Not familiar with that one, but two that come with Kali use search engines to locate subdomains. Your DNS server would have to be pretty misconfigured to allow zone transfers to the general public, which would be the only way to discover a truly "unlisted" subdomain.
This comment really sums it up well. Literally everything with antenna design is a trade-off. You can design an antenna to radiate very well at a given wavelength. The better it is at doing this, the worse it tends to be at every other wavelength. You can make an antenna that radiates to some degree across a wide array of wavelengths, but it's not actually going to work very well across any of them.
Same thing with radiation patterns. You can make a directional antenna that has a huge amount of gain in one direction. The trade-off is that it's deaf and dumb in every other direction. (See a Yagi-Uda design, for instance.)
Physics is immutable and when it comes to antenna design there really is no such thing as free lunch. Other than coming up with some wacky shapes I don't really think AI is going to be able to create any type of "magic" antenna that's somehow a perfect isotropic radiator with a low SWR across some huge range of wavelengths.
That's the thing though, is that it's not hard to make a good antenna for a single frequency. We already know exactly how to do that. And when we're talking transmission and reception of radio, tiny incremental gains that might be eked out through some wacky design generally don't move the needle very much.
I can talk to the astronauts on the ISS on 2 meters with an antenna I can make out of a PVC pipe and a metal measuring tape using a 5-watt transmitter. Improving that design by 2% doesn't really mean anything useful in this context.
It would usually be vastly cheaper and easier to just increase the transmit power. Or sometimes it's the available power that's the limiting factor, and a 2% increase to the antenna isn't going to matter.
Point is, trying to chase tiny gains in one dimension or another over a thoroughly tested and well-understood antenna design is kind of a waste of time outside of an academic, beard-scratching context.
Well, the speculation is that an AI could iterate through a zillion novel and mostly-garbage designs to discover something unexpected with a higher gain than known designs.
There's a percent efficiency/gain improvement that exceeds the cost-performance ratio of simply increasing power -- boiling down to the usual capex vs opex argument.
I can't make an intelligent guess on the likelihood of that discovery.
Glad I'm not the only one who was bothered by this. No subnet masks in the diagram, and I'm supposed to assume that 10.0.0.1 and 10.0.0.2 are not in the same broadcast domain. So my default gateway is what, 10.0.0.0, and that router has a route to 10.0.0.2/? with a next-hop of 10.1.0.5?
Wackiest network I've seen in a while, and I've seen some real winners.
I don't get it either. Systemd units are so much more powerful and flexible than init scripts. Writing those bash scripts for everything was a complete pain in the ass.
You may disagree with the architecture or design decisions made with systemd, but I don't see how it's possible to argue that SysVinit was in any way actually "better".
They're neither more powerful nor more flexible. Init-scripts can iterate & build whatever complexity they want. They can be far wilder. There's almost nothing constraining what an init script could be.
Systemd does establish easy-to-use & incredibly-powerful access a wide range of super-powerful knobs. And in a consistent & clear way, where-as each init-script would have a totally different way of doing config & slightly different approaches to the various hacks. And init scripts arent composable, where-as you can take your distro's regular unit, and drop-in some additional configuration easily, in a very eloquent way, across any bit of config. I think systemd is amazing & brings enormous clarity. It has enormous power.
But init-scripts still had more power. But it was reckless chaotic power that was enormously hard to tap, and required prodigal talent to develop these individual artisinal artefacts, which became, as a user, a thing of horror to rework. Init-scripts almost never were particularly flexible or powerful, but so help you if you ran into such an artefact.
I keep seeing replies like this. Insurance is not the point. Come to Venice Beach in Los Angeles and you'll quickly understand that you'll be calling the insurance company once every couple days to replace your bike if you leave it locked up outside for more than a few minutes at a time.
Around here bike theft is a sport. If they can't get the entire bike, they'll strip every single part off the frame in under 5 minutes.
On top of that, I have quite the emotional attachment to my bike. It means something to me. A cash payout doesn't replace what was lost if it were to be stolen.
Bike insurance is a nice consolation prize if you get ripped off, but it's absolutely in no way a viable solution to the problem of widespread, organized bike theft.
