Email the mods when you botch a link, but also per the guidelines and FAQ you should be submitting source links, not archival links (unless the archive is the source because the actual source is gone, of course).
I don't get it. How is this reverse engineered? Have you found out how the game works? Have you find ways to exploit it? How about redirecting a QR code?
Seems you just discovered the association between QR code and Spotify ID which you could have done by, you know, looking at the QR code or just proxying requests.
Like.. without any tools I can tell you that this game scans a QR code and sends you to a Spotify page. You discovered the same thing by decompiling and decrypting...? What has been discovered here
That's what I'm saying... nothing was figured out other than it scans a QR code and gets a spotify link, which I can do if you tell me one sentence about the game.
I can also tell you cards are made of plastic without needing extensive scientific analysis? Did I just reverse-engineer matter?
But the QR code in the card doesn't contain the Spotify link. The mapping between the QR code and the Spotify link is done by the companion app, pulling a database from another URL that was found by the poster on the RE process.
> Under the deal, Zuckerberg will receive new shares that could be sold to potentially foot a multibillion-dollar tax bill in the event that California passes a one-off billionaire tax.
Sounds like California gets what it wants either way? It's Meta that's getting used as Zuck's wallet.
> This will allow Zuckerberg to sell some of this new class C shares to pay a potential tax bill, without diluting his control of the company.
Yes while the article is a bit click-bait, "protect him from California wealth tax" sounds like he found some loop hole for not paying, it clearly says that it is about keeping control in the company and not avoiding to pay ...
> California is the big loser here (as expected).
Sad to see such a superficial and full of confirmation bias comment on HN. I am not taking position, I am not American and I don't think HN is the place for that anyway ... But please read the article before commenting
It's not even that. If you take a look at videos of India etc you will see rivers full of plastic, plastic rubbish being burned, etc. It's just normal way of life for them.
But we are told that plastic straws are the issue, and switching to paper straws (that you need to use twice as many of when they inevitably dissolve) will solve the problems. Meanwhile, the H&M polyester dress that you wear 3 times before throwing it away takes as much energy as 2000x paper straws to manufacturer.
Chinas expansion of Coal power plants(1), India's behaviour with dirty rivers and pollution, Middle East burning rubber(2) so it is visible from space, etc, are all examples of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory on a global scale.
"the methane emissions alone from Turkmenistan’s two main fossil fuel fields caused more global heating in 2022 than the entire carbon emissions of the UK"
"The biggest event was a leak of 427 tonnes an hour in August, near Turkmenistan’s Caspian coast and a major pipeline. That single leak was equivalent to the rate of emissions from 67m cars, or the hourly national emissions of France."
Seems like a tough argument to make stick. The Chinese & Indians are clearly benefiting more from the economic growth than they are suffering from the downsides of pollution. They would not swap their current environmental problems for clean poverty.
It isn't a broken windows problem as much as drawing 2 billion people out of poverty is more urgent than most other concerns.
Exactly this. Living standards are closely correlated to energy use and no one is going to volunteer to live in poverty.
The environmental movement does itself no favours either by pursuing high social cost but low impact interventions like paper straws and ignoring (or outright vilifying) nuclear as a viable path forward.
Finally, there's a huge disconnect between the (supposed) low cost of renewables and what people experience on the ground. Countries like Germany are a good example of this. The constant refrain is that solar and wind are super cheap and are running more and more of the country, but those savings (if real) don't make it to the average rate payer. Something is clearly wrong here. Either the cost claims are incomplete and don't factor in something important or the auction mechanism used to set prices must be discarded. But the disparity between claiming massive cost benefits while having people pay more sours the public on the technology and destroys credibility.
> The environmental movement does itself no favours either by pursuing high social cost but low impact interventions like paper straws
How much energy has the environmental movement put into the paper straw topic compared to the attention it is continuously getting from those trying to ridicule the environmental movement?
