You are confused. NN is not about what websites publish. It's about how service providers shape traffic.
As for Youtube and other sites, it's entirely up to them what they allow. You have freedom of speech, but Youtube is under no obligation whatsoever to hand you a megaphone.
Arguably, service providers should be content-neutral regardless of if they're an ISP or a server.
However, the method of how you get NN regulations seriously matters. You want something which is on a practical level enforceable and which will stand up in court if challenged--and that means at the very least that there needs to be actual enabling legislation, even if it's done by passing a literal post-it note with a simple statement empowering the FCC to make regulations requiring net neutrality & enforce them.
I would, however, prefer actual robust privacy regulations instead. It's going to be easier to enforce those than direct net neutrality regulations.
Last I checked, Tumblr was failing with adult content--I was reading business news and the like when it was bought by Yahoo and for a while afterwards, and I don't think they ever reported a profit...unless you count the money that traded hands when it got sold to Yahoo. It's been a bit of a dumpster fire for ages.
If it isn't something like slamming into a wall, a drunk or asleep driver's actually got a better chance of survival, mostly because they'll be limp. This applies even at highway speeds--my parents got to see people walk away from managing to land their car in the neighbor's tree one Thanksgiving because they were all impressively drunk. (Not sure how fast they were going, except to pull off the accident they did, they had to have been going over 90mph...in a residential neighborhood in the middle of a city.)
Officers said that they were unable to get the man's attention.
Even if the man was asleep, how on earth do you sleep through a police siren right next to your car? Those things are made to be loud enough to cut through a car's noise insulation from a distance, leave alone in proximate.
I grew up on a college campus and managed to routinely sleep through my neighbor's wild parties, including the one where there were firetrucks only a couple meters away from my bedroom.
In this case, though, my guess is alcohol played a role. You can do a lot of fun and interesting things with a person in a drunken stupor, especially if you know how to get into their phone & they keep their phone logged into Facebook. (Being known to take this view also can prevent people from drinking themselves into a stupor around you, which is pretty nice if you don't want to be stuck being responsible for dragging their drunk asses to beds.)
Really? A drunk driver in a non-self-driving vehicle can't get up to 70 MPH and nod off, crossing the median and hitting a car head on? You realize 10,000 people die annually in the US due to DUI because of *exactly* what happened to the driver in this Tesla? There's nothing "new" about this. A self-driving vehicle did not "enable" any additional level of unsafe driving than any other vehicle capable of reaching 70 MPH.
On the contrary. It enabled seven whole minutes of unsafe driving with nobody conscious behind the wheel. When you think about it, that's pretty remarkable. If you nod off in a normal car, you're pretty much dead, and there's a decent chance you'll take other people with you. If you nod off in a Tesla, there's a nonzero chance you'll get pulled over in a complex traffic break seven minutes later, not having killed anybody.
And probably quite likely to be off the road for a while, since it is unlikely that you will have your driver's license back anytime soon.
The thing is, the less work involved/required for driving, the more likely it is that you are going to fall asleep--that's why it's the long-straight-into-the-horizon stretches tend to have problems here. If car's autopilot functions take too much of the burden off of a human driver without being to the point where it is not going to be any problem if the driver falls asleep at the wheel? All it's doing is making it more likely that it'll happen.
Maybe the priority over 'can drive self at constant speed in constant direction until a solid object is collided with' should have been to have the car capable of pulling itself over to the side of the road safely should the driver become incapacitated? Or at least not requiring a complex traffic break to be pulled over by the cops?
Actually that's a pile of bullshit. Google doesn't expect or demand absolute perfection (after all, it's own services would be quickly banned if it did). It requires a decent effort to be made, and in this case Tumbler admitted that they failed to properly maintain their databases. They didn't demonstrate their competence or dedication to the task.
Looking at it, it's not a case of 'admitted that they failed to properly maintain their databases' as much as 'discovered new stuff for the industry database.' It doesn't maintain itself, y'know.
This is a massive security fail. It's just an EEPROM and unique ID combo. Easy to clone.
You've just described EVERY ID card from every company. They aren't trying to enhance security, they are just phasing out the process of carying around a badge.
I think carrying around a badge is probably the preferable solution from a security standpoint. It's easier for humans to verify that you've got one on you, and some will even make sure it's actually the right badge for the area you're in & the badge belongs to you. An implanted chip? If the security system goes down, how can anybody verify you are somewhere you shouldn't--or should--be?
Really, the DEF CON talk I'd be looking forward to if this gets popular would be about to get physical access to a place with just a chip in your pocket and social engineering.
Is the UE benefits at a state defined level or a level relative to the salary of the employee?
Short version, yes--the state defines a level and it's in part determined to how much you were paid, ect, ect. That said, in states with 'at will' employment laws, you don't want to fire an employee for no reason just after, say, she has complained to HR about her supervisor trying to extort sexual favors from her--or who refused a demand of at-best-questionable legality.
It will be particularly interesting if the test case is somebody who refused the implant for religious or medical reasons, since that might bring up the question of if it's an attempt to get around laws against certain types of discrimination... (I don't think it will help the company there that the implanted chips are not actually that good security-wise--that there are other methods for achieving the stated goal that are at least as effective if not better.)
I don't doubt that this isn't going on right now, but.. can you provide examples of such behavior?
His examples unfortunately are common in America and widely practiced. My own company (I won't say which here other than being in the top 20 of the Fortune list) impliments this practice... in America. They have tried slowly introducing some of these practices in Europe as well only to have their efforts blocked by various legal and union (not the American style union) challenges.
Some of these are also things that are against the law...in America. US workers seem to tend to be very ignorant of their rights, though, and when it's time to find a lawyer.
The heart rate tracking is becoming mainstream because the asshole private insurance companies threaten to raise the rates or drop the company if they DON"T do it forcing HR. Gee, and they say government socialism insurance is evil and invasive with death panels here in the States? I think it's the other way around.
The main difference between your employer and your government is that it's a lot harder to force the government to take no for an answer, even when what it demands is illegal.
And it doesn't help that the health insurance companies are pretty much in bed with the state, so odds are that if the state starts running it, the management will all be hired away from those private insurance companies & bring their ideas with them...
I'd also not quite mind it if I had the option of trading the info that I parked my car downtown as payment for the parking space--I mean, seriously, I'm probably going to give a lot more specific information away if I don't have the small bills & change to pay the fee. Having to use one of my cards to pay is a lot more specific and definite than just having it known that my car was parked there, especially since I'm not the only person who drives it places...
Some of the issue here should be that it's not just the loss of privacy but the fact you are getting no direct benefit from it. (I suspect that you could use this kind of data to improve your understanding of a city's parking needs and ability to predict what effects changes like building a stadium or a new store might cause, which would be an indirect benefit. However, I don't think it ought to count, even on the off chance that your city government is actually intelligent enough to do that level of analysis when making those kinds of decisions--the ones I'm used to tend appear to prefer consulting fake psychics and spent decades in denial that we needed parking garages downtown...when this was rather obvious to anybody who needed to find parking spaces there.)
There's a few valid and good reasons to spoof Caller IDs--but we should certainly have the tech so you could have a 'display-as' a la reply-to in emails, so it doesn't work for hiding your number and allow/encourage/require telcos to make sure the actual and display-as number are owned by the same person so you can only spoof yourself. (Why might you want to? Well, I might only have your business phone's number in my phone's contact lists, but you need to make an urgent call to me from your personal cell phone and don't want me not answering just because I don't know it's you...and you might also not want me having your personal number.)
Well, yes, if you don't want a betting pool on how long it'll be before it ends up in court because a self-driving vehicle broke the law. Options include what law, what the damages are (dead/injured, ect), and what the claims will be made by the company regarding liability.
I would not wish to be Waymo's insurer for this, and honestly I'm a bit surprised that it's being given the green light without it being nailed down firmly just who is legally responsible if, say, a driverless car decides to stage a vehicular attack of an elementary school or other such fun antics a motor vehicle might get up to. (Right now, I would not care to bet that it will not be whomever the court decides was the backup driver--which doesn't necessarily mean they knew they were or had any means by which to take manual control of the vehicle.)
