Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more azalemeth's commentslogin

Even then, all of chemistry DFT is based on the idea that the electron density contains the physical observable information and you and I both know that the overall phase of the wave function isn't physical except through interference. There is plenty of useful qm without C already out there!


"except through the inference" is carrying a lot of weight there. That's pretty physical.


This is referring to the fact that overall phase is not real (no observable difference) but relative phase has. The word “except” is not downplaying its importance, but to emphasize the fact that overall phase isn’t physical.


That would be the browser fingerprinting in action. I often get a lot of requests to use widevine on ddg's browser on android (which informs one about it) for I suspect similar reasons.


Interesting, I'm on Brave and have never had a site request bluetooth access before, so much so that I'd never even granted Brave bluetooth access, hence why it popped up as a system notification this time around.


Doesn't Brave disable WebBluetooth by default via a flag?


Brave indeed does block WebBluetooth by default, but it can be turned on by the user using flags.

It's by no means a new feature, but the privacy concerns outlined in this post are still valid 10 years later: https://blog.lukaszolejnik.com/w3c-web-bluetooth-api-privacy...


Interesting. Is this fingerprinting in action? I have Widevine disabled on Brave desktop (don't recall if this is default), occasionally I get Widevine permission request on some sites.


For what it is worth, I submitted a (totally, different, "handwritten", personal) complaint to the UK's CMA about this a few weeks ago, when it was first announced.

I received _the_ most boilerplate "Thanks, bog off" response imaginable, which I presume is a good thing...

  Dear $NAME, 
  
  Thank you for your correspondence.
  
  We value people contacting us with information. This helps us to tackle anti-competitive behaviour and protect people and businesses from being disadvantaged by unfair practices.  
  
  What happens now?
  
  Our Digital Markets Team will now analyse your enquiry using our published prioritisation principles (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cma-prioritisation-principles). The Digital Markets Unit (DMU) will oversee a new regulatory regime, promoting greater competition and innovation in digital markets and protecting consumers and businesses from unfair practices.
   
  The CMA will continue to use its existing powers, where appropriate, to investigate harm to competition in digital markets. Please be aware that the CMA has no powers to take action or open a case on behalf of an individual customer or business (for example; to pursue compensation, refunds, or to intervene or adjudicate in disputes).
  
  We prioritise the cases that are most likely to make a real difference for people and the UK economy based on our available resources and the likelihood of a successful outcome.
  
  Can I get an update on my enquiry? 
  
  We are unable to give you an update on your enquiry.
  
  We find all enquiries useful to inform our current and future work. However, we offer no guarantee as to where or how your enquiry may be used.
  
  We do publish details of our cases on our website. You can subscribe to email alerts which will inform you when new information has been added.
  
  Will the CMA investigate my enquiry?
  
  We review all the enquiries that we receive. This helps us to understand:
  whether different industries in the UK economy are competitive
  if competition law is being broken
  if shoppers or businesses are being disadvantaged.
  
  Even if we don’t immediately investigate your enquiry, it may lead to us taking further action in the future.
  
  Do I need to do anything else?
  
  You do not need to do anything. If we need further information, we will contact you.
  
  Thank you again for taking the time to contact us.
  
  Yours sincerely
   
  Carol Sampson (she/her) | Enquiries Admin Officer | Strategy, Communications and Advocacy | Competition and Markets Authority
  The Cabot | 25 Cabot Square | London | E14 4QZ

So, I naïvely think one way to push this higher up the priority list and get the UK's regulator to act at least would be to look at those prioritisation principles and make the point that it falls high up them. One of them is "The CMA’s work should ensure that competitive markets provide choice and variety and drive lower prices"; another is "the CMA’s actions should empower competitive, fair-dealing businesses to compete, including by addressing the behaviour of a small minority of businesses that try to harm consumers, restrict competition, or prevent markets from functioning properly".

It's pretty clear to me that Google's direction won't be going down this route, and in many ways I wish I knew about these before submitting my complaint. If you're reading this in the UK, consider looking at those guidance points and hamming home explicitly how this move by Google breaks those points – which, frankly, it clearly does (it is going to reduce choice and variety; it is also explicitly restricting competition and harming consumers!)


While we're at it "and not use Microsoft products". Literally every time a story like this surfaces...


That's more of a form of survivorship bias. Microsoft continued to maintain its lockdown on government IT and infrastructure through the decades, over the alternatives.


> While we're at it "and not use Microsoft products".

I'm not sure if Oracle would be better.


I don't think any Microsoft Surfaces were involved in this..


This is an insanely appalling story that should be headline news – but isn't. And the commission's findings that the police are not at fault are barely credible!


To Seagate's credit though, their warranty service is excellent. I've had the occasional exos drive die (in very large zfs raids) and they do just ship you one overnight if you email an unhappy smart over. Also their nerd tooling, seachest, is freely downloadable and mostly open source. That's worth quite a lot to me...


(And if anyone is curious about their tools – https://github.com/Seagate/openSeaChest is the link. Lots of low level interesting toys!)


Mullvad offers exactly the combination of wireguard in QUIC for obsfucation and to make traffic look like Https -- https://mullvad.net/en/blog/introducing-quic-obfuscation-for...


WireGuard-over-QUIC does not make any sense to me, this lowers performance and possibly the inner WireGuard MTUs. You can just replace WireGuard with QUIC altogether if you just want obfuscation.


It's not about performance, of course. It's about looking like HTTPS, being impenetrable, separating the ad-hoc transport encryption and the Wireguard encryption which also works as authentication between endpoints, and also not being not TCP inside TCP.


You can just do that by using QUIC-based tunneling directly instead of using WireGuard-over-QUIC and basically stacking 2 state machines on top of one another.


TCP over Wireguard is two state machines stacked on each other. QUIC over Wireguard is the same thing. Yet, both seems to work pretty well.

I think I see your argument, in that it's similar to what sshuttle does to eliminate TCP over TCP through ssh. sshuttle doesn't prevent HOL blocking though.


TCP over WireGuard is unavoidable because that's the whole point of tunneling. But TCP over WireGuard over QUIC just doesn't make any sense, neither from performance nor from security perspective. Not to mention that with every additional tunneling layer you need to reduce the MTU (which is already a very restricted sub-1500 value without tunneling) of all inner tunnels.


> But TCP over WireGuard over QUIC just doesn't make any sense

Agreed, but that wasn't what I was saying. Read it carefully next time before downvoting.

If the argument is if wireguard is a state machine, well, TCP over wireguard is just fine. And that's exactly what I said.


Probably simplifies their clients and backends I'd imagine?


See also Obscura's approach of QUIC bridges to Mullvad as a privacy layer: https://obscura.net/blog/bootstrapping-trust/


I really love posts like this – and moreover it's clear that emulating games has spurred the development of really deep technical skills in more than one author.

I worry that the likes of the extremely difficult to crack, on-chip DRM found within e.g. the Xbox One X, designed at every available opportunity to resist hobbyists understanding and using the hardware, will show up as a big gap in museum exhibits in our cultural memory in the 2200s. DRM has a long tail, and we societally pay quite the underappreciated price for it, for sure.


It would be a kWh, I suspect, the internationally used unit in the context of electrical power generation... of energy.


I suspect that too, and I'm assuming we're correct. But why do I have to assume that when they could have simply written "kWh".


Also a scientist here. The part of this article I disagree with is "Science is a profession, not a religious vocation, and does not justify an oath of poverty or celibacy".

I really think it is the closest thing I have to a religion. It alters how I see the world, defines the way I think about how to approach problems, and consumes every waking moment of my life.

Of course, I've had many failed relationships either directly or indirectly for my career, and it has taken my health (I sustained a spinal injury at work) and best years of my life. I feel deeply uncomfortable when I am _not_ working and it is difficult for me to relax. Intellectually I recognise that it is deeply unhealthy but every time I write a grant everyone else in the world who applies is ranked and objectively compared to me -- and I can't shake this feeling that _they don't sleep_, so why should I? It's an absolute obsession and I go into this hyper-focussed mode when I _actually_ get things done and, when an experiment reveals something for the first time in the world, the feeling is amazing.

I've just won an academic prize and have a tenured post. I'm deeply, deeply insecure and have a very unhealthy relationship with work. Many academics I know – especially in medicine – are likely diagnosable with very real conditions...


Sounds like you’re describing how things are, while the author is describing how things are ought to be. It’s fine to be obsessed and sacrifice the rest of your life for a job if that’s your choice. If that’s the only option to succeed, however, you severely limit the pool of people who are willing to make that sacrifice, and (I believe) slow down the inflow of ideas and creativity that push science forward.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: