That seems a weird use of the word. By that notion, every convicted criminal is a victim, because the court imposed a sentence that they, presumably, do not like. This removes practically all meaning from the word "victim". In common parlance, well-understood consequences of one's own actions occurring does not make one a victim.
> This removes practically all meaning from the word "victim".
No, it removes the personal judgement from the word "victim," where we decide whether a particular victim deserves their punishment as a preliminary to discussing their situation.
-----
edit: i.e. where sympathetic people who are killed are victims, and unsympathetic people are killed are being portrayed as victims. It's an attempt to distract from the material facts of a situation with arguments about language.
edit 2: In the spirit of tripling down, I'm also giving this discussion more credit than it deserves. This is about someone saying that the word "cancel" implies the word "victim." So here's the implied argument afaict.
1) Using the word "cancel" to refer to an imposition on your work means that you're implying you're a "victim."
2) A "victim" is someone who is undeserving of what has happened to them.
3) This person is deserving of what has happened to them.
But your original reply didn't say "he didn't call himself a victim," it tried to argue why he was a victim. The gp to this reply was pointing out how absurd your definition of victim is. It's not making an argument about whether or not he called himself a victim, it makes an argument about what you yourself defined as a victim.
I've made that argument, and you can accept it or not. The larger point is that accusing people of playing victims is always a distraction from actual argument, and the entire thread is evidence of that. It started with irrelevance and ended nowhere.
If a court ignored the law and imposed a criminal sentence merely because it didn't like the defendant, then that would be an injustice and you would call the convicted person a victim.
Consider a disconnected domain (say, union of a few open balls in R^n), and f being constant in each connected component, but having different values in each ball. The differential is indeed everywhere 0 in the entire domain.
Oh, these kind of problems happen time and again in real-life maths: you use a lemma until someone points out that you are assuming something which may not take place (like connectedness of the domain, here).
Yea, but like I said, it's a poor example as a "false belief" in this context, because as stated, it isn't false for some unwritten assumptions and is false for other unwritten assumptions. In mathematics, well and actually everything, the importance of assumptions is paramount. The problem is just ill-stated.
This happens in engineering and software all the time. Time and time again, issues being resolved usually revolves around clarifying assumptions.
I've always found the definition of monoid objects in a category of endofunctors to be tougher to grasp than the Kleisli-category definition of a monad, at least if one is being formal about "monoid object", and checking that the necessary diagrams commute.
Given a functor m of Hask, we define a squiggly arrow ~>, where a ~> b is a -> m b. If these ~> are the arrows in some category (which we call the Kleisli category for m), then we call m a monad. Here id :: a ~> a in that category is what we call return :: a -> m a, and the composition (.) :: (b ~> c) -> (a ~> b) -> (a ~> c) in that category is used to create bind :: m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b, where bind x f = (.) f (const x) (return ()), where (.) is the squiggly arrow (.) we just mentioned. Bind is what's spelled >>= in Haskell, and is what's behind the "x <- f" do-notation.
Specifying raw or cooked rice gets you the right answer. Given that it gives you the info to correct instantly, this isn't too bad. NLP is hard.
We had a similar idea, but for automatic handling of whole recipes that you can adjust to your dietary needs (http://www.tweakeats.com). I have to say I prefer the feedback for individual ingredients that spelt has though, given the ambiguity of a lot of ingredients (raw vs cooked, chopped ingredients measured before or after chopping, red peppers, etc.). Seeing quickly how is was interpreted is helpful.
Unfortunately they did. You can see the request for review here[1], and the actual review here[2]. I know the guy who actually did it (Righetti), he sent an email to the department a few days ago. The quality of that review was absolutely terrible.
I know the professor who did the review. He sent a mail explaining what actually happened, as opposed to what is shown by the mayor's website. The actual report will not be finished until August, so whatever you are seeing is not the complete report. What you are seeing is a preliminary result concerning a specific part of the system.
Unfortunately, even after the actual report si finished, the university will not have permission to make it public. So we may never see the real results.
The report is signed by him, so it's safe to say that report is an accurate recollection of what happened according to him.
Having a report on the security of a system be issued months _after_ it is used is completely stupid. This is not simply his fault, it's the entire arrangement which is stupid.
The report shows that Righetti had access to the source code. Unless you are trying to say that he did not have access to the files in which _actual_ security vulnerabilities were found, or that the source code he was given was _different_ from the source code which was leaked, which contained egregious vulnerabilities.
Keep in mind he pockets hundreds of thousands of dollars in this arrangement. That's the part that adds insult to injury. Further, he does not teach information security or anything similar at university (he teaches networking), when there _are_ people teaching such things at UBA (FCEyN), who would have been better suited for the task.
You have to extend trust out at some point. Your only other alternative is to manually type the machine code required for a C compiler and start from that.
Additionally, it's fairly ironic this is about a browser. If you don't trust packages maintainers, yet you want to use a browser, which the whole point of is to download and interpret text, code and binaries which you have little in the way of actually controlling after pointing it at a site, then I think you've made some interesting security trade-offs in your mind.
Okay, so the only other alternative is to create your own processor[1], manually type the machine code required for a C compiler, and then start from that. Sheesh.
Really, this is what everything in life is like. Every time you cross a bridge, you are implicitly trusting the builders who built it, the engineers who designed it, the mechanical engineering processes they used, and the mathematical disciplines that they rely on, all the way down to their fundamental axioms. You have to extend trust at some point there as well, otherwise you can start by proving there exists a class of numbers we will call integers...
I agree with you, my point was to illustrate that at some point, everyone needs to place some trust (even if implicitly). I'm as paranoid as the next person, but this is just the reality.
Yeah, that "sheesh" wasn't directed at you, but at the even more ludicrous amount of work required to not have to trust a third party. The response wasn't a rebuttal, I just felt I had more to say. :)
It's easier to trust that the maintainer compiled upstream properly instead of backported/mismerged because of a stupid OS policy preventing you from incrementing version numbers
Ergo: use a distribution like Arch Linux or Gentoo. Arch Linux has the advantage that you don't have to build everything from source yourself. Both have the advantage that the build scripts are easy to understand (Arch PKGBUILDs more so, IMHO).
In the end you will always arrive at a chicken and egg situation, you will ultimately need to trust the engineers who designed your CPU and chipset, the VLSI design software which they used, the developers who wrote the compiler and toolchain, the tools used to bootstrap it, external libraries, etc.
The world ultimately runs on trust, no matter how you slice it.
If you don't have the time, skillset or inclination to review the source you're compiling yourself, trusting a third party who you have reason to put faith in beats compiling from source yourself.
I've no idea why you've been downvoted. While it's not amazingly pertinent, it's worthy to note that security from source assumes your compiler is being honest.
