nacho's recent activity
-
Comment on What's something that's more challenging for you than it is for others? in ~talk
-
Comment on What's something that's more challenging for you than it is for others? in ~talk
nacho Link ParentAlongside this great evidence, a friend of mine spoke to an observation I can't let go of: She thinks people don't "think" at the same speed. I think she's right. I'll try to explain: We know...Alongside this great evidence, a friend of mine spoke to an observation I can't let go of:
- She thinks people don't "think" at the same speed.
I think she's right. I'll try to explain:
We know people who don't understand what we're talking about when we try to describe thinking about things or trains of thought that happen without an internal monologue keeping up.
In effect, one of our mutual friends describes that his process of reasoning goes as fast as his inner voice can speak. So if someone presents a totally new concept he's never heard of before, he needs time to "talk through" the implications inside his head before he can respond. It's something like taling through a math problem on the radio, but it goes somewhat faster than he can type/actually speak.
As far as I can understand (it's super difficult to talk about how things work inside our heads when it's so different from some different people) he reads the same way, essentially.
I have a friend who's a military aircraft controller. She can easily catch everything five people talk about at the same time and respond/participate in all those five conversations. I fall off at two conversations and speaking myself at the same time. There may be an element of training, but her mind just works differently.
She and I can talk "twice as fast" i.e. we're both talking continually at the same time and responding to what the other person's saying sequentially as we go along. Contrastingly, I know people who can't follow what other people are saying if they're talking because when they're talking that "fills" their capacity for thought as sentences and arguments form in real time.
Some people can read about a concept, say practice theory for the first time and immediately think of a number of use cases, implementations, synthesizing what's being said before they get to the next parts where that's outlined. Others need much more time internalizing concepts.
We all have strengths and weaknesses. Others have social awareness, bodily control, visual acuity, spatial awareness, the ability to understand another's point of view, or all sorts of other talents/skills (for lack of a better word) "strong readers" or "quick speakers" don't.
I think we easily undervalue other other skills that aren't "book smarts" in ways society is essentially rigged to value.
-
Comment on What's something that's more challenging for you than it is for others? in ~talk
nacho Link ParentIt was in college that I decided not to become a professional musician, which the three other players in my quartet took hard, given how many gigs we played together. College did not take kindly...It was in college that I decided not to become a professional musician, which the three other players in my quartet took hard, given how many gigs we played together. College did not take kindly to me "stealing" an orchestral seat from a potential musician either by out-competing folks with ambition in the auditions.
My experience is that those of my friends who today live as improvisational musicians practice way, way, way more than anyone who's playing known pieces.
Next to no-one is "good" at improvising or can intuitively think in chord progressions or theoretically design a solo. Even those who've got perfect pitch. It just takes a tremendous amount of practice.
Even worse is trying to play a monophonic melody or tune. Broken chords and "theory-built" compositions? Sure. Humming an original tune? Worst nightmare to get as a question on an exam.
A friend of mine who's a dinner/cocktail pianist says it takes at least four weeks to practice up to his normal level (we're talking 7+ hours of practice a day, every day) if he's been on vacation without a piano for two weeks. An orchestral musician can go a couple months due to a broken arm or whatever and still play a concert the next day once they can physically play the instrument for that long.
-
Comment on Have you ever been outed? in ~lgbt
nacho Link ParentWow. Thanks for sharing that! Great to hear your parents also took to their senses. It's wild how many folks I "know" who met through Neopets and are still together. Your story makes 6 couples. To...Wow. Thanks for sharing that! Great to hear your parents also took to their senses.
It's wild how many folks I "know" who met through Neopets and are still together. Your story makes 6 couples. To me that's pretty surprising, but it probably shouldn't be?
-
Comment on Head of Norway's sovereign wealth fund warns that soaring AI-driven stock valuations could trigger a sharp correction in ~finance
nacho Link ParentI think the standard is like 8 years, language test and social studies test? No idea if you marry or have family connections.I think the standard is like 8 years, language test and social studies test?
