I am curious. How is this tracked? What signature or what component are they looking for to be able to say "Yeah, here is another one"?
I'm just curious and would like someone with more experience to weigh in.
EDIT: To add on further to my question, I wonder why it does not use a terrain / city / province overlay instead of all black? It seems it would be much more useful to us network and sysadmins out there just in case we realized "Oh, hey that dot is right on top of where we work out of. I should probably fire up WireShark or something and test for infected systems."
Isn't it peculiar that Russia remains the least hit or not even hit at all? It seems like the West was a clear target. Connecting the dots here, it's suffice to say Shadow Brokers serves Russian interests.
We are seeing bullet holes from what seem to have been cyber warfare between the former cold war foes.
Time of day, come back in 12 hours and check again.
That said the Russian government is trying to move people to local distributions of Linux, like Astra Linux, but I don't think the uptake is enough to explain low infection rate in Russia.
Yeah definitely downvote manipulations going on again...
At this point I'm not even upset or shocked. It just further supports the narrative Russia is seeking to manipulate/exploit the internet to their benefit.
Considering the average Russian is poorer than an Indian, it looks like Putin is going to fuck over his country as his countrymen cheer him on and suffer in poverty and alcoholism.
The West will crush the feeble Russian economy back to Tsar days.
We asked you many times to stop breaking the Hacker News guidelines with uncivil and unsubstantive comments. Since you've ignored us, continued, and gotten worse, we've banned your account. Insinuations of astroturfing and shillage without evidence are not allowed here [1], and bad enough, but national rants and slurs are completely unwelcome.
> Isn't it peculiar that Russia remains the least hit or not even hit at all?
Whatever, the situation in Russia when it comes to malware and viruses is no different from anywhere else in the world. People and businesses get their computers hacked or infected all the time. So please, spare us your conspiracy theories.
Couldn't it actually mean the opposite? If fundraising is not newsworthy, it could also be because there are so many of those out there that fewer make the cut.
My theory is scope creep. These guys have done a good job of convincing people that they can live the ultimate space exploration fantasy that's been talked about since the 80s.
It's the ultimate simulation. We know very little about space and even fiction (ex. star wars) seems to generate even more demand.
As people got excited and started throwing money at them, so did the scope obviously. I love Star Citizen's attention to detail but it's suffice to say that they've hit people's patience.
> “I’m already building the best game I can,” said Mr. Roberts, who acknowledged the bumps. “But imagine — the game I can build with $140 million is going to be very different to the one I could build with $10 million. If I can build a bigger and more robust experience, I will.”
My guess is they keep going until donations taper off and they're about to run out of money, then rush out a massively buggy release that disappoints everybody.
I used to work in a small indie game studio (in the PS2 days) and the games we made had tight deadline (less than 12 months usually from start to finish). And even with such time and money constraints Scope creep would always rear it's ugly head.
I can only image what goes on when the devs are let loose in the SC candy store with so much money and wanting to live up to the hype(so to speak).
Why do you require scientific evidence to support opinions? What's so shocking about claiming English is "less expressive" than Latin? Care to show scientific evidence that suggests that isn't the case?
Please post your scientific references using APA format in all of your comments from now on. Anything less is a disappointment to your high standards.
I won't disagree that my piece on Soylent was inflammatory but it was because in my humble opinion, it's shitjuice. It could've been put in a better way.
I also won't apologize for criticizing the defense industry and any individual/startup involved/acquired by it.
After all, I turned down money from a VC who I found out sold his company to the defense industry and had multiple off-shore shell accounts that I tracked using https://panamapapers.icij.org/
All that aside, I don't believe it's fair to have ANY and ALL of my comments downvoted because some people disagree with my views.
I have nothing but respect for HN folks. So many smart people, so much talent and potential, I only seek to learn from everyone else who is clearly smarter and successful than me.
I will dial it back but this downvote manipulation is very real and I'm seeing high karma accounts abusing their power very openly with little to no repercussion.
I feel like HN is approaching Stackoverflow levels, where contribution is discouraged unless high karma accounts approve.
it started a few months ago, at first I thought it was a coincidence but the similar number of downvotes always make it with no explanation for downvotes.
Now it's blatantly obvious somebody is drive by downvote manipulating my comments.