The number I suspect you're trying to talk about is literally the statement of what you decided was the value you decided would be the minimum in the stat of importance as an indicator of statistical significance; the value for this is set by norms more than anything else, and tells you mostly about the researchers and their expectations. The R of R^2 is the correlation coefficient, and R^2 can pretty much be read as a mathematical representation of the correlation of your line to the data--the higher it is, the more likely your line actually has a strong relationship with the data points.
I'm actually looking at this as a psych person as it is in one of my fields and I'm not sure I'd actually have bothered trying to get this paper published because it's clickbait-quality...which is why I'm unwilling to even try to get at its abstract and see what the statistical results are. That should be the last line of the abstract in a modern psych paper when it is reporting new research where statistics were done. I'd only leave it out of such if my actual research is about quality control in academic publishing...and I'm creating a deliberately bad paper in hopes of collecting rejection letters. (I'd probably have some subtler indications of my data being faked in there as well, on the off chance an editor decides to look it over to see if I should be told to resubmit with the formatting and style errors fixed...)
Well... real correlations with crappy R2 do mean that there's some connection between the two things.
First off, there's spurious correlations--where the most reasonable explanation for a statistically significant correlation (where the R2 is actually a very high value) is that it's just a really, really, really weird coincidence. This site lets you explore examples, and some have a very strong R^2 while also being quite unlikely to actually have a correlation--for example, the divorce rate in Maine correlates to the per capita consumption of margarine with an R^2 of 0.99...but there is no reasonable mechanism by which one could influence the other. That's actually part of why you're generally supposed to include some sort of theory when you're trying to show correlations, unless your goal is to create demonstrations of why it's wrong to assume that correlation even implies connection, no less causation.
Next, a R^2 of 0.02 is...fantastically low. The range is from 0 to 1, because it's basically a ratio. You can think of it very accurately as a measure of how well the line you just drew on the graph paper correlates to the data points--with 1 being the point at which it's perfect and 0 being where it has no relationship whatsoever.
Last? The usual cutoff for statistical significance in psych research is 0.05. Statistical significance is the point where you feel the correlation is strong enough that it isn't just cause by error--and one major cause of error is choosing a too-low threshold. And, well, 0.02 is less than half the normal threshold...
Hey, come on, an R^2 of 0.02 is really strong correlation!
Is that what they found? Then the tl;dr of the study is "We gotta publish something and this is something." I kind of think that, until we can fix publish-or-perish so you can afford to take the time to do quality research and probably even afterwards, we need a journal or two with titles like Unusual Results in Science--for when your research pretty much returned inconclusive or surreal results of the "Somehow the math returned a result of apple" sort. It'd probably do a decent bit towards the possible problems caused by having the actually normal results possibly not being the ones published--and, well, just because your experiment returned surreal results doesn't mean it might not be scientifically useful. (Even if it may raise new and disturbing questions like "Why are the laws of physics apparently different within a meter of J. Random, the theoretical physicist???")
" I'd be a rather leery of anything that requires that the person on the other end have a proprietary app. (Admittedly, the NSA would probably be in a better position to do a code review, but...)"
So you'd take the certainty of being intercepted over the possibility of something being "bad" in a closed-source product? Do you also draw to inside straights while playing poker?
Actually, to me it's a question of if I prefer a known lack of security or a potentially false sense of security--if you really want to minimax laziness and sneakiness, you can hardly do worse than slip your 'bug' into an app that promises to keep communications secure... There is a reason some places make a point of starting poker games with a new deck that got unsealed right where everybody could see it.
Also, sometimes your safest bet in security is to assume somebody's listening. There are ways around this. For example, I suspect you could have a lot of fun by having it hard for, say, Russians listening in to tell when you're using your tales of the wild & stray animals of Washington, DC as a cover for discussing Russia or no, really, you just found out that the dog you named in honor of Putin is female because she had a litter of puppies. (You will also very quickly know if they're listening in, given that calling somebody a female dog in Russian is quite offensive. Some methods for concealing what you're talking about do have the nice bonus of giving you ways to find out--after all, if the only way he could know about Puppy Putin is spying...)
You're using Hanlon's Razor wrong; you might cut yourself. Signal doesn't make much effort to make itself well-known--and, in many ways, I doubt the NSA would have opted to go with it and I'd be a rather leery of anything that requires that the person on the other end have a proprietary app. (Admittedly, the NSA would probably be in a better position to do a code review, but...) It is good to know that there's some solution to the overall problem, though.
