> "This similarity has already led to some women turning away from Coq and others getting harassed when they said they were working on Coq,"
That never happened. No one is interested in something but "turn away" because the name sound similar to cock. I can't imagine the following conversation student: "I am interested in calculus" professor: "you will have to work with coq" "I am not interested anymore".
>getting harassed when they said they were working on Coq
People usually do jokes with one another, how about you laugh and make a joke back. Stop taking yourself so serious and have some fun. And again, that never happened, no one was "harassed" because the name of what they are working on.
> (Jasper Hugunin) A bit of a stretch, maybe not disqualifying, but as a native English speaker (and given the context of this page), Gallus reads a lot like "phallus" to me, which is again a name for male genitalia.
I have nothing
edit:
> Coquito Reason for discarding: can have a violent meaning in some parts of Latin America....
And apparently in Colombia, Puero Rico, and Venzuela colloquial for "blow to the head with bare knuckles" (if I understand the seventh meaning here correctly: https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/coquito).
They search for the seventh meaning in a word and discarded the word. In there quest to find the most unfunny word related to cock they do produce some funny text.
I'm inclined to agree that it likely didn't happen. Too often it's just a couple of people on Twitter (for example) getting offended for likes. Or sometimes it's just completely made up and repeated again and again as truth.
So what is the other option? We stay in the abusive relationship just out of fear of confrontation? How about we take care of our interests and if cold war starts we make sure we win it.
I don't know if there are any good options at this point.
The general position from the US national security elite is that China should not be permitted to become powerful enough to have a completely independent foreign policy. This goal is probably impossible to achieve even trough military force.
For China's part, the Chinese need to learn how to get along with the rest of the world, including their immediate neighbors, without threatening other countries on a regular basis. The kind of respect China wants on the world stage can only be created through non-coercive soft power, and that's a skill the Chinese do not have.
Ultimately, I think both the US and China need to temper their expectations and learn to live with each other. This may not be politically possible in the long term, and is not politically possible in the US under Republican administrations.
In the short term, US moves to destroy Chinese tech firms and effectively transfer their assets to US firms are not helpful for global stability.
Chinese tech has no business in government networks, but consumer use of TikTok, WeChat, and Huawei phones is not a security threat and the rule of law should be respected with regard to these brands. If the US doesn't want people to use these tools, then it can make better alternatives.
Pervasive privacy abuses by TikTok et el should be addressed through comprehensive privacy legislation that applies equally to US surveillance capitalism firms (e.g. Facebook) and not through bans that exist only to transfer Chinese market share to US firms.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything you're saying and think this is excellent analysis.
However, I struggle with this part.
> In the short term, US moves to destroy Chinese tech firms and effectively transfer their assets to US firms are not helpful for global stability.
I can concede that this action by the US doesn't help move the US-China relationship into a more cooperative one. To your point, however, the US is not willing to move into such a position anyways.
So, given the US desire to effect change in their existing US-China relationship, why should the US let things like Huawei and TikTok proceed? It's pretty much par for the course as far as US foreign business relations and policy created by the executive branch.
Realistically, I don't believe any reversal of policy is possible under a Republican White House or even probable under a Democratic White House.
In an ideal world, however, it's not in the US interest to escalate tensions with China unnecessarily because a new cold war is something that should be avoided. One way or the other, China and the US will need to live with each other and reaching some kind of mutual understanding on this point without walking too far down the path towards potentially violent brinksmanship would be the best outcome for everyone.
In Romania, fake news try to say that NATO military bases run a prostitution rings with underage girls. There was a case[1] where a criminal raped and killed a girl in a city near a NATO military base and all the fake news articles were trying to say that the criminal was providing underage girls for the NATO soldiers.
Comments upthread were concerned that your least-common-denominator, I-watch-the-news-so-I'll-know-what-to-say, effort-free regurgitation of status quo platitudes has received upvotes on HN. This concern was deepened for parent comment once an actual conversation started and you had nothing to say in support of the proposition you had stated with such vehemence. If you're not going to expend the effort to think about a topic, please also save the effort required to post about the topic.
Do you mean the judgment of people like Samantha Power, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Henry Kissinger, Susan Rice, and Biden's foreign policy team which is largely inspired by and contiguous with that set?
Why is the US interested in Europe at all? Whatever the reason, it's clear that failing to secure the Eastern Flank, even if there is no particular interest in Central and Eastern Europe (though there most certainly is), puts the rest of Europe in danger. A tangible example of this threat was the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1920 (had the Poles lost, the Soviets would have marched right into Germany and probably beyond). The North European Plain is not exactly untraversable or empty of important East/West and North/South trade routes (it is the geographic center of Europe, remember).