The similar number of downvotes may be explained because many users (i.e. me) don't like to downvote grey comments (unless they are very offensive or extremely wrong).
Moreover, I sometimes upvote grey comments that I don't like because they are too light grey (unless they are offensive or very wrong). I guess I'm not the only one. So this may explain that some comments stabilize in the same tone of grey.
As the other comment said, try asking the mods hn@ycombinator.com
Yeah except the timing of the downvotes are always the same, which made me think somebody is doing it on purpose.
Having said that, I believe that there is a ring of high karma accounts manipulating and censoring comments. I see regular comments that shouldn't be downvoted censored because it's critical of some startup/company that has HN users involved.
Interesting stuff. The Korean language is considered one of the most scientific language on the planet. I'm puzzled why that NASA guy would push Sanskrit to be an actual application language. In my opinion, an HN'er should be able to read and write Korean in about an hour. I don't know if that's true for Sanskrit.
Taking a look at Sanskrit, it looks very cool. I think it's aesthetically better looking than Korean alphabet.
> The Korean language is considered one of the most scientific language on the planet.
It's considered that by lay people, largely due to Korean patriotism, not by real linguists (can you provide a source?)
> an HN'er should be able to read and write Korean in about an hour.
So, you're talking about the alphabet used to write the language, not the language itself. At best you've proven that Korean has a highly regular writing system. But I'd argue that the average HNer could learn to read, for example, Spanish in about two minutes.
> It's considered that by lay people, largely due to Korean patriotism, not by real linguists (can you provide a source?)
I didn't say the MOST, it's among the more scientific languages. I'm not pushing for Korean patriotism, that's just your own assumptions.
> So, you're talking about the alphabet used to write the language, not the language itself. At best you've proven that Korean has a highly regular writing system. But I'd argue that the average HNer could learn to read, for example, Spanish in about two minutes.
Hangul is the writing system that is uniquely different from a latin based system like Spanish. Your argument is moot.
So, can you give me a scientific/academic source that says anything about "how scientific" Korean is?
> Hangul is the writing system that is uniquely different from a latin based system like Spanish.
How? They're just different alphabets. The only unique feature of Hangul is that all the letters making up a syllable are arranged in one square -- is that what you're referring to as making it uniquely different? If not, what?
> The only unique feature of Hangul is that all the letters making up a syllable are arranged in one square
That's one feature that makes it superior to say Chinese. Chinese character is a bitch to learn and it's been bastardized by the communist party to increase literacy.
You really should be more precise. I'm sure you meant "orthography" in every usage of "language". And yes, Hangul is a relatively "shallow" or "transparent" orthography -- though it is becoming less so over time. But so is Spanish's use of the Latin alphabet, Japanese hiragana and katakana, and yes Devanagari.
Ha, this is exactly the other language that came to mind when I saw this article. I love Hangul, but a lot of its "scientific"-ness comes from it being so recent that the spoken pronunciation hasn't drifted from the written form. There just a few rules for changing sounds, and they're quite regular.
Unfortunately the people in charge of the Revised Romanization decided that these rules should be applied to the Roman alphabet as well, so we have execrable constructions like "Daegu" or "bibimbab" which can't be pronounced from English spelling rules.
I challenge that most could learn to read and write Korean within 15 minutes [0]. At most, stumbling over some of the vowels. It really is a marvelously simple language. Of course - reading it at speed will still take more practice but I feel one could become quite proficient at reading (without any comprehension of what they are reading) within a few weeks of practice.
That "ee" sound is known in IPA [0] as /i/. That sound is also the vowel counterpart to the semi-vowel /j/ [1, 2]. Within languages, /j/ has a tendency to palatize sounds. In the case of Korean, this has resulted in /s/ being conditioned to /ɕ/ before /i/, where /ɕ/ is the alveolo-palatal version of /s/. (This sound is technically different than "she", which is /ʃi/.)
This process of moving where a sound is pronounced is actually known as "assimilation", but this particular case of assimilation is via a palatal sound. That's why there's actually two palatalization terms in linguistics -- the one I linked above and this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatalization_%28phonetics%29
I disagree entirely. You can read without comprehension - hell I can read my native language without comprehending what I'm actually reading. I'm still reading when I do so. What else would you call it when reading a heavily technical document you don't fully understand? You may not comprehend what the words as a whole mean but you're still reading.
FWIW, only one dictionary definition I can find includes "comprehend" in the definition and it still falls under other definitions such as "speaking aloud written or printed material to other people".
I never claimed it was. My post was very specifically about learning to read and write Hangul.
Korean and Hangul are different. If you know the Latin alphabet that doesn't mean you know how to read English. It means you know how to read the Latin alphabet.
Of course, but can you do the same with Arabic in the same time span? I think not.
With Hangul, you can start writing your own name, lot of English words in Korean which is understood in Korea. Even Konglish (Phonetically typed Korean in English) is understood to a certain degree.
Anything beyond that, you will need to learn the Korean words, but it gets you a lot farther than most languages.
No I don't have scientific evidence to support this but from anecdotal experiences. Somebody wants to write a paper on it let me know, I'll give you 0.1 bitcoin.
You aren't learning Korean. You are learning Hangul. You don't just need to learn 'the Korean words'. You need to learn Korean lexicon, Korean syntax, Korean morphology, Korean idiom, Korean pronunciation, etc. etc. Those are the actually difficult parts of language.
Learning the Latin alphabet doesn't mean you have learnt to read English.
And sure of course you can learn the Arabic alphabet quickly. It's a lot simpler than it looks.
This is like that movie where US pilots have to battle a super advanced AI stealth drone.
AI really should have no place in military but it's going to happen. Some spineless fucks are going to spread their legs for a 5 star general to sell their company.
The defence industry is in the business of killing humans and you play a direct role by selling your knowledge and skills to make it more efficient. Fuck that shit.
I don't think greed or spinelessness have anything to do with it. AI is similar to nuclear weapons : Any country that doesn't have military AI will have a huge disadvantage against a country that does. Every country rationally believes that AI will improve their military chances, and every country rationally believes that every other country desires AI for their military as well.
China and Russia will certainly build AI drones as soon as they possibly can. The only thing that happens if western countries don't build them is that they are at a significant disadvantage.
This is also true of chemical and biological weapons, and weaponizing outer space, but countries have managed pretty well at not going into an arms race in those areas; even nuclear weapons have been reasonably well kept in check. But these mutual agreements to not pursue certain lines of military technology (at least for offensive purposes) really need to start from the strongest military agreeing to not do it and allow monitoring/audits to get other countries on board. The US doesn't seem all that interested in that with AI, or other scary technologies on the horizon. (Without even getting into the issue that AI is trickier than something like a chemical weapon, countries would have a field day on what actually constitutes AI vs normal digital automation...)
> This is also true of chemical and biological weapons
I disagree actually. Nuclear weapons render chemical and biological weapons moot, and no major superpower is willing to give up nukes. The United States has no need for chemical and biological weapons because it's keeping it's nukes. I think that AI will present a comparable advantage.
Also, AI does not (yet) create the sense of dread in the popular imagination that nukes did during the cold war. Incinerating an entire city in a few seconds is terrifying on an existential level to any human. Having computers control drones and tanks seems.. almost boringly inevitable, by comparison. I doubt there will be unified political will to prevent it.
Also, I think the international climate has radically changed. Agreements like TPP, which the powers that be supported, were not able to pass. In the era of Trump I highly doubt there is enough global trust for Russia or China to agree not to research militarized AI. Basically I don't see a single major power agreeing not to develop militarized AI in the near future.
Except Soylent marketed itself as a replacement. All those shakes you talk about are aimed at supplementing. They weren't stupid enough to tell people to live on it because of the legal liability.
> Fortisip is a Food for Special Medical Purposes for use under medical supervision. Fortisip is a nutritionally complete, 1.5kcal/ml, ready to drink, milk shake style nutritional supplement, for the management of disease related malnutrition. Fortisip can be used to supplement the diet of patients unable to meet their nutritional requirements from other foods, or used as a sole source of nutrition. Fortisip is available in 200ml bottles, with a flexible straw attached, in 8 flavours: Neutral, Vanilla, Chocolate, Toffee, Banana, Orange, Strawberry and Tropical Fruits.
Oh right, we already had this discussion. At least they got upgraded from "unethical marketing" to "irresponsible marketing". But how long can you continue to claim that the company engages in irresponsible marketing based on (allegedly) exaggerated claims during a Kickstarter?
