These comments are groundless libel. Why your rules would protect them is beyond any explanation. I have never once been the person shoveling BS on this forum. But you treat your posters like a bunch of thin-skinned babies. Some deep self-reflection would do these passive-aggressive egomanics some good. I've been around the engineering community long enough to know how these self-important trolls work. You should know it by now as well Dang. I frankly don't know what you are trying to save them from except maybe you pity them.
Yeah, what a weird comment.How can you argue that you need more length and characters when comparing 2000-3000 Kanji vs 26 letters (I am ignoring the "kanas" to simplify the argument) It is like saying Hexadecimal is more verbose than binary.
That's not how Japanese works. Yes Japanese uses Chinese characters that's only a subset of Japanese. Japanese sentences are typically a bit longer than English in terms of syllables and written length - their main reduction technique at the language level is omission, rarely efficiency improvement.
- Why's it so hot today? = 6 syllables
- Nande konna ni atsui no kyou? = 10 syllables (spoken colloquially)
What about written length? You can see the Japanese sentence is a little longer here (when the English uses a non-monospaced font). It's also enough to demonstrates the why using kanji doesn't always provide the huge reduction/compression that you're expecting.
Wow thanks! I didn't understand that despite being able to read and write Japanese! Sarcasm aside you don't seem to have a very deep understanding so maybe you should be a bit nicer when expressing your opinion.
> 1 kana represents 1 syllable
ちゅ <-- 2 kana, 1 syllable
> BY DEFINITION, more concise than Latin letters
smash <-- 1 syllable, 5 latin letters, ~3 kana in length
スマッシュ <-- 5 kana
For paid translations, English likes to charge by the word, whereas Japanese charges by the character. The rule of thumb for conversion is 2 JP characters --> 1 English word i.e. translating a 1000 character JP document you'll expect about 500 EN words at the end.
Turf wars are a symptom of thinking you are smarter than everyone else ... and what group makes the greatest effort in this counter-productive egotistical exercise? Silicon design engineers.
Of course he considered it a theory.[1] It was a new idea. He had a pile of evidence for it (yes, empirical evidence) but it still needed to be looked at by other scientists and the evidence assessed.
I don't know what you mean by "not empirical", but if you mean that Darwin just wrote "hey, here's a cool idea" and didn't have empirical evidence for it then you're just flatly wrong. If you mean that now we don't have empirical evidence for it then either you've been terribly deceived by others or you're lying. (Probably the former. My condolences.)
Something can be a theory and also factual. And there can be a theory of something that is a fact. If you think "X is a theory!" is some sort of refutation of people who regard X as true, then you are 100% wrong about that.
The usual progression goes like this. Someone comes up with a theory (in the vernacular sense). Say, Darwin's theory of how living things got to be the way they are. Some theories are more or less correct from the outset. Some are just plain wrong. Most are somewhere in between. If the theory seems worth taking seriously, other people try to work out its consequences in more detail, and go looking for evidence for or against it, and refine the details. When the theory is all wrong, it will hopefully get knocked down as this happens. (Examples: "cold fusion", Lamarckian "inheritence of acquired characteristics".) When the theory is basically right, the wrong bits will get corrected (e.g., Darwin expected inheritance to be a sort of "mixing" process, which isn't really right and produces some wrong intuitions) and new ideas will be brought in (e.g., Darwin didn't know about genes), and as repeated investigation doesn't refute the underlying ideas it becomes increasingly implausible to reject them.
Today's understanding of evolution isn't identical to Darwin's. He made some mistakes and some wrong guesses and there was a lot he didn't know. But we have a lot more evidence than Darwin did that populations of living things evolve over time, that a major cause of the change they undergo is natural selection, that even very different-looking living things have common ancestors, etc.
Darwin had a "theory" in the vernacular sense: an idea that seemed to explain a lot of things and might or might not turn out to be right. It was a good enough idea that scientists after Darwin put a lot of effort into investigating and refining it. We now have a "theory" in the "grand scientific edifice" sense, and while details will continue -- ahahaha -- evolving, there's little scope for reasonable people aware of the evidence to doubt that its central ideas are facts.
[1] Even in the "vernacular" sense. It's true that sometimes "theory" means "grand scientific edifice, well evidenced and elaborated with mathematical sophistication", but it doesn't always, and when Darwin called evolution by natural selection a "theory" he didn't mean that.
A theory is the pinnacle of scientific achievement - a complete series of observations, equations, processes etc. that come together to describe a phenomenon.
There is nothing that we know with a higher degree of certainty then a scientific theory, such as the theory of evolution, the theory of general relativity, the theory of quantum mechanics, the theory of newtonian mechanics etc.
> The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.
Please take a minute to consider this and realize that you should never repeat what you just said.
What I think it means is irrelevant. It only matters what Darwin thought it meant. You are not inside the head of a person who lived generations ago and loved Victorian novels.
Why should it matter what Darwin thought of it, given that the theory has underwent much further development and ratiocination since his time? The only people who see the theory as solely his intellectual property are creationists.
"There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public."
Um, that's how science works. It's an effort to explain the world. Everything is a theory, nothing is final. Some theories (evolution, gravity) are more credible/developed than others.
It was encrypted, but not E2EE, so the only person who could have spied was Zoom itself, and we know the how too - by the same mechanism it performs a video recording, for example.
We just don't know if. But seeing as we've had zero reports of any real-world consequences that could only have come about by Zoom spying, combined with the fact that "spying on your customers" is anathema to your business model and therefore a risk no sane and rational board of directors would ever approve (moderate upside, enormous possibly business-ending downside if ever discovered)... Occam's Razor says no spying ever occurred.
"Zoom itself" spying sounds quite unlikely, "bribed underpaid Zoom intern" sounds a lot more likely, "the gvt. sending one of those silent warrants" sounds almost unavoidable.
Non-E2E encryption doesn't give access to just "the company" (which probably doesn't care to spy on you, true), but absolutely anyone who can bribe/trick/coerse anyone in their "supply chain" (from the CEO to the sysadmins, hosting provider, even janitor...). Not to mention a data leak due to a vulnerability in any part of their stack.
The company has shown complrte disregard for security multiple times in the past and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they had major security holes. And since they already lied about E2EE, it would be entirely safe to assume they would not have disclosed a breach either.
>You can't know, because it wasn't actually e2ee, eh
You can know that nobody external to Zoom spied on those streams as they were encrypted between client and Zoom servers. The fact that Zoom had access to your stream, in principle, is par for course.
>These are hard to quantify but they're not nothing.
And they got in trouble. There is the FTC slap and the PR cost associated with the negative publicity. That feels about right for the level of infraction. But when these kinds of articles come out, people are calling for regulatory bodies to 'make examples' of the companies in question. That's not how it works. That's not how it should work.
All network traffic in the US should be seen as the opposite of innocent untill proven guilty: Unless you can prove otherwise, everything we know of surveillance tells us that of course everything and everyone was spied upon. I can't think of any reason the NSA and/or CIA should not have spied when they do so on everything else they can get their hands on.
Years ago, this attitude was seen as paranoid and bonkers. Then Snowden proved it true. Not only true, but barely scratching the surface. What's actually happening is beyond the wildest fever-dreams of the most extreme 90s crypto-punk ever.
Why are people still able to pretend otherwise without being laughed out of the room?
> Why are people still able to pretend otherwise without being laughed out of the room?
It is a variant of a Bible Thumper & Bootlegger coalition.
A large portion of the population really doesn't want to believe it. A small population with a vested interest (and lots of relevant tools at its disposal) is happy to help them.