None of my environment activist friends ever talks about plastic/paper straws. They tend to drink straight out of the glass/cup/bottle/can if anything. The only people bringing this up are those continuously pushing against change and those not realizing that it is just a big distraction topic to get people worked up.
It is quite exemplary how often the topic has been mentioned independently in just the discussions of this article.
Well, color me surprised, but you’re right: in contrast to china, Malaysia, and other SE Asia states, India’s plastic trash is mostly (97%) self-made, with the largest contributor being single use packaging for consumers.
> But we are told that plastic straws are the issue, and switching to paper straws (that you need to use twice as many of when they inevitably dissolve) will solve the problems.
Could we please stop with this strawman (sorry pun) topic of paper straws? Nobody claims that they solve the problems and they have just become this distracting meme that ridicules all efforts at environmental protection. Yes plastic straws are bad, no they are not among the top-10 problems humanity needs to address and yes the topic has been blown out of proportion just to make fun of things. If you care, do you not realize that every time you bring this up you are doing us all a disservice?
So, please, let's drop it and focus on actual issues of regulatory approaches to climate change instead.
What is this nonsense about straws? The reason plastic straws are banned is because they were one of the top 10 things littering European beaches. Indian plastic straws have fuck all to do with littering _our_ beaches.
And why then did plastic straws disapperaed in the US before slowly coming back? The story (in the US) I heard when I asked was usually "because we can and because it is good for the world".
That was a big self-own from a group that thought they have a carte blanche and can just ignore those pesky normies instead of explaining why the changes are good for them, too. And being smarter in picking battles. And minimizing inconveniences from unavoidable sharp edges.
Were paper straws ever about climate change? This feels like a red herring. Pollution has many aspects to it, and you can work on several problems simultaneously.
Plastic straws are simply emblematic of the environmental movement as a whole. "Political capital" is not infinite, folks will only tolerate so much disruption to their lives. Going after plastic straws instead of something more consequential was a mistake.
Even in America and among Republicans there's support for using less plastic straws and unless there's some extremely unexpected overlaps in opinion it basically means the only people who think it's a bad move also don't care about climate change and environmentalism seperate from the straw issue.
No, that isn't going to happen. The US can't afford to lose the AI race and US companies that can't compete will get thrown under the bus and replaced with those that can.
The DHS order only bans buying DeepSeek products directly (e.g. doing inference on their China hosted servers). It does not apply to open weights at all. And DeepSeek just gave their response to the DHS order.
"DeepSeek implementation" in this context means a third-party product that uses a DeepSeek product, e.g. the DeepSeek API. This does not apply to open data running on a non-affiliated third-party inference provider.
No, it is being interpreted that way by people who either don't understand basic legal writing and the legal standards for an order of this nature, or by people [who] are purposefully FUD'ing in order to take advantage of that lack of specialist knowledge.
I don't understand basic legal writing, you you may very well be right. I would be nervous about fulfilling a contract or building a company with, for example, my code base, which is heavily built with deepseek
I understand basic legal writing very well (I went to school for it, though I don't practice) and I think you're dead wrong. 'third-party products and services developed using DeepSeek implementations' (used consistently in the text of the rule) is deliberately broad and indicate a refusal of all derivative products, not just offerings of the DS models provisioned on OpenRouter or suchlike.
Now, most software products developed with DS can pass an audit, whether human or from a US AI provider, that they do what they say and aren't secretly funneling telemetry to Beijing. When I say 'most..can pass an audit' I mean that most products are simple enough to undergo such an audit, rather than implying that some have exfiltration mines buried within; it's possible but I have have no reason to think it's probable. I believe the purpose of the broad wording is to facilitate the waiver requirement, which costs money to apply for and will require payment to an accredited or government approved audit provider, thus generating DSP on the US balance sheet even if the original prototyping/buildout was done with Deepseek.
That wallhop thing gets confused by the double slash in the URL:
https://wallhop.io/https://www.vanityfair.com/story/jared-ku...
reply