However, I was applying Hanlon's Razor to whomever's job it was to make sure that Trump's cell phone calls would be secure. If his reason for not using it is, as reported, the contact list? That makes it damn unlikely for 'innocent ignorance of an option' to be on the table, because anybody who is qualified for the job should be aware that contact lists can be copied over...and the bottom line? It is completely and totally irrelevant who is POTUS, because it's reasonable to anticipate that this person would want their contact list on their shiny new presidential cell phone from their personal cell phone. This wouldn't change if we somehow managed to elect Harambe president--how a dead gorilla would manage to have a personal cell phone with a contact list would be an entirely separate issue from the fact that, if it exists, that contact list needs to be copied over.
If you had bothered to read the article, you would have noticed that the allegation is that the communications are intercepted en route, not at the device itself. But since you were so eager to defend someone who is actually a chump, I guess we should expect some bias and dishonesty from you.
If it's being intercepted en route, then I doubt the NSA-hardened cell phones are going to do any better... After all, I doubt they're actually encrypting the calls--that doesn't seem likely to be technically feasible if these phones use the standard cell network.
However, there is no sane reason for not having gotten his contact list moved over onto one of them. Transferring contact lists between cell phones is a trivial thing to do. Even if you're scared of doing it by transferring the data for some absurd reason, or it can't be done because it's part of how vendor lock-in is managed, there is always the option of doing it by hand...which is still trivial, just tedious. (So, it's a job for the interns.)
Therefore: Why did the people responsible for ensuring that the POTUS has a secure cell phone decide to not move it over? Is there some (presumably utterly stupid) reason it's not standard operating procedure, given it's a reasonable and anticipatable desire?
Really, while that is a rather wordy way of saying 'so utterly shite it never made it out the door,' it is quite interesting to know how and why it was so bad. Thank you!
I love how something is "dead" if continuous updates aren't being done. At some point you are finished. It works as intended. Quit adding shit for the sake of adding shit.
It works as intended, until the OS or a dependency or a standard or some combination of that gets changed and breaks it.
However, I will agree that it'd be nice if there was a point where a program could announce that it's got all the features in and any future updates will be maintenance updates--and not be considered dead merely because there's not been any need for a while to release any of those because nobody's broken it & there's not been any need to release a bugfix update yet. (Presumably there's always a few bugs, but at some point they'll hopefully all be trivial enough you can't justify releasing a update until it patches several of them.)
Yes, except characterizing penetration of an unconscious person after she had repeatedly told him no while awake as "bad sex" is more than a bit misleading.
Except that didn't happen.
The crime he's accused of is lying about using a condom in order to get consent. Which is why his supporters flip out over that being illegal in Sweden and legal in other countries.
Well, the thing that really makes it amusing is that a lot of the people flipping out over it being illegal in Sweden live in countries where it probably is also illegal, or is likely to become illegal due to changes in the law or in how it's interpreted.
And what's the penalty for that? Oh, the penalty is you're held in jail until the case is resolved. Resolution is to ship him to Sweden.
And the UK would, since they're extraditing him, be in a position to insist that if they extradite him, then they get to make sure Sweden doesn't do anything to him outside of what they agreed to extradite him for.
Honestly, at this point it seems most likely that either he's guilty of what he's accused of, or suffering from delusions. The latter certainly would explain why Ecuador might be trying to get him to move out of their embassy, and I suspect he was long ago offered a chance to get out of the UK and to Ecuador.
note that it doesn't quite cover why pedestrians might feel endangered.
Are you working under the assumption that being hit by a bike won't cause injury?
Did you miss the part about my experience with being nearly hit by a bike, and that I opted instead for throwing myself off a short cliff to avoid being hit by a bike? Or are you working under the assumption that I did that for some reason other than self-preservation?
Google search says that, at least as of 2016, yes, including Washington, DC and Boston. Reference which also covers some of the issues--though I'd note that it doesn't quite cover why pedestrians might feel endangered.
So: Where I grew up, it was legal when I was in preschool...and yes, yes some did try to run people over. I was almost run over myself, around when I was six. That was how I learned I knew how to fall safely well enough to manage a ~10ft steep drop through thick brush & walk away without even a bruise, because it was that, get hit by the fast-moving bike, or go into the busy street. The man on the bike did not bother stopping to see if I was okay...
