Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more foolfoolz's commentslogin

this article claims humans will review code. there will be a date where the ai code review will meet your SOC compliance policies for change management


this is like a tiktok rage bait way of thinking. western nations have largely peaked on carbon emissions. china is slowing down and will peak soon. there are a lot of countries that still are growing in emissions, sure, but you are not looking at this scientifically.


Scientifically according to the article, the world is on an emissions path to 2.8°C warming, not accounting for the extra rate of warming we've seen in recent years. And this puts us at greater risk of hitting tipping points into an even warmer planet. So the status quo isn't cutting it.


China is nowhere near peaking, nor is the world.

https://ourworldindata.org/profile/co2/china https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi... https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

It's true that the West did peak in 2007 (as did South America, India, and Africa), but Asia's emissions are so massive that they more than make up for all of the reductions of the rest of the world. That last link I posted makes clear how big the problem with China is.


it’s a standard feature on all models for many brands today


* “all your money lives on the internet and it’s safe”

* “internet voting is insecure”

who wins?


Internet voting needs to be anonymous and non demonstrable.

Internet money needs to be the opposite, and reversible through the courts.


I think it is very difficult to secure internet voting, someone can stand behind you and twist your arm or otherwise coerce you to vote for their candidate. Much harder to do when there are observers and witnesses at the polling booth.


>Internet voting needs to be anonymous and non demonstrable

Why? Honestly Internet voting would improve overall turnout, which seems more important. And we probably could accomplish anonymity with some clever cryptography.


Anonymity keeps the government from locking you up if you vote the wrong way. Non-demonstrable keeps you from selling your vote to your boss.

That is why you typically show id, get a ballot and there is no relationship between the two.


I could still sell my vote to my boss in the typical system.

And we could use cryptography to vote anonymously after authentication online.


In the current system how do you sell your vote?

You go into the voting booth alone.


"I give you $50 if you vote for me, you'll get it when I win the ballot"

If someone is willing to sell their vote in the first place, they have zero incentive to vote for another candidate. They only have to trust the buyer to follow up on his promise (which is required in any other scenario also).


It can't be anonymous. There has to be some form of IDV to ensure it is a registered voter.


The ballot has to be anonymous, or unable to be tied back to the voter once cast. It’s a hard requirement for a variety of reasons


You have to trust the voting place/ballot receiver in all cases. Like, after they take your name, you need to make sure that they aren't secretly associating your name with the ballot you are filling in. Likewise, if you vote by mail, you need to make sure that they aren't associating your identity on the envelope with the anonymous ballot inside the envelope.


This is a solved problem for in-person voting with indentical ballots and self-depositing into sealed ballot boxes.

It is an unsolvable problem for mail in voting, which is why it should be prohibited in most cases.


It’s also a solved problem for mail in.

Double envelope systems, observable counting systems and standardized ballots that can checked for non uniqueness before voting are how they do it.

People have thought hard about this, and it has worked fine for may states for decades now.


That only solves the double-counting problem, and it's fundamentally impossible to solve the voter ID and voter manipulation problems with postal voting.


Except for older republicans and military members in almost all states?


I'm not American, so I don't understand the older republican comment, but except in exceptionally adverse circumstances (astronauts on the ISS or submariners, etc) the military can provide ballot boxes to it's personnel.


Military and overseas voters vote in their home state elections, even federally (all elections are held by states, even for federal candidates). You would need to ensure that there is a ballot box representing each state that has an eligible voter at a given site, and then need to figure out logistics for getting thousands of sealed boxes back to the vote counters in each state within the allotted deadline. You would also need to solve the issue of maintaining vote anonymity at low volumes.

Or, you could have a central, federally run organization that takes responsibility for delivering sealed ballots to the respective states in a timely manner. Which is what we call voting by mail.


> Or, you could have a central, federally run organization that takes responsibility for delivering sealed ballots to the respective states in a timely manner. Which is what we call voting by mail.

No, postal voting is not the same as bringing ballot boxes to voters in exceptional circumstances and does not have the same set of tradeoffs. Postal voting in particular certainly does not solve the voter manipulation problem.