No idea if you marry or have family connections.
-
Comment on Head of Norway's sovereign wealth fund warns that soaring AI-driven stock valuations could trigger a sharp correction in ~finance
nacho Link ParentYeah, you're both right. From the fund manager's point of view: It's not a bubble until it pops, right? I've seen several European funds have lowered their US exposure, partly because of Trump...Yeah, you're both right.
From the fund manager's point of view: It's not a bubble until it pops, right?
I've seen several European funds have lowered their US exposure, partly because of Trump adding risk, partly as a proxy for not having rules that force them to sit on insane value in an eerily small number of US tech companies.
Then again, as long as others believe in the bubble, that's potentially leaving money on the table as long as you're just that little bit less greedy than the others so you get out before the bubble bursts.
Granted, Norway's sovereign wealth fund is in a weird position: It owns around 1.5 percent of all listed companies (!) So if the market goes down, your 1.5 percent of like 70.000 companies is still 1.5 percent of "everything".
You aren't realizing losses anyway, the task is hedging the fact that Norway has 4 times GDP in the bank from deflation. And that ownership-power means a tiny country that isn't part of the EU retains market access around the globe.
-
Comment on What have you been eating, drinking, and cooking? in ~food
nacho LinkIt's mushroom season. I've been picking a ton of mushrooms, and mostly just pan frying them in butter with pepper. Also, different mushroom risottos (and "barley-ottos"), mushroom cream pastas,...It's mushroom season. I've been picking a ton of mushrooms, and mostly just pan frying them in butter with pepper.
Also, different mushroom risottos (and "barley-ottos"), mushroom cream pastas, mushroom soups etc.
The weather has been wet for a long time, so this mushroom season has been crazy, and will likely last for a long time to boot. That means it's around 2-3 weeks between pick and I can go back to the exact same place and pick just as much once more.
Yum, mushrooms!
-
Comment on Suggestion for a new label: "Misinformation" in ~tildes
nacho Link ParentI think "I'd like a source" is a better solution than "minsinformation", if adding something is appropriate at all. If I'm invested in something someone else is saying, or think it's worth...I think "I'd like a source" is a better solution than "minsinformation", if adding something is appropriate at all.
If I'm invested in something someone else is saying, or think it's worth engaging with their comment, I personally like to look things up.
I don't think it's reasonable to demand others do my work for me in that setting; most of the time it's extremely easy finding stuff with a single AI-powered search.
Most claims people make are already established in the field and not controversial except for us laypeople.
If making very specific claims where there's only one source for a factoid or whatever, that's probably not a major use case for a "citation"-label. Or?
-
Comment on Sanity check - always-on machine + laptop with remote desktop in ~tech
nacho LinkI guess I'm a snob. Unlike others in this thread, the latency gets to me. 50-100ms is frustrating when I do stuff where there's a lot of clicking or jumping between interfaces. I'm blessed with...I guess I'm a snob.
Unlike others in this thread, the latency gets to me. 50-100ms is frustrating when I do stuff where there's a lot of clicking or jumping between interfaces.
I'm blessed with extremely generous wireless networking speeds due to work, so I've tried running games in high resolutions with high graphics settings and sending the stream to a remote device. That works well, but drains battery rapidly due to the volume of traffic sent (and receiving a large signal. Especially sending high quality sound seems to tax my "dumb" endpoint device).
Consequently, I have a powerful laptop.
However, for compiling, doing math, rendering, exporting files etc, what you outline is amazing and works terrifically, even just being on 4G/5G network out in the field.
But if you need to do those things, I'd maybe expect terminal access to a much stronger machine/environment from work anyway?