Slashdot Mirror
You are confused. NN is not about what websites publish. It's about how service providers shape traffic.
As for Youtube and other sites, it's entirely up to them what they allow. You have freedom of speech, but Youtube is under no obligation whatsoever to hand you a megaphone.
Arguably, service providers should be content-neutral regardless of if they're an ISP or a server.
However, the method of how you get NN regulations seriously matters. You want something which is on a practical level enforceable and which will stand up in court if challenged--and that means at the very least that there needs to be actual enabling legislation, even if it's done by passing a literal post-it note with a simple statement empowering the FCC to make regulations requiring net neutrality & enforce them.
I would, however, prefer actual robust privacy regulations instead. It's going to be easier to enforce those than direct net neutrality regulations.
Last I checked, Tumblr was failing with adult content--I was reading business news and the like when it was bought by Yahoo and for a while afterwards, and I don't think they ever reported a profit...unless you count the money that traded hands when it got sold to Yahoo. It's been a bit of a dumpster fire for ages.
If it isn't something like slamming into a wall, a drunk or asleep driver's actually got a better chance of survival, mostly because they'll be limp. This applies even at highway speeds--my parents got to see people walk away from managing to land their car in the neighbor's tree one Thanksgiving because they were all impressively drunk. (Not sure how fast they were going, except to pull off the accident they did, they had to have been going over 90mph...in a residential neighborhood in the middle of a city.)
Officers said that they were unable to get the man's attention.
Even if the man was asleep, how on earth do you sleep through a police siren right next to your car? Those things are made to be loud enough to cut through a car's noise insulation from a distance, leave alone in proximate.
I grew up on a college campus and managed to routinely sleep through my neighbor's wild parties, including the one where there were firetrucks only a couple meters away from my bedroom.
In this case, though, my guess is alcohol played a role. You can do a lot of fun and interesting things with a person in a drunken stupor, especially if you know how to get into their phone & they keep their phone logged into Facebook. (Being known to take this view also can prevent people from drinking themselves into a stupor around you, which is pretty nice if you don't want to be stuck being responsible for dragging their drunk asses to beds.)
On the contrary. It enabled seven whole minutes of unsafe driving with nobody conscious behind the wheel. When you think about it, that's pretty remarkable. If you nod off in a normal car, you're pretty much dead, and there's a decent chance you'll take other people with you. If you nod off in a Tesla, there's a nonzero chance you'll get pulled over in a complex traffic break seven minutes later, not having killed anybody.
And probably quite likely to be off the road for a while, since it is unlikely that you will have your driver's license back anytime soon.
The thing is, the less work involved/required for driving, the more likely it is that you are going to fall asleep--that's why it's the long-straight-into-the-horizon stretches tend to have problems here. If car's autopilot functions take too much of the burden off of a human driver without being to the point where it is not going to be any problem if the driver falls asleep at the wheel? All it's doing is making it more likely that it'll happen.
Maybe the priority over 'can drive self at constant speed in constant direction until a solid object is collided with' should have been to have the car capable of pulling itself over to the side of the road safely should the driver become incapacitated? Or at least not requiring a complex traffic break to be pulled over by the cops?
Actually that's a pile of bullshit. Google doesn't expect or demand absolute perfection (after all, it's own services would be quickly banned if it did). It requires a decent effort to be made, and in this case Tumbler admitted that they failed to properly maintain their databases. They didn't demonstrate their competence or dedication to the task.
Looking at it, it's not a case of 'admitted that they failed to properly maintain their databases' as much as 'discovered new stuff for the industry database.' It doesn't maintain itself, y'know.
This is a massive security fail. It's just an EEPROM and unique ID combo. Easy to clone.
You've just described EVERY ID card from every company. They aren't trying to enhance security, they are just phasing out the process of carying around a badge.
I think carrying around a badge is probably the preferable solution from a security standpoint. It's easier for humans to verify that you've got one on you, and some will even make sure it's actually the right badge for the area you're in & the badge belongs to you. An implanted chip? If the security system goes down, how can anybody verify you are somewhere you shouldn't--or should--be?
