Buddahriffic

Or marked as duplicate and closed but when you click the duplicate it's a different issue.

Marketers using all of their skills to try to sell the idea that they're a good guy doing something people (who aren't ad buyers) want.

Sad part is they are probably able to fool some people.

I wanted to learn more and found this article: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/29/damon-baehrel-the-most-exclusive-restaurant-in-america

Sounds like the ten year wait list might be made up and who knows where he gets his meats, but the whole thing just sounds fascinating. From his website, the current price is $550 USD a head, though it's subject to change several times per week.

He sounds like one of those guys that has a whole bunch of little projects going on at any time and over the years accumulated enough results from those to host some volume of dinner parties. And possibly exaggerates or lies about some of them (though hard to say if he treats his cooking similarly to how he treats his legend/myth).

Though I wouldn't suggest bringing up open source software around him. Unless it's to bitch about people doing things for free when you want to charge lots of money for it.

Yeah, but how was that food?

I just tried a fine dining restaurant for the first time this past weekend.

I was just curious after watching a bunch of cooking competitions on Netflix about how good that kind of food could be so decided to find a Michelin star restaurant and give it a try.

While the portions were small, the food was on another level. Even the "worst" of it was only that because it wasn't amazing, but still really good.

The food was so good that when I got home and snacked that night, it was hard to enjoy any of my usual favorite snacks because it all felt so basic after that.

It was fancy in other regards, too. Like when my buddy went to the bathroom, someone came over and folded his cloth napkin rather than leave it bunched up on the table.

Plus, even though the portions were tiny and we joked about whether we'd need to stop for fast-food afterwards, by the end of the 9 or so courses, I felt completely satisfied. Even the snacking I mentioned was more due to the munchies than actual hunger.

It was expensive though. Two taster menu plus two drinks each came to about 500 CAD plus tip. And it was one of the cheaper options. There was a two Michelin star sushi place that advertised seats starting at 800 and I'm not even sure that includes any food, though I think it gets the "chef cooks what he wants" menu, which tbf would probably be way better than what I'd want anyways.

This place only needed to be booked like a month in advance, so the place you're talking about sounds like it's on another level itself. Though I'm curious how much that other level translates to better food.

This is apparently from an ad-supported tier being trialled in EU and not them sneaking ads into an ad free tier. Read comments below for more context.

This thread was reported for being misleading but I'm going to leave it up for the context.

I'm not sure there's any guarantee that it will ever be sorted, since bit flips will be random and are just as likely to put it more out of order than more in order. Plus if there's any error correction going on, it can cancel out bit flips entirely until up to a certain threshold.

Though I'm not sure if ECC (and other methods) write the corrected value back to memory or just correct the signals going to the core, so it's possible they could still add up over time and overcome the second objection.

I think that, due to the nature of chaos and the butterfly effect, any time travel at all would change the future. Unless it was just closing a time loop that was already present in the current past (which would mean any attempt to alter history would fail because that attempt is already a part of history), or if it's possible to create new branches in time.

So these rules are either unnecessary because any time travel automatically causes changes that, it's not possible to change the past from the past, or it's not possible to go back to our past, thus nothing you do will affect our present.

Yeah, I think there is a lot of potential for code analysis. There's a limited cross section of ways malware can do interesting things, but many permutations of ways to do that.

So look for the interesting things, like:

• accessing other programs' address spaces
• reading/writing files
• deleting/moving files
• sending/receiving network traffic
• os system calls and console commands
• interacting with hardware
• spawning new processes
• displaying things on the screen
• accessing timing information

Obviously there's legitimate uses for each of these, so that's just the first step.

Next, analyze the data that is being used for that:

• what's the source?
• what's the destination?
• what kind of transformations are being applied to the data?

Then you can watch out for things like:

• is it systematically going through directories and doing some operation to all files? (Maybe ransomware, data scrubbing, or just maliciously deleting stuff?)
• is it grabbing data from somewhere and sending it somewhere else on the internet? (Stealing data?)
• is it using timing information to build data? (Timing attacks to figure out kernel data that should be hidden?)
• is it changing OS settings/setup?

Then generate a report of everything it is doing and see if it aligns with what the code is supposed to do. Or you could even build some kind of permissions system around that with more sophistication than the basic "can this app access files? How about the internet?"

Computer programs can be complex, but are ultimately made up of a series of simple operations and it's possible to build an interpreter that can do those operations and then follow everything through to see exactly what is included in the massive amount of data it sends over the network so that you can tell your file sharing program is also for some reason sending /etc/passwords to a random address or listening for something to access a sequence of closed ports and then will do x, y, z, if that ever happens. Back doors could be obvious with the right analysis tools, especially if it's being built from source code (though I believe it's still possible with binaries, just maybe a bit harder).

If it hasn't happened already, it wouldn't surprise me if useful instrumentation space is reallocated to advertisement space at some point. Though hopefully the consumer rage in response would end whatever company tries that first.

Yeah, realizing I was an idiot implies I'm a bit less of one than I was before I realized.

I want to see some videos of salesmen trying to sell touchscreens like they are cars of the future and so great. Followed by the same salesman selling the return to tactile buttons as a big step forward because of how bad of an idea the touchscreens are.

Most likely the first one will be older, but I bet there's many that could be lead to do both in the same day by two different people showing interest in the same model but different year of a vehicle.