Does US or other western country ever retaliate? It seams to me that Russia and China keep attacking as and we do nothing. Was vkontakte ever taken down? What would happen if an US hacker group "independent" of NSA would attack a Russian company?
The headline is somewhat misleading. If you read the top comment, you'll see that many other apps also were "caught in the act", including ones that most people would agree are innocuous.
Every time I read this kind of message i feel like it's propaganda that is trying to make the west weaker by convincing people to not work on military technology.
What you make can hurt people, yes, some people deserve to be hurt.
Just throwing this out there since we’re talking about morals: who deserves to be hurt and how do we decide that?
One of the big issues with tech involvement in security and defence is the shift in onus of responsibility from person to algorithm. Just this week we’ve seen a story top HN about a black man who was falsely identified as a terrorist by a facial recognition algorithm [1]. Closer scrutiny showed that the terrorist score was 52%, barely more than a coin flip. Even closer scrutiny showed that the image was grainy. Not once was a human called into the loop to assess the algorithm.
Maybe the intention was good (let’s use facial recognition technology to catch terrorists), but the tech itself was flawed and there was a failure to imagine scenarios where an innocent person is denied their liberty because the tech didn’t work. Add to this the racial inequality, and the lack of empathy becomes deeper. Would anyone feel comfortable deploying facial recognition technology if there was a 50% chance (a coin flip) that they themselves would be hit? Finally, this goes beyond race. Who (in the West) decides who (not the west) should get hurt (be killed really) because they are collateral? Again the empathy gap decides that life is cheap on the other side.
The problem with tech culture is that we don’t like to imagine scenarios where it just simply isn’t up to the task. This can become a matter of life and death (or liberty) when security and defence are involved. At no point am I saying that countries should not invest in technology for security and defence, but that rather such systems are weak if they’re merely brute force (even a conv net can be trained to brute force it’s test accuracy) and not highly accurate. And right now the technology isn’t ready for deployment.
The application of AI in security is primarily needed to due to the enormity of the problem, not due to its ability to replace people. There simply isn't enough manpower or time to train experts and have them examine all the data. You can argue some of the data should not be examined at all for privacy reasons. But there are plenty of scenarios where privacy concerns won't hold. Such as comparing the security camera photo of a bank robber to mugshots.
The question of when it is reliable is an big one people have been working on a long time. For example in medicine the stakes are even higher. The problem is simply that recent technologies (deep learning) have taken a huge leap forward in performance, but a huge leap backwards when it comes to being able to assess confidence.
I am interested in learning RE also. After some search on the internet I found that most people recommend Practical Malware Analysis book. I started reading it, it's seems pretty interesting. I didn't get to the RE part yet but from looking at it seems to be pretty good for beginner.
It is better to hold them down while we, the west get stronger. They can escalate tensions all they want they still need warships, nukes, microchips, etc. to do something and as long as we stay better then them they won't do anything. In my opinion the best way to avoid a war is to have the bigger stick
Maybe but at some point it turns into a case where people are constantly beating each other with sticks of various sizes. And then it's not civilized anymore.
So it seems like either that stick needs to get much more effective very quickly, or probably more reasonably at this point we need to try to de-escalate somehow.
In my opinion there is a very obvious lack of cultural and political integration which is inevitably going to be resolved. One way or another. I don't see a plan for doing it peacefully really being promoted by leaders. Which to me indicates that the leadership and overall awareness of the situation is inadequate. And probably we are going to be totally fucked by this ignorance and stupidity at some point.
That never happened. No one is interested in something but "turn away" because the name sound similar to cock. I can't imagine the following conversation student: "I am interested in calculus" professor: "you will have to work with coq" "I am not interested anymore".
>getting harassed when they said they were working on Coq
People usually do jokes with one another, how about you laugh and make a joke back. Stop taking yourself so serious and have some fun. And again, that never happened, no one was "harassed" because the name of what they are working on.
> (Jasper Hugunin) A bit of a stretch, maybe not disqualifying, but as a native English speaker (and given the context of this page), Gallus reads a lot like "phallus" to me, which is again a name for male genitalia.
I have nothing
edit: > Coquito Reason for discarding: can have a violent meaning in some parts of Latin America.... And apparently in Colombia, Puero Rico, and Venzuela colloquial for "blow to the head with bare knuckles" (if I understand the seventh meaning here correctly: https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/coquito).
They search for the seventh meaning in a word and discarded the word. In there quest to find the most unfunny word related to cock they do produce some funny text.