"We already know the WHO was giving out false information. A lot of other "officially true" has been walked back, too." Examples? The outbreak is an evolving situation and what is true one week might not be true the next.

Some people just can't understand that what we know changes over time. At some point there was a first confirmed case of human to human transmissions. Were those statements before or after that time? China made mistakes, were those the WHO's fault? The first case outside China was on the same day those statements were made, do you know if that was from human to human transmission?

It's machine learning. So the researches trained the AI with what they think is "abusive" or "problematic". What would be really useful is to see one of the twitter feeds with the tweets they deem as problematic or abusive flagged as such. Or just click a button and take us to a random one of the million abusive or problematic tweets so we could see what they're talking about. What I saw looking through those pages were just two sample images with a lot of content blocked out. Show us the data, machine learning doesn't mean squat unless you know exactly how they were trained.

Our own solar system would not look like it to aliens from another star using a Kepler-like detection system. Because the orbits of the planets in our system have different inclinations, even if they could detect one of our planets the chances are small that they could detect another. In fact they would never be able to detect more than 3 of our planets using that method (Mercury+Earth+Mars or Mercury+Venus+Saturn). About 95% of the time when they could see one planet transit they wouldn't be able to see any others.

Also the mission as it is would not have detected any planets past mars. It has only been operational since 2009 and requires two transits to confirm, so planets like Jupiter with a 11 year orbit and Saturn with a 29 year orbit could not have been detected.

So these systems where we've detected multiple planets are actually unlike our own system, having many planets that are close to their star and in the same plane. The systems where only a planet or two have been detected are probably more like our own system, we have no way to tell if there are other planets with different inclinations or further out.

Clone git repository, edit file in Visual Studio, commit, now file is treated as a binary file in git because VS saved it with UTF-8 byte-order-mark.

were supposedly only kilobytes in size

'kilobytes' I'm assuming means less than a megabyte. Let's round up and say 8 million bits of information. At 24fps there are about 130,000 frames in a 90 minute movie. That means each frame is encoded in about 61 bits, less than 8 bytes, 0x0000000000000000 to 0x1FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF in hex. That's about 1.4 kilobits per second, 1/8th what you need for quite horrible sounding audio only compression. Someone isn't thinking straight...

Every time an app prompts me to review it, I go to the app store and leave it a 1* review. I'll say in the review why I did it. I have apps that update often and ask me for a review every time. I hope Apple's API will prevent that prompt if you've already rated an app.

You'll have to deal with a clunky interface and menu, silly single-player missions, brain-dead A.I., bizarre vehicle physics, horrible net code, dull graphics and sound, and more bugs than a Georgia swamp in June

This and many of the other reviews make it sound like at the time it was released it was a buggy mess. Reviewers said that the single player was worthless (you don't say), and that the multiplayer net code was so bad that players and vehicles would warp all the time. Maybe this has improved with patches over the last ten years.

At the time there was a backlash against publishers that would ship games early that were full of bugs. Many reviewers would only review based on the initial release version in response, to get the publishers to stop releasing games early and treating paying customers like beta testers. It sounds like if the game is so much fun to play, it may have fallen victim to the publisher's decision to release it before it was ready.

Nice of them to run these benchmarks, but a little better analysis would be nice. Like the Oort Online test. Chrome got 9960 and Firefox "left it in the dust" with 10,000. That's 0.4%. The difference in frame rate would be 59.76 fps vs 60.00 fps if the results are translatable.

Also, I doubt their results are generalizable across all computers. I just ran the peacekeeper benchmark on all three browsers on my laptop and chrome won.

Me: Chrome: 3191, Firefox 2908 (-283), Edge 2158 (-1033)

Them: Firefox 4655, Chrome 4325 (-330), Edge 3091 (1564)

Just take all benchmark results with a grain of salt, especially ones where all are withing 1% of each other. Saying "Edge won 4 out of 8 benchmarks" is virtually meaningless.

Providing a passcode is testimony because by it's nature it proves you know the password and have access to the device. The government must prove that you have access to that device. That can also get you into a catch-22 because what if you don't know the password, and what if the device isn't yours? Touching your finger to a sensor is something they can do to any suspect, guilty or innocent. The fact that your finger is the one that unlocks the phone does prove that you have access to it, but that is not forcing you to incriminate yourself anymore than giving a DNA sample or your fingerprints "incriminate" you if they match the evidence the police already have. You might as well argue against letting eye-witnesses see you in a lineup because that would incriminate you.

It seems that many people don't understand the purpose of the right against self incrimination. Hundreds of years ago it was common to force people to confess to crimes even using torture and that was the primary means of getting a conviction. The police would (hopefully) figure out who they think probably committed a crime and just browbeat or torture them until they confessed. You shouldn't have to answer any questions that relate to knowledge that may provide evidence against you. There is no protection against harmlessly making you do something to allow evidence to be interpreted, such as standing in a line-up, getting your fingerprints, getting a dna sample, getting dental impressions to match to bite marks, getting hair samples, getting your blood for blood type testing, etc. That would include placing your finger on a sensor.

The problem is that the FBI wouldn't want to turn over their private decryption keys and algorithms. "forensically sound" means you can turn over exact details, like mentioned in the transcript they can turn over the exact bit stream received by the FBI, and the defense experts can compile the source code used and run the program on the defendants computer and see that it produces the same exact data. If the FBI turned over an encrypted bit stream of data and not the decryption keys, there would be no link the the unencrypted evidence the FBI wanted to show in court, hence it wouldn't be as forensically sound.

The article doesn't seem to be about them DEcrypting data, but sending UNencrypted data over the internet that could have been altered en-route to where they collected it. Seems like they had gotten users to install malware and send back (unencrypted) data to the FBI to identify them. The point brought up is that someone else could alter that data en-route to make it seem l ike some innocent (they say "unconvicted" but wouldn't all of the suspects be "unconvicted" before trial?) person may have been involved. Seems like the article was written by someone with little knowledge of computers, the legal system, or the English language.

There are a lot of youtube videos in there that I didn't watch (country music videos from VEVO stations). I wonder if someone isn't embedding silent invisible players in web pages somewhere to drive ad revenue...

Unless by "stealing musing" you mean actually stealing physical media, it isn't theft. That's like taking a person's picture being called kidnapping.

Who pays who and how much is based on supply and demand, not anybody's ideology of what should be free. It's why sometimes I have to pay to rent a room for special events, and other times people pay me to show up to do effectively the same event.

It's like me getting a taxi from the airport to my hotel. The fare will be the same to me either way, but the driver will take me directly to my hotel if the hotel has an agreement with him, otherwise the driver will drive around aimlessly for two hours. There's nothing I can do about it even though I'm the one paying for the taxi ride because the government gave that taxi company a near monopoly in that city. Now all the taxis start taking people to the hotels that pay them on the back end and when I want to get a ride to my family's house there isn't a taxi available for an hour. When a new hotel opens with a great business model that can deliver lower prices and a great experience, they can't compete because the ride to and from there is so slow that they will get bad reviews and nobody will want to come.

It's not a perfect analogy, but the point is that places you go on the internet already pay for their own hosting and internet access. I supposedly pay my local ISP for access to any destination I want to go to on the internet, and I shouldn't be slowed down because I want to go to certain sites. ISPs should be in the business of passing packets around in the most efficient way for their customers. Giving them two sets of customers (one on the front end and one on the back) is clearly a conflict of interest.