Really, the DEF CON talk I'd be looking forward to if this gets popular would be about to get physical access to a place with just a chip in your pocket and social engineering.
Is the UE benefits at a state defined level or a level relative to the salary of the employee?
Short version, yes--the state defines a level and it's in part determined to how much you were paid, ect, ect. That said, in states with 'at will' employment laws, you don't want to fire an employee for no reason just after, say, she has complained to HR about her supervisor trying to extort sexual favors from her--or who refused a demand of at-best-questionable legality.
It will be particularly interesting if the test case is somebody who refused the implant for religious or medical reasons, since that might bring up the question of if it's an attempt to get around laws against certain types of discrimination... (I don't think it will help the company there that the implanted chips are not actually that good security-wise--that there are other methods for achieving the stated goal that are at least as effective if not better.)
I don't doubt that this isn't going on right now, but .. can you provide examples of such behavior?
His examples unfortunately are common in America and widely practiced. My own company (I won't say which here other than being in the top 20 of the Fortune list) impliments this practice ... in America. They have tried slowly introducing some of these practices in Europe as well only to have their efforts blocked by various legal and union (not the American style union) challenges.
Some of these are also things that are against the law...in America. US workers seem to tend to be very ignorant of their rights, though, and when it's time to find a lawyer.
The heart rate tracking is becoming mainstream because the asshole private insurance companies threaten to raise the rates or drop the company if they DON"T do it forcing HR. Gee, and they say government socialism insurance is evil and invasive with death panels here in the States? I think it's the other way around.
The main difference between your employer and your government is that it's a lot harder to force the government to take no for an answer, even when what it demands is illegal.
And it doesn't help that the health insurance companies are pretty much in bed with the state, so odds are that if the state starts running it, the management will all be hired away from those private insurance companies & bring their ideas with them...
I'd also not quite mind it if I had the option of trading the info that I parked my car downtown as payment for the parking space--I mean, seriously, I'm probably going to give a lot more specific information away if I don't have the small bills & change to pay the fee. Having to use one of my cards to pay is a lot more specific and definite than just having it known that my car was parked there, especially since I'm not the only person who drives it places...
Some of the issue here should be that it's not just the loss of privacy but the fact you are getting no direct benefit from it. (I suspect that you could use this kind of data to improve your understanding of a city's parking needs and ability to predict what effects changes like building a stadium or a new store might cause, which would be an indirect benefit. However, I don't think it ought to count, even on the off chance that your city government is actually intelligent enough to do that level of analysis when making those kinds of decisions--the ones I'm used to tend appear to prefer consulting fake psychics and spent decades in denial that we needed parking garages downtown...when this was rather obvious to anybody who needed to find parking spaces there.)
There's a few valid and good reasons to spoof Caller IDs--but we should certainly have the tech so you could have a 'display-as' a la reply-to in emails, so it doesn't work for hiding your number and allow/encourage/require telcos to make sure the actual and display-as number are owned by the same person so you can only spoof yourself. (Why might you want to? Well, I might only have your business phone's number in my phone's contact lists, but you need to make an urgent call to me from your personal cell phone and don't want me not answering just because I don't know it's you...and you might also not want me having your personal number.)
Well, yes, if you don't want a betting pool on how long it'll be before it ends up in court because a self-driving vehicle broke the law. Options include what law, what the damages are (dead/injured, ect), and what the claims will be made by the company regarding liability.
I would not wish to be Waymo's insurer for this, and honestly I'm a bit surprised that it's being given the green light without it being nailed down firmly just who is legally responsible if, say, a driverless car decides to stage a vehicular attack of an elementary school or other such fun antics a motor vehicle might get up to. (Right now, I would not care to bet that it will not be whomever the court decides was the backup driver--which doesn't necessarily mean they knew they were or had any means by which to take manual control of the vehicle.)
The number I suspect you're trying to talk about is literally the statement of what you decided was the value you decided would be the minimum in the stat of importance as an indicator of statistical significance; the value for this is set by norms more than anything else, and tells you mostly about the researchers and their expectations. The R of R^2 is the correlation coefficient, and R^2 can pretty much be read as a mathematical representation of the correlation of your line to the data--the higher it is, the more likely your line actually has a strong relationship with the data points.
I'm actually looking at this as a psych person as it is in one of my fields and I'm not sure I'd actually have bothered trying to get this paper published because it's clickbait-quality...which is why I'm unwilling to even try to get at its abstract and see what the statistical results are. That should be the last line of the abstract in a modern psych paper when it is reporting new research where statistics were done. I'd only leave it out of such if my actual research is about quality control in academic publishing...and I'm creating a deliberately bad paper in hopes of collecting rejection letters. (I'd probably have some subtler indications of my data being faked in there as well, on the off chance an editor decides to look it over to see if I should be told to resubmit with the formatting and style errors fixed...)
Well... real correlations with crappy R2 do mean that there's some connection between the two things.
First off, there's spurious correlations--where the most reasonable explanation for a statistically significant correlation (where the R2 is actually a very high value) is that it's just a really, really, really weird coincidence. This site lets you explore examples, and some have a very strong R^2 while also being quite unlikely to actually have a correlation--for example, the divorce rate in Maine correlates to the per capita consumption of margarine with an R^2 of 0.99...but there is no reasonable mechanism by which one could influence the other. That's actually part of why you're generally supposed to include some sort of theory when you're trying to show correlations, unless your goal is to create demonstrations of why it's wrong to assume that correlation even implies connection, no less causation.
Next, a R^2 of 0.02 is...fantastically low. The range is from 0 to 1, because it's basically a ratio. You can think of it very accurately as a measure of how well the line you just drew on the graph paper correlates to the data points--with 1 being the point at which it's perfect and 0 being where it has no relationship whatsoever.
Last? The usual cutoff for statistical significance in psych research is 0.05. Statistical significance is the point where you feel the correlation is strong enough that it isn't just cause by error--and one major cause of error is choosing a too-low threshold. And, well, 0.02 is less than half the normal threshold...
Hey, come on, an R^2 of 0.02 is really strong correlation!
Is that what they found? Then the tl;dr of the study is "We gotta publish something and this is something." I kind of think that, until we can fix publish-or-perish so you can afford to take the time to do quality research and probably even afterwards, we need a journal or two with titles like Unusual Results in Science--for when your research pretty much returned inconclusive or surreal results of the "Somehow the math returned a result of apple" sort. It'd probably do a decent bit towards the possible problems caused by having the actually normal results possibly not being the ones published--and, well, just because your experiment returned surreal results doesn't mean it might not be scientifically useful. (Even if it may raise new and disturbing questions like "Why are the laws of physics apparently different within a meter of J. Random, the theoretical physicist???")
" I'd be a rather leery of anything that requires that the person on the other end have a proprietary app. (Admittedly, the NSA would probably be in a better position to do a code review, but...)"
So you'd take the certainty of being intercepted over the possibility of something being "bad" in a closed-source product? Do you also draw to inside straights while playing poker?
Actually, to me it's a question of if I prefer a known lack of security or a potentially false sense of security--if you really want to minimax laziness and sneakiness, you can hardly do worse than slip your 'bug' into an app that promises to keep communications secure... There is a reason some places make a point of starting poker games with a new deck that got unsealed right where everybody could see it.
Also, sometimes your safest bet in security is to assume somebody's listening. There are ways around this. For example, I suspect you could have a lot of fun by having it hard for, say, Russians listening in to tell when you're using your tales of the wild & stray animals of Washington, DC as a cover for discussing Russia or no, really, you just found out that the dog you named in honor of Putin is female because she had a litter of puppies. (You will also very quickly know if they're listening in, given that calling somebody a female dog in Russian is quite offensive. Some methods for concealing what you're talking about do have the nice bonus of giving you ways to find out--after all, if the only way he could know about Puppy Putin is spying...)
You're using Hanlon's Razor wrong; you might cut yourself. Signal doesn't make much effort to make itself well-known--and, in many ways, I doubt the NSA would have opted to go with it and I'd be a rather leery of anything that requires that the person on the other end have a proprietary app. (Admittedly, the NSA would probably be in a better position to do a code review, but...) It is good to know that there's some solution to the overall problem, though.
However, I was applying Hanlon's Razor to whomever's job it was to make sure that Trump's cell phone calls would be secure. If his reason for not using it is, as reported, the contact list? That makes it damn unlikely for 'innocent ignorance of an option' to be on the table, because anybody who is qualified for the job should be aware that contact lists can be copied over...and the bottom line? It is completely and totally irrelevant who is POTUS, because it's reasonable to anticipate that this person would want their contact list on their shiny new presidential cell phone from their personal cell phone. This wouldn't change if we somehow managed to elect Harambe president--how a dead gorilla would manage to have a personal cell phone with a contact list would be an entirely separate issue from the fact that, if it exists, that contact list needs to be copied over.
Sure! I'm glad you asked.
If you had bothered to read the article, you would have noticed that the allegation is that the communications are intercepted en route, not at the device itself. But since you were so eager to defend someone who is actually a chump, I guess we should expect some bias and dishonesty from you.
If it's being intercepted en route, then I doubt the NSA-hardened cell phones are going to do any better... After all, I doubt they're actually encrypting the calls--that doesn't seem likely to be technically feasible if these phones use the standard cell network.
However, there is no sane reason for not having gotten his contact list moved over onto one of them. Transferring contact lists between cell phones is a trivial thing to do. Even if you're scared of doing it by transferring the data for some absurd reason, or it can't be done because it's part of how vendor lock-in is managed, there is always the option of doing it by hand...which is still trivial, just tedious. (So, it's a job for the interns.)
Therefore: Why did the people responsible for ensuring that the POTUS has a secure cell phone decide to not move it over? Is there some (presumably utterly stupid) reason it's not standard operating procedure, given it's a reasonable and anticipatable desire?
Really, while that is a rather wordy way of saying 'so utterly shite it never made it out the door,' it is quite interesting to know how and why it was so bad. Thank you!
I love how something is "dead" if continuous updates aren't being done. At some point you are finished. It works as intended. Quit adding shit for the sake of adding shit.
It works as intended, until the OS or a dependency or a standard or some combination of that gets changed and breaks it.
However, I will agree that it'd be nice if there was a point where a program could announce that it's got all the features in and any future updates will be maintenance updates--and not be considered dead merely because there's not been any need for a while to release any of those because nobody's broken it & there's not been any need to release a bugfix update yet. (Presumably there's always a few bugs, but at some point they'll hopefully all be trivial enough you can't justify releasing a update until it patches several of them.)
Yes, except characterizing penetration of an unconscious person after she had repeatedly told him no while awake as "bad sex" is more than a bit misleading.
Except that didn't happen.
The crime he's accused of is lying about using a condom in order to get consent. Which is why his supporters flip out over that being illegal in Sweden and legal in other countries.
Well, the thing that really makes it amusing is that a lot of the people flipping out over it being illegal in Sweden live in countries where it probably is also illegal, or is likely to become illegal due to changes in the law or in how it's interpreted.
The UK wants him for jumping bail.
And what's the penalty for that? Oh, the penalty is you're held in jail until the case is resolved. Resolution is to ship him to Sweden.
And the UK would, since they're extraditing him, be in a position to insist that if they extradite him, then they get to make sure Sweden doesn't do anything to him outside of what they agreed to extradite him for.
Honestly, at this point it seems most likely that either he's guilty of what he's accused of, or suffering from delusions. The latter certainly would explain why Ecuador might be trying to get him to move out of their embassy, and I suspect he was long ago offered a chance to get out of the UK and to Ecuador.
Are you working under the assumption that being hit by a bike won't cause injury?
Did you miss the part about my experience with being nearly hit by a bike, and that I opted instead for throwing myself off a short cliff to avoid being hit by a bike? Or are you working under the assumption that I did that for some reason other than self-preservation?
Google search says that, at least as of 2016, yes, including Washington, DC and Boston. Reference which also covers some of the issues--though I'd note that it doesn't quite cover why pedestrians might feel endangered.
So: Where I grew up, it was legal when I was in preschool...and yes, yes some did try to run people over. I was almost run over myself, around when I was six. That was how I learned I knew how to fall safely well enough to manage a ~10ft steep drop through thick brush & walk away without even a bruise, because it was that, get hit by the fast-moving bike, or go into the busy street. The man on the bike did not bother stopping to see if I was okay...