-
Comment on Ukrainian aircraft in Leipzig near which drone was found was loaded with ammunition in ~society
nacho Link ParentAfter Nordstream and the whole handling of that, I'm more cautious than before on ascribing intent/origination of the attack before there's actual information. Is this meant to strum up more...After Nordstream and the whole handling of that, I'm more cautious than before on ascribing intent/origination of the attack before there's actual information.
Is this meant to strum up more support/military aid for Ukraine? If the Russians are this desperate, why's this the only case we've ever heard of?
Is this an independent copy-cat or whatever that's not related to either party?
Whatever the facts, this is a really serious event, that leads to a lot of questions, also relating to ensuring the security of NATO deliveries to Ukraine.
-
Comment on Others that also have an aversion to onions, when is it OK? in ~food
nacho LinkMaybe slightly off-topic, but Indian food is probably the food culture where it's easiest to get non-onion food, if that's your thing and you ask in advance. There's the whole culture of Jain food...Maybe slightly off-topic, but Indian food is probably the food culture where it's easiest to get non-onion food, if that's your thing and you ask in advance.
There's the whole culture of Jain food that's somewhat prevalent in India, so if you ask for something without onions/garlic, they'll either be honest about not being able to, or know that you don't want any onions in sauces or whatever either.
-
Comment on Do you own/run a business? What is it, where is it, how do you get customers? in ~finance
nacho LinkAs I've posted previously: I ran a one-person network company. "We" got bought by a huge multinational with the agreement that I would have to work for the new mother company for at least five...As I've posted previously:
I ran a one-person network company. "We" got bought by a huge multinational with the agreement that I would have to work for the new mother company for at least five years. I'm economically set for life. I'd do it again knowing what I do now.
The five years have passed. I now manage several employees, do completely different things than I used to and get paid a lot for my technical skill set. I mostly deal with emergency issues for our largest clients when they have issues, especially if the issues aren't actually on our end.
The buying company agreed to put a lot of things in writing to ensure the sale would go through. I'm sure they've made a lot of money on the deal, but it was totally worth it for me. I never had ambitions for building a large company or dedicating my entire life to work. I never had aspirations for getting really rich; not having to worry about money again isn't something I would say no to.
To the questions (in order):
I sold networking solutions to large companies, maintained them.
The business was entirely online-based. I'd only meet customers at their locations if they insisted.
I got a foot in the door, got a good reputation and customers found me more than I found them. The business got good within the first three months, so good I didn't have to worry about recruiting customers, so I know very little about that.
I made way more when I ran my own company than now, but selling the thing made me never have to worry about money again, and I can stop working whenever I want or do whatever I want for the rest of my life.
The best thing about running my own business was that I could just do stuff. Didn't have to have meetings or difficult decisions etc. Many things customers expected would take weeks to decide or whatever I could agree to then and there, or quickly and deliver quickly too.
If I'd done it again, I'd probably hired someone to handle the "office stuff". That way I'd have more time to do the fun things (and I'd also made way more money, even paying someone handsomely to get a person to do the job long-term). I would also probably have sold the company sooner for more if I'd built things that way. Otherwise, I was incredibly lucky and found a niche others didn't see where there was a huge willingness to pay money to save on bad networking systems.
What bothered me the most about running my own business was when stuff broke, or customers got downtime from other services/equipment so I'd essentially be on call 24/7/365. That was paid very, very handsomely when they did silly things I'd have to fix, but it's a hassle having to bring a computer and be sure you have a fast internet connection that can handle a heavy-duty VPN wherever you are, always.
I was working in an adjacent field, had an acquaintance say their large employer needed such-and-such system. I said I could build that in a couple weeks, could surely sell it to a couple smaller companies quickly to demonstrate that it worked, and others were willing to pay for it. Then I'd get back to him in a couple months. I ended up getting a bank and a software startup as my two first customers. That made getting new customers VERY easy as they both said they'd be references if I neede it (which I did until the first huge company told their suppliers they should buy my service as it'd saved them quite a bit of money and they were safer to boot.
(Sorry I'm a little vague on the details, giving more I'd be real easy to identify)
-
Comment on The Roman Space Telescope, NASA's next great observatory, is ready to launch Aug 30 in ~space
nacho Link ParentAmazing! There was so much hype around James Web in my circles. Do you have any idea why there's been so little about Nancy Grace Roman? Do you think it's strategic while Republicans have been...Amazing!
There was so much hype around James Web in my circles.
Do you have any idea why there's been so little about Nancy Grace Roman? Do you think it's strategic while Republicans have been cutting this that and the other for no reason?
-
Comment on Andy Burnham succeeds Keir Starmer as the UK's seventh prime minister in ten years in ~society
nacho Link ParentA year or two, maybe? At least this is someone who's saying they'll implement socially democratic policies to let the average Briton have it less tough economically. And that's what made Burnham...A year or two, maybe?
At least this is someone who's saying they'll implement socially democratic policies to let the average Briton have it less tough economically.
And that's what made Burnham popular in Manchester.
However, the whole issue is that the British electorate, like the American one, has voted against their own interests for quite some time. That's tough to get out of. When you don't reason yourself into a bad spot, how can you reason yourself out of it?
Voters get to choose. They get to make bad choices, but then they have to live with them. And somehow collectively learn from their mistakes and overcome. Brexit will ruin UK politics for many years yet.
-
Comment on Signal, NordVPN, Proton to leave Canada over C-22 in ~society
nacho Link ParentThe FBI being unable to access content in more than half the phones they wanted to legally search during a stretch of 11 months isn't enough for you to accept that this is hugely impacting law...The FBI being unable to access content in more than half the phones they wanted to legally search during a stretch of 11 months isn't enough for you to accept that this is hugely impacting law enforcement's ability to solve crimes.
By necessity, we expects huge holes in data: Both for crimes that go unreported, but also for crimes that are never discovered. It a necessary truth that it's nigh on impossible to quantify the size of these unknown unknowns. We'd expect these holes to get larger and larger with pervasive encrypted communications because we don't find those crimes like we used to be able to previously.
Reported crimes are going down hugely. There seems to be less crimes in many areas. Another quick search will lead to finding lots of reports that this decrease may be overstated as crimes are harder to detect because of factors like communication.
It's not like one can magically create new evidence to solve for a crime if digital communication isn't available. You get morsels and see if they lead on to new morsels that in time may put together a large picture. We're not in a CSI world of silver bullet tests. Circumstantial evidence combines to create solutions.
There's also the gigantic issue of the amount of resources for solving crimes increasing hugely if there's poor digital data. That's expensive and with limited resources, it leads to closing of cases without getting close to finding a culprit.
You're right that this is becoming circular. No evidence, nor the combination of many factors seems like it'll satisfy. There's little counter-argument.
-
Comment on Signal, NordVPN, Proton to leave Canada over C-22 in ~society
nacho Link ParentThese are just my first five search results in order: https://theconversation.com/police-solve-just-2-of-all-major-crimes-143878...These are just my first five search results in order:
https://theconversation.com/police-solve-just-2-of-all-major-crimes-143878
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/24/what-the-data-says-about-crime-in-the-us/
https://www.stephenmorgan.org.uk/record-low-number-of-crimes-being-solved-under-the-conservatives/
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/clearances
Again, it's a simple google search away finding Comey saying as early as 2014 that they don't want a back-door. They want regulated "front door" access, so there's no backdoor for others to exploit:
The 15 countries that make up the Virtual crime alliance have consistently said ad nauseum that their efforts are hampered by encryption:
https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/statement-on-end-to-end-encryption
The FBI consistently says encryption means they can't get into thousands of devices they get their hands on:
Quite frankly, I'm not the one making extraordinary claims. To the contrary, the claims I'm making are basic facts that stem from basic logic of how one conducts a search, gets evidence and follows a trail of evidence.
How in the world wouldn't encryption and traffic rerouting hugely impact law enforcement investigations?
Here siple sources that again show that using cryptocurrencies enables crimes greatly:
More into the details of how it works: https://www.merklescience.com/blog/money-laundering-in-crypto-how-criminals-hide-their-tracks
The extreme claims here are the opposite of what I'm saying.
I mean what even is the purpose of stablecoins other than avoiding sanctions/criminal prosecution or exchanging money across borders without declaring it?
-
Comment on Signal, NordVPN, Proton to leave Canada over C-22 in ~society
nacho Link ParentActually, it's completely the other way around. Clearance rates for all sorts of reported crimes are much, much lower than they were years ago. A quick search will find you the same results all...Crimes being solved isn't cosmic luck, it's what happens more often than not.
Actually, it's completely the other way around. Clearance rates for all sorts of reported crimes are much, much lower than they were years ago. A quick search will find you the same results all over Europe and elsewhere.
I regularly spend time in court as a witness or on behalf of companies as part of my job. Especially in cases relating to digital theft or network penetration where we try to help customers get their systems back in action.
I know very well what evidence is presented. How reasonable doubt is established by a lack of digital trails. The frustrations of law enforcement investigators and how dumb luck is what results in having legal means to randomly come upon ongoing crimes that have been taking place for years undetected.
I get inside information on a publicly listed company due to my tasks at work. I know precisely how records of who are insiders are made. I've experienced audits on lists from government bodies.
Insider trading often hinges on proving that a perpetrator gave information. It's specifically a communications crime: did x person give y person insider information to trade on?I know how I could trade on non-public information in ways that'd never get tied back to me and that I couldn't be connected back to. With a political insider, I could bet on markets in general. That'd be completely undetectable unless they could tie communication between me and an insider.
It's precisely because I know how crime works in practice and because I work in networking that I'm saying with such conviction that digital technology has massively reduced risk for organized crime and all other non-stupid criminals. Performing these crime are also way easier and more efficient
We even have digital currencies that are extremely effective in avoiding leaving a financial trail too.
I think you're very right that most people don't grasp how crimes work in practice, have distorted views on how crimes are solved and how often they're solved based on tv shows.
That's why they don't understand the impact of encryption, online traffic forwarding (VPNs) and how that trivializes crime for people who wouldn't otherwise know where to start or dare to start.
I also completely understand why law enforcement agencies don't speak out about the tools they don't have and therefore give instruction manuals for how to avoid detection. Sometimes I think they should speak to this because in many areas they're completely blind anyway.
That needs to change.
-
Comment on Signal, NordVPN, Proton to leave Canada over C-22 in ~society
nacho Link ParentI totally get what you're saying. I just don't agree with your "deeper points" because they do not match how I believe the world works, what's possible to do in practice. I think your analysis is...I totally get what you're saying. I just don't agree with your "deeper points" because they do not match how I believe the world works, what's possible to do in practice.
I think your analysis is wrong. I think civics proves you wrong every day and that the evidence showing as much is all around uss all the time. The massive benefit of global trade is just one example that proves this, also when trade is encumbered.
I believe viewing institutional problem solving as a mistake is extremely dangerous.
There are plenty of problems that necessarily have to be solved at a societal level. There are a number of subset of problems that need to be solved at a societal level that necessarily mean curtailing individual freedom (think mandated drivers' licenses, vaccines, safety standards, global warming - the list goes on and on).
The world would be a much easier place to navigate, but much more nihilistic, if you were right. As far as I'm concerned, that's just not the reality we live in.
The world doesn't mean that anyone who understands what I'm saying agrees with what I'm saying.