The fact that so many other countries manage to actually provide ballot boxes to all voters, even to voters in much more remote scenarios than US military service and countries with far fewer resources means that the US has no excuses.


They use mail in ballots. Older people who are seen as having trouble reaching the polls can also vote by mail in most states. American conservatives don't see these as problems because these mail-in votes are generally in their favor.


Please do yourself a favor and volunteer at a voting location. These are essentially solved issues, and you seem completely unaware of that fact.


I live in a vote by mail state (like most of the west), I know exactly how it’s done.


The vote needs to be anonymous, not the registration + checkin process.


When digital content can be duplicated with ease, it is difficult to guarantee verified voter but untraceable vote.


Indeed, many people now get a erroneous covid tax-relief refund bill for not qualifying for a program they never signed up for in the first place.

One local scammer made off with a $5m government refund for a fraudulent business tax filing. You can't make this stuff up if you tried...

At some point, one is just amazed at the size of the cons people pull online. =3


* “internet voting is insecure” wins because your internet money is not safe. Hackers get into people's bank accounts all the time. It's actually amazing to me how many people here somehow think that internet banking is anything but massively insecure.


Second is also possible in jurisdictions that issue id cards with cryptographic layer AND ability with the companion app to only prove a scope of the identity.

Without saying too much about my home country I believe it's doable.


dams have trade offs that they stop sediment outflows which can cause faster erosion. this is a big reason many california beaches have gone from mostly sandy to mostly rocky


Yeah, and with California's typical topography (relatively younger mountains), there's a lot of sediment at the ready than can fill dams and render them worse than useless -- i.e., costs money, loses capacity fast, alters river and coast.

E.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilija_Dam#History

> Almost immediately after construction, the dam began silting up. The dam traps about 30% of the total sediment in the Ventura River system, depriving ocean beaches of replenishing sediment. Initially, engineers had estimated it would take 39 years for the reservoir to fill with silt, but within a few years it was clear that the siltation rate was much faster than anticipated.

There are similar sites all over the state. If you happen to live in the LA area, the Devil's Gate Dam above Pasadena is another such (but originally built for flood control, not for storage).

It's just not as easy as GP comment imagines.


strange because this is one of the warmest winters in decades. snow levels are far below normal, i saw 8% of normal in truckee. full reservoirs now are great but keeping them filled depends on a long snow melt going into june. i don’t think this is going to be a good year for that


It's not quite that dire. Statewide 69% normal to date. Snowpack peaks March-April, so still have a ways to go in the season. https://snow.water.ca.gov

But yeah, snowmelt plays a huge role in supplying water into the summer, so just looking at precipitation totals isn't the full picture.


The warmth partially explains the rain. Storms far across the pacific have formed and traveled east to land on California. Unfortunately it also means, as you said, we can't capture as much of it as snow pack.


Here's the data from the Berkeley snow lab, located along I80 at the Sugar Bowl exit: https://cssl.berkeley.edu/

Snowfall is currently 75% of normal.


It gets lost when everything is summarized as wet


there are still people today who roam neighborhoods collecting bottles and cans


My neighborhood recycling occurs on Thursday night, so I take all my empty cans and put them in a clear plastic back and put them next to my trash. I do not think that the garbage people have ever gotten the cans; there is always a homeless person that will walk around and pick up the bag of empties, presumably to redeem them somewhere.

I don’t have an issue with it, if they want to do what I am too lazy to do, more power to them.


ai ethics was/is useless. it felt a lot like the movie industry of the 1930s saying they will police themselves just to keep any bigger regulator away


To say "AI ethics is useless" is itself useless.

Morality is not there to be useful, right or wrong in moral sense are normative categories not utilitarian ones.

But what you possibly may mean is really AI ethics self-regulation by large tech corporation does not work. (If that was your intended statement, I'd agree.)


... And then they didn't!


for good reasons.


or maybe we can let people think for themselves


bob page did nothing wrong, he just wanted to be a god like everyone else


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: