They don't really break crypto in the sense of finding a flaw in the actual crypto itself. They use spear phishing to get credentials, look for weak security by brute forcing (all it takes is one guy to use 'password' as his password...), un-patched flaws in software (routers, appliances, servers, etc. used by cypto WWW sites). Once they are inside they troll around until they find the private keys and then brute force the passwords if any on those keys or use further social engineering to get someone to unlock them at the right time. They probably use social exploits like "clickfix" to install keyloggers, malware, etc. I would guess they also have entire teams who are adept at talking on the phone to do other types of social engineering. When they have a target and good management of the different attacks things are possible...With deepfakes it is getting easier to give someone flawed instructions etc.

Now Google "driver looking at phone runs in to divider".

FSD will only get better. Drivers will never improve.

I too have tried FSD in a model Y and it is leaps and bounds above what I have experience with other adaptive cruise control and lane holding techs. It is pretty cool when it pulls up to a stop sign and waits for a hole in the traffic so that it can pull out. Is there .000001% chance it will not see something? Probably, but I trust it more than the soccer mom with 3 screaming kids in the back talking on the phone to the takeout place for dinner.

If 50% of the cars on the road had this tech, I believe the accident rate and fatality rate would drop significantly. Will FSD make mistakes? Probably, but holding this tech to a 0% error rate while giving humans a pass on their mistakes is a bit suspect. Perhaps we should ban every at fault human from ever driving again....

At this point, other humans driving are far more likely to kill you than Tesla FSD.

I am looking forward to FSDs wider adoption. We will all be safer in the end.

Getting a little deep in the semantics, aren't we. If you pull out Merriam-Websters and parse every moniker from fortune 500 companies (think "unlimited internet") you would be charging a large number of people.

He may not have thought of it, but he will certainly pardon it. This is pretty low on the scale of other white collar crime he has been pardoning.

Just send a check splitting the profit 50-50 to 1-800-pardonn and sit back and watch it go away.

I have a model Y and they are currently giving me a trial of full self driving. Gotta say it is pretty cool handling things like speed bumps and roundabouts very smoothly.

The only corrections I have needed to make are because of other driver mistakes on the road.

Would I go to sleep? No....but I can look at messages or a map and not fear straying into oncoming traffic. Tonight the car drove me to and from my destination about 20 miles away without problem...very cool!

I am looking forward to the ubiquity of the tech. It is the future.

While you are technically correct in your definition of true democracy, the USA does have a functioning democracy in that voters can (and do) play a role in change of power (see 2008, 2016 and 2020). A true oligarchy gets power and doesn't release it. The USA has had many dramatic changes of power over the years negating your assertion of oligarchy.

While there are certainly some very rich politicians, the bigger problem is those "influencers" who use their money to get the politicians to do what they want. The problem with rich politicians if their self serving attitude in following their own "rich get richer" interests. The problem with poor politicians is that they are easy to "buy" in their quest to get richer.

I am pretty certain you won't find any "democracy" in the world with only "common worker" type politicians. Russia tried it in 1917 and look where that got them....China, Cuba, Venezuela all had so called revolutions that left them worse off.

There is no perfect system. The USA needs to find a formula to get the extremists (on both sides) out of the equation and things will settle down.

It's not about the odds when all cards are known. It is about the perceived odds knowing only what you are "supposed to know".

She was "supposed to know" only that she had nothing but a high Jack with a offsuit 4. Her best hand on the last card was a pair of jacks or a pair of fours.

She was not supposed to know that he had a possibility of a flush, straight flush, or whether he already had a pair, or even a jack or higher in his hand already which would beat her hand.

So she bet 100K before the last card was seen on the chance that he had 2 offsuit cards lower than tens, or the chance that she would see a jack or a four on the last card giving her a pair.

The 47% odds would only come into play if she already knew he had a seven and eight. Then she would know it is almost a 50/50 bet. Without knowing what he had she should have thought that her chance of winning with jack high were poor.

The cheating accusation stems primarily from whether she had some foreknowledge of his hand. Her last bet was not a bluff...it was a huge risk.

I suppose if money is no object you can take those risks. Or if she was confused and made an incorrect analysis of the situation thinking her odds were better (this is where my bet would be).

In any case, I agree with others that she should not have given any money back.

Ummm. No.

You really need to get an econ book and read it. The only banks that "create" money are the central banks of the various currencies. The money that banks lend out came from somewhere...could be "customers" deposits, could be investors (investment banks arrange these), but they managers of any given bank doesn't wake up in the morning and say "Hmmm I think I will give XYZ a 100million loan...write that up!" without already having the asset on their books from somewhere else.

Sorry, you are 100% wrong that with the statement: The money the bank loans out does not exist before the loan.

I think you are confusing used cars and new cars. You are correct vis-à-vis new cars... a car with 10 km on the odometer is much more valuable than a car with 100 km on the odometer.

But a used car is different. If a car is taken from a dealer with 10000 km and returned with 10100 km it doesn't lose 20% of its value and the dealer can still market it for the same price to some other sucker.

For used cars the grandparent's suggestion is excellent as long as there is some 'fee' attached to the return to prevent people from abusing it. Examples: arrive in a city go to a dealer and 'buy' a car and return it after a week's stay. Or alternatively, I go and 'buy' a used Ferrari and then do a 'no quibble' return after a week of fun.

This type of law probably has other unintended consequences which will ultimately make used cars more expensive if the laws are abused.

The used car dealers in the USA that I have dealt with also let you do "buyer's check" with your own mechanic, but that is normally "pre-sale" meaning you haven't committed to the purchase yet. These are not 'on-line', but I would think that 'on-line' sales (at least with a semi reputable dealer) would be similar. The trick is to only deal with reputable dealers, and read what you are committing to.

So TFA touts the ability to make 50cm circular wafers which can hold 25 exabytes. But it also says that there is an existing ability to create 4mm chips of pure diamond already. If I do the math their large wafers are about 125 times larger than the 4mm chips which implies to me that they should be able to create storage that are 125 times smaller.

If I divide 25 exabytes by 125 I get 200 petabytes. That is a pretty big flash drive, and a much more impressive story if someone could actually make one. Me thinks quantum storage is not quite ready for prime time either. See you in 25 years.

From what I have read, they want to 'sneak' up on the final velocity. They cannot decelerate if they exceed the intended velocity since that would entail turning the spacecraft around (apparently no reverse thrusters). They can't turn the spacecraft around since that would present the wrong side to the sun and cause unintended heating of components that must remain super cooled in order to detect the low infrared.

Their statement seems to indicate that they calculated fairly accurately what the thrust required would be for their velocity/trajectory and hence will not need planned contingency burns.

I find it cute that you call me naive, and then go on to state:

There have been arguments over what is and is not pornography for decades. Even the Supreme Court could not 'define' it. One man's 'art' is another man's 'pornography' and you will ALWAYS need someone to judge each individual item against the policy. In most case those judgments are NOT objective.

"no hate speech" is certainly easy to state, and for most 'normal' people a no brainer. I am pretty sure that all the socials already have a 'no hate speech' policy. If gab and parler would have had those policies (and enforced them), then they would not have been banned. But take a gander at gab, and you will see plenty of racist/nazi stuff brought into most any discussion (even as innocuous as 'smoked meats').

"no fomenting insurrections" is another no-brainer for most people. Did the Trumpster foment the Capitol Insurrection? I think so...others think not.

Your world is a bit too black and white. Gab was banned for all the nazi and kkk stuff that was not hard to find...if they stuck to "trump is great" they would not have had the trouble. If you go on Twitter or FB and state "trump is great" you won't get banned. If you go on Twitter or FB and state "the election was stolen and take your guns down to the Capitol and let those people know you mean it" you might get banned. And good riddance.

So I have not heard a a solution; force every platform to allow every form of content? What about porn? What about child abuse? Terrorists threatening to blow things up? School Shooters? Who would you have draw the line? Politicians? haha.

Porn has been banned from Youtube and Facebook, so I would think that you also support forcing them to allow porn on their platforms as free speech right next to the hate speech.

At the moment there are hundreds, if not thousands of platforms where sites can be hosted. If Gab was banned from all of them, then I believe it really was hundreds or even thousands of independent decisions that led to that result. If all the payment processors decided not to support them I believe they also independently made the decision, albeit probably one after the other. Did they 'pile on' with the thought process that "if they can ban them so can I?" Probably, I have no idea how you would legislate the prevention of 'piling on'.

My solution is to allow every platform the right to police their own content. What is your solution?