Last time I considered this it was $10M, though I might need to update it for inflation now.

That is irrelevant here though, because a robbery is considered a life-or-death situation in law not because of the monetary amount, but because of the everpresent threat of bodily harm. Whether explicit, with a pointed gun, or implicit. “Give me your money!” … or else… is implied. If the criminal could reach into your pocket and take your money without use of force, without you even knowing, it would not be a robbery but a pickpocket larceny and precisely not covered by deadly force. But a criminal ordering you to give your money is a deadly situation, even if you only got $0.10 in your pocket.

You are implying we should value human life and just hand over the money, but that’s not the issue here. There is no guarantee that you would not be harmed even if you cooperate. A fast food place in my city got robbed, the cashier handed over all the money but the robber got mad there was only $100 in the register, and shot dead the cashier and the customers. The criminal has already demonstrated reckless abandon by engaging you in a robbery, there is no longer any expectation (as would be with any normal stranger) that physical harm would not imminently follow. Next to a literal attempted murder, a robbery is the most dangerous confrontation you could ever find yourself in. I am glad that the law of my state treats it as serious as that.

If you are in a robbery and you are absolutely sure that no harm would come to you if only you cooperate, that is nice, and you can graciously demonstrate your value of human life by handing over your $100, or $12k, or $0.10 or whatever, but such security is not a privilege everyone shares.

Yes, you are right! A scam is not one of the specified crimes. As I understood it from the article, the phone call started out as a regular bondsman scam, but then escalated into threats of harm to the old guy and/or loved ones held in custody at the remote end (?), which elevates the severity, possibly up to a robbery-in-progress. The caller must have dropped the pretense at some point given that the old guy realized it was a scam yet still had the money ready to go in a package on the table. I’d have to read the actual court case to know what really happened, which is too much work, so I wrote my response under the assumption that the old guy was told a family member would be harmed unless he gave the money to an associate who was on the way.

In such a situation, it would be reasonable to initially detain the courier for investigation. If police officers were hiding in wait at the house, they would have done the same thing. It was unreasonable to continue to believe the courier was an associate once it was clear it was an uber driver following an app. So the old guy was guilty for detaining an innocent person without qualified immunity, and crazy for not listening to an explanation of what an uber driver is. Notwithstanding this, there seemingly were threats of physical harm through the phone, so if the old man did treat it as a robbery, and if the courier had been an associate, and the associate did get detained (by the old guy or by the police), and the associate did attempt to escape, there could be a situation where there was an imminent threat that the associate would return to join his accomplice on the phone and the two of them would inflict the promised harm upon the family member they were holding hostage. That would justify the use force up to possibly deadly force to stop the escape. It depends on what exactly was being said on the phone, though again we don’t have the court transcript. Unlikely but possible.

Of course none of this happened, the courier was an innocent bystander, there was no hostage, and the old man was totally unjustified for opening fire under these circumstances. But that what the court trial is for. I do not dispute the outcome and I’m glad this person is now in prison. What I don’t like is the headline saying a crazy guy shot a taxi driver over some missing change (that he himself misplaced). And then people argue that all self-defense is unjust because it lets crazy guys like this get away with murder. Which he did not get away with. And he was not crazy in the way the headline described it, but was in an intense situation which he might have been led to believe was life-or-death. And in the process he did violate self-defense rules in three specific ways. So we’d better learn the rules, and consider in advance our personal approach to the use of force, so we can act cool under pressure later. It could happen to you too.

It is insane to shoot a taxi driver for giving you the wrong change. It is not insane to shoot in self-defense someone robbing you for $12k. Unless you are so anti-gun as to argue that self-defense is never justified and we should just roll over and let ourselves be robbed/kidnapped/murdered, but then I’d say it is you who are insane. Even in my liberal guns-practically-banned state, shooting and killing a robber is perfectly legal (NY PEN 35.15 2b). Here, a robber doesn’t even need to explicitly threaten to use deadly force against you first - being in a robbery is specifically listed among a few select crimes automatically considered to be a life-or-death situation. You can also, even as a non-police officer, use force to detain a criminal or to prevent escape from custody, which is the situation that happened in the article.

