I expect there's some selection bias at play. If you're taking a philosophy major in college it's likely you already feel confident in your post-graduation career, so can study things that you like. Whereas if you're in a CS track it's because whether you get a job depends on getting a degree. The student studying philosophy is in school as an alternative to work. The STEM major is in school as a prerequisite to work.
Or Philosophy is usually a path to Law School on the professional path or a PhD on the research/academia path. In both cases, many/most of those 22-27 year olds are still in school and thus not counted as unemployed.
I don't know how true it still is with law being, to a fair degree, perhaps primarily a good career path for those who can land at white-shoe firms and federal court clerkships. But I've known a lot of people who drifted into law school from liberal arts and related because they just didn't have great job prospects. And quite a few didn't even end up practicing law.
IBM marketed "OS/2 for Windows" which made it sound like a compatibility layer to make Windows behave like OS/2. In truth it was the OS/2 operating system with drivers and conversion tools that made it easier for people who were used to Windows.
Untrue. OS/2 for windows leveraged the user’s existing copy of windows for os/2’s compatibility function instead of relying on a bundled copy of windows, like the “full”
Os/2 version.
Os/2 basically ran a copy of windows (either the existing one or bundled one) to then execute windows programs side by side with os/2 (and DOS) software.
If you ever sent money to or from a wallet you control, I'd think a reliable recovery factor would be to use that key to sign a message that Coinbase can verify with the address in their records. Cryptocurrency after all is just another PKI.
And dumb-dumb me just realized how trivial that would be to break. Social engineer someone into sending/receiving money to/from your wallet then pretend to be them requesting an account recovery.
Coinbase would have to make you sign a challenge ahead of time that would mark the wallet as the authorized public key for your account.
This has become a concern for the Arch Linux wiki which now makes you pass a proof-of-work challenge to read it. Which my anti-fingerprinting browser fails at every time. Putting a burden on human readers that will be only a minor temporary annoyance for the bots. Think about it, the T in CAPTCHA stands for "Turing". What is the design goal of AI? To create machines that can pass a Turing test.
I fear the end state of this game is the death of the anonymous internet.
The point of (correctly done) proof-of-work is not to require Turing-level impersonation. It is to create a cost to a trawler that is going to hit thousands or more of your pages, and almost no cost to a human user.
Problem is, as you've discovered, it can have the cost that anti-fingerprinting browsers can't do the required work.
These are AI bots. Computational capacity is not a limiting factor. I'd argue that my desktop consumer PC is less capable of efficiently solving a PoW than a multi-GPU cluster in a data center.
Even if, as you say, crawlers will hit the PoW thousands of times more, the only way to make it a barrier is if the cost is higher than the profit to be gained. Otherwise it's merely an expense to be passed on to the customer.
Untested hypothesis, but I would expect the wider spacing between tracks in CMR makes it more resilient against random bit flips. I'm not aware of any experiments to prove this and it may be worth doing. If the HD manufacture can convince us that SMR is just as reliable for archival storage it would help them sell those drives since right now lots of people are avoiding SMR due to poor performance and the infamy of the bait-and-switch that happened a few years back.
Social media has bred a generation who believe that value comes from being the loudest voice in the room. One-upmanship is one of the sure ways to make your voice stand out.
Ah yes that drives me crazy too. Everything is a micro battle to win.
I had this issue with some junior colleagues. I had to point out that it's disrupting and actually quite tiring being interrupted all the time with minor corrections, often wrong or so unbelievably minor. One thought he could demand sources for everything I said no matter the stakes. They ignored context, nuance, caveats etc and just listened to the part they could attempt to easily refute. God I'm exhausted just recounting it
> But then it says people continued to eat pork in the area. Why?
Because it was cheaper. The article mentions how much easier it is to raise pigs than sheep or cattle. It also touches on the Isrealites being primarily sheep farmers and the Philistines raised pigs. Which is why I think the prohibition was a form of protectionism. It forces people to buy from Hebrew farms instead of the foreign pork.
