reading your data, don’t put it on the web.
The concept that copyright extends to “human eyeballs only” is a silly one.
With the problem being bots hammering the site en masse, it feels like the better analog is "allowing free replicator use without having someone ruin the fun by requesting ten tons of food be produced in their quarters every minute".
> The only entity you're hurting are the advertisers using Google.
That’s fine. Advertising is cancer. Reducing advertisers’ ROI is good too.
You don’t hate ads if you’re spending $500k on them. You just hate receiving ads, which makes you hypocritical.
reply