-
Comment on Signal, NordVPN, Proton to leave Canada over C-22 in ~society
nacho Link ParentMilitary, law enforcements, courts, intelligence agencies are technologies that provide immense good for everyone involved. None of them are all-or-none propositions. It's not about stopping...Military, law enforcements, courts, intelligence agencies are technologies that provide immense good for everyone involved. None of them are all-or-none propositions. It's not about stopping crime, it's about reducing it. It's not about ending inter-group conflicts, it's about massively reducing them.
State militaries have reduced the rate of violent death immensely. It gives us resources to live our lives rather than looking over our shoulders.
State punishments and the police's monopoly on violence against the population has hugely reduced people taking their own justice and people doing things that harm others.
Intelligence agencies in the cold war did hugely deescalate the cold war. "Trust, but verify" creates trust and prevents misunderstandings, it greatly reduces the chance of pre-emptive attacks.
The nation state and democracy are massive successes that benefit our lives greatly. Just because they aren't perfect doesn't mean that our institutions are head and shoulders better than all the alternatives. Society evolves one little improvement after another.
Of course bad-intentioned leaders want to misuse institutions. That's because they're so successful and powerful. That's why the regulations both of institutions and what politicians can and cannot do is such an important task for lawmakers, why the division of state powers is imperative.
That doesn't mean we should weaken institutions and therefore cause harm to everyone in society, just in case someone wants to take them over.
If there's an issue in society, the whole role of politicians and government is evaluating what should/shouldn't be done.
-
Comment on Signal, NordVPN, Proton to leave Canada over C-22 in ~society
nacho Link ParentThings like how the FBI ran their own encrypted phone company, ANOM, and saw how criminals work and therefore how their tools cannot possibly catch criminals who know what they're doing on other...Things like how the FBI ran their own encrypted phone company, ANOM, and saw how criminals work and therefore how their tools cannot possibly catch criminals who know what they're doing on other encrypted systems?
The sheer volume of criminal activity they knew nothing about that they randomly saw from this stroke of luck, the randomness of one criminal agreeing to a plea deal leading to over a thousand arrests?
Because we have black swans, random events of massive coincidence that lead to unveiling single instances of crime does not mean that we can catch any but the most unlucky, stupid, or coincidental cases of crime.
It's not about true impossibility, it's about effective or near impossibility. We can all concoct cosmic situations of massive luck that sometimes led to crime solving.
The core premise here is that if I as a simple layman can keep things permanently undiscoverable from anyone else, cheaply and with minimal risk, then all but the stupidest criminals can do the same.
Do you disagree with that premise? Is there any counter-evidence to that?
What evidence gets criminals caught? Is it stupidity, things that can be avoided? If so, wee should expect those that aren't unlucky and/or stupid are getting away with it, no. That's basic deductive reasoning.
Are there trustworthy sources and experts in the area that believe today's situation works well? Do we find and solve these crimes at scale?
There's no evidence to suggest that things are hunky-dory.
I want to reiterate: We're not talking about cybercrime here. We're talking about all manner of crimes where digital communication is used and would be key evidence (because that's where the stuff happens) but that is now undiscoverable.
I struggle with taking financial risk.
Like I know and can rationally explain and understand that if I took more risk in many financial decisions, that'll leave me better off.
In terms of savings, pensions, using the stock markets, not over-insuring myself, all sorts of things like that.
I know I struggle with this and make irrational decisions that only hurt me, even though the risks are very small in comparison to the expected gains.
I know even if the risks manifest 100% negatively in a worst case scenario, the consequences for me are still very small and won't effectively impact the things that matter to me in life.
Yet I still struggle taking these risks. When there are positions I don't reason myself into, it's impossible to reason myself out of them. It's just that feeling of it being nice to be safe and not actually managing to pull the trigger on rational decisions leading to more risk.
I've often wondered what it'd be like if somehow the risks were automatically higher and I had to opt out of risk rather than opting into more risk, whether I'd then actually actively lower the risk. I don't know myself well enough to feel confident about what'd actually happen, and haven't been in a situation where that's manifested.
Maybe sometime I'll find out?