Under the law, you have to shoot or detain the right person though. You not only have to think they are guilty, and not only does your thought process have to be reasonable, they have to also actually for real be guilty. If you kill an innocent, you are liable for murder. If you arrest an innocent, you are liable for kidnapping. That’s what the court trial is there to determine. The old man failed on the latter two requirements and was justifiably found guilty. A police officer has an additional qualified immunity. They can arrest someone who they think is guilty, and not get in trouble if the person turns out to be innocent. As far as I understand it, legally this is the only distinction between a police officer and a private citizen in US law.

Also, neither a police officer nor a private citizen can use deadly force to prevent escape (other than a few special cases, like in prisons). That’s another strike against the old man. If a police officer had shot the courier trying to walk away like that, they too would be (or ought to!) put on trial for murder, as that’s not covered by qualified immunity. Like in the example of that guy who got killed on video in 2015 while trying to walk away from a traffic stop.

Misleading headline. As written, it sounds like someone shot their taxi driver for mistakenly thinking they gave them the wrong change. In reality it was an uber parcel courier who was shot while unwittingly acting as a money mule for a phone extortion scammer.

Usually these scams involve money mules who are in some way complicit, in the “ask no questions and look the other way” sense, and who receive a cut of the money they launder. But this time it was a bona fide courier from a courier service (the article mentions Uber working with police to identify the user account that placed the delivery order) - a case of literally shooting the messenger.

So the old man did not wrongly think he was being scammed, he was literally being threatened and robbed for $12k, just not by the uber courier. The headline is clickbait for not making that clear. The courier was not being scammed, just performing a routine paid delivery that happens to be for a criminal.

it’s not geography aware, it’s network topology aware

Yes, I’m using “geographic awareness” here as shorthand for the same algorithm that BGP uses to calculate shortest route. As far as I know, BGP has no knowledge of “countries” or “continents”, it makes decisions purely on local policy and connectivity info available to it. However, the resulting topology map does greatly resemble the corresponding geographic map, a natural consequence of the internet being a physical engineering structure. I’m not sure how publicly available the global BGP data is. If you were designing a backbone-bandwidth-preserving P2P app you would either give it BGP data directly, or if that’s not available, give it the world map to get most of the same benefit.

topology that is often obscured by the ISPs for a variety of benign and malevolent reasons

The multicast proposal would need to be routed through the very same ISP-obscured topology, so there is no advantage over topology-aware P2P.

I’m not sure this math is mathing

As a graph problem, it does look to me within factor of 2 is practical.

First consider a hypothetical topology-aware “daisy chain” scheme, where every swarm user has upload ratio of exactly one. Then every backbone and last-mile connection gets used exactly twice. This is why I say factor of 2 is the upper limit. It’s like a maze problem where you can navigate an entire maze and only traverse each corridor twice. Then look at the more practical “pyramid” scheme where half the users have upload ratio of about 2. Some links get used twice but many get used only once! UK-UK1 link is the only one to be used 3 times. Notably observe that US-JP and US-UK transcontinental links only get used once, as you wanted! Overall this pyramid scheme looks to me to be within 20% efficiency of the optimal multicast scheme.

we’re still using “someone else’s computer” … at “we’re” using “our computer” and that’s the royal “we”. Multicast is all switch no server, all juice, no seed

What do you think backbone routers are? They are computers! Specialized for a particular task, but computers nonetheless. Owned by someone other than you. Your whole lament is that you can’t force those owners to implement multicast on their routers. I think using the royal “our” computer, something we can do right now without forcing anyone else, is much better by comparison. If you insist that P2P swarm members, they who actually want to see your livestream, are not good enough, that you only want to use “your” computer to broadcast and no one else’s, then you are left with no options other than bouncing HAM video signals off the ionosphere. And even the radio spectrum is claimed by governments.

MBGP table will be megabytes long and extremely dynamic

I think you underestimate the size. Imagine if multicast were ubiquitous, billions of internet-connected users each with dozens? hundreds? of multicast subscriptions. Each video content creator is a multicast, each blogpost you follow, each multi-twitter handle, each lemmy community you subscribe to. Hundreds easily. Thats many gigabytes, possibly hundreds of gigabytes, of state to fit into every router. BGP is simple because you care only about the physical links you actually have. You can stuff entire IP ranges into a single routing table entry. Your entire table could be a dozen entries. Fits inside the silicon. With multicast I don’t think you can fold it in, you must keep the entire many-to-many table on every single router^[1]. And consult the 100GB table to route every single packet, in case it needs to get split. As you said, impossible with 1990s technology, probably possible but contrary to business goals in 2020.

You are concerned about the battery life of your phone when you use the bandwidth of 2 video streams compared to watching just 1? Yet you expect every single router owner to plug in hundreds of gigabytes of extra RAM sticks and spend extra CPU power and electricity to look up routing tables to handle your multicast traffic for you. You are just offloading the resource usage onto other people’s computers! Not “our” computers - “theirs”. Remember how much criticism Bitcoin got for wasting resources? Not the proof of work, but the having to store a duplicate copy of 100GB’s of transactions blockchain on every single node? All that hard drive space wasted! When “Mastercard” and “Visa” can do it with only a single database on a mainframe. Yet now you want “them” to do the same and “waste” 100GB’s of RAM on every single router just so your battery life is a little better.

If everyone suddenly used the internet to this full potential, then we would get the screws turned on us. … Multicast would essentially fly under the radar.

This does not follow. Didn’t you say that multicast was already sabotaged by the very same cablo-distribution networks to maintain their send-monopoly? You expect to force the ISPs to turn multicast back on and somehow have it fly under the radar, but P2P would get the screws turned? It can’t be one and not the other! If you plan to have the governments force the ISPs to fall in line and implement multicast standards, then why couldn’t you have the same governments (driven by democratic pressure of billions of internet users demanding freedom, presumably) enshrine P2P rights? Again, remember that P2P is something we already have, something that already works and can be expanded with no additional cooperation from other players. Multicast is something that would need to be forced on others, on everyone, and require physical hardware updates. If there are future restrictions on P2P, they would be easier to defend against politically and technologically. If you cannot defend P2P, then you for sure do not have enough political power to force multicast.

[1]: Thinking about this, maybe you could roll it in a little. Given N internet users (~a billion), each with S subscriptions (say a hundred), C number of content feeds (a hundred million? 10% of users are also creators, 90% are pure consumers), and each router has P physical links (say ten), then instead of N*S amount of state (100GB’s), each router could fold it down into C*P amount of state (1GB’s). As in “If I receive a multicast packet from [source ip=US.5.6.7] to [destination ip=anyone], route copies of it out through phy04, phy07, and phy12”. You would still need a mechanism to propagate table changes pretty rapidly (full refresh about once every minute?). Your phone can be switching cells or powering on and off. You don’t want to multicast packets to a powered-off IP - that would be waste of resources!

And how do you detect oversubscribing? If a million watchers subcribe to 1 multicast livestream - it’s fine, but what happens when 1 troll subscribes to a million livestreams? If I subscribe to 1 million video streams, obviously my last-mile connection cannot fit them all. With TCP unicast, the senders would not receive TCP ACK replies from me and throttle down. But with multicast, the routers in between do not know about my last mile, or even if my phone is still powered on since later than a minute ago. All they know is “if receive multicast from IP1, send to phy04; if receive multicast from IP2, send to phy04;” etc. Would my upstream routers not get saturated trying to send a million video streams to a dead IP? Would we need to implement some sort of a reverse-multicast version of “TCP ACK”?

While I agree that P2P is the next best thing and torrents are pretty awesome, they are unicast and ultimately they waste far more resources, especially intercontinental bandwidth than multicast would.

Tell me if I understand the use case correctly here. I want to livestream to my 1000 viewers but don’t want to go through CDNs and gatekeepers like Twitch. I want to do it from my phone, as I am entitled to by the spirit of free internet and democratization of information, but I obviously do not have enough bandwidth for 1000 unicast video streams. If only I had ability to use multicast, I could send a single video stream with multicast up my cellular connection, and at each internet backbone router it would get duplicated and split as many times as necessary to reach all my 1000 subscribers. My 100 viewers in Japan are served by a single stream in the trans-Pacific backbone that gets split once it touches land, is that all correct?

In that case, torrent/peertube-like technology gets you almost all of the way there! As long as my upload ratio is greater than 1 (say I push the bandwidth equivalent