This is absolutely a massive issue with it. Apple did this with retail employees back in the day and it was terrible. Employee reviews were based on it, managers had to call customers and apologize if the customer didn't leave a 9 or 10 rating, it was absolutely awful.
One of the biggest problems with it is that an average person, unaware of what NPS is, doesn't understand that giving any rating less than a 9 is essentially giving a rating of zero.
If I have what I would consider to be an average interaction with a business, e.g. I just buy something and leave, no need for support, no problems to deal with, etc., that seems average to me. Based on a non-NPS understanding of a 0-10 scale, I'd say that's what, a 7? But the business now considers this as a failure on the part of the person that helped me at that store.
This is why sales people and phone reps are constantly now asking you to give them a 10/10 rating if you receive a survey, because even if they literally just took your money and handed you change, their jobs depend on you acting as if you had a heart attack and they saved your life by performing CPR or something.
It's honestly a terrible system that produces no meaningful feedback for the company and causes employees to do whatever they can to game the numbers. All you're measuring with NPS is how good your employees are at juking the stats, nothing more.
I remember when I worked my first job as tech support for an ISP our entire performance was measured by NPS. The company had a question asking 'how would you rate the rep' and 'how would you rate the company'. But, the rep question was a decoy, and the company question actually counted in my personal NPS stats.
I would get so many 10s for the rep (which does not count at all) and 1s for the company which would obliterate my stats. And, only the last person who spoke to the customer was rated, so this encouraged meaninglessly transferring people around like a hot potato.
Number of times I would get a customer who had issues for weeks, and then I take a look at their issue, resolve it in 15 minutes, they would be ecstatic on the call and then the NPS survey comes back, 10 for me and 1 for the company. Then I would get a tap on my shoulder from the supervisor asking me to explain the detractor.
I almost got fired after about 6 months due to my NPS being too low, until I made friends with one of the vets, and one evening in the pub with couple beers too many in him he explained to me that the only way to survive is to game the system. He told me how to crash the call client to prevent it from sending surveys to angry callers, how to transfer people to infinite hold queue which does not result in survey when they hang up, and how to trick the system into thinking that I had and inbound call when I did not (which gave me time to actually do my work, like performing relocations and resolving complex provisioning issues since any time not spent on inbound call was considered to be not adhering to schedule). I went from less than +40 NPS to +90 NPS in one month, so most of the NPS feedback was fake anyway.
This, to me, is a general problem with a purely quantified, metrics driven approach to management, not just limited to NPS. I'm not demonizing these approaches, just saying that you have to balance humanity with data.
I like to look at this kind of thing as the one of the dark sides/dark patterns of using data for decisionmaking.
Qualitative measures are important, as is maintaining as much humanity as possible, to have a balanced and healthy culture. Being solely metrics/data driven can lead to cold, heartless, damaging culture (might be efficient or make profit, but very dehumanizing).
“The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. This is OK as far as it goes. The second step is to disregard that which can't be easily measured or to give it an arbitrary quantitative value. This is artificial and misleading. The third step is to presume that what can't be measured easily really isn't important. This is blindness. The fourth step is to say that what can't be easily measured really doesn't exist. This is suicide.”
Most internal surveys at my company use a scale of 1 to 6, where 1=4 and 5=6. Our managers can’t even see an improvement from “terrible” to “fairly decent” in the underlying distribution.
Sometimes they require writing something to justify a bad score (but not a good score!)
> Show HN: Ensure all car crash articles are biased against the driver and vehicles generally using NLP
Seems like a better title for this.
In the analysis of the first article, under the "recommendations" about counterfactuals, it's literally telling you to remove relevant context about the incident, to ensure the readers can't possibly come to the "wrong" conclusion about who's responsible.
Distrust of news media is at an all-time high[1] and if people can't see how this sort of thing contributes, I really don't know what to say at this point.
Agreed, this would be ideal. Most people don't understand that literally every access point on a given channel is part of the same broadcast domain even if they're totally separate networks. Every AP that yours can see on the same channel slows down the network for all of them, because wifi is half-duplex. Everyone needs to shut up for a second while one host on the channel transmits.
Your static site would still probably be better on AWS. Whack it into an S3 bucket, put cloudfront in front of it, and you have a globally scalable, CDN-enabled static site with at least five 9's of reliability and it costs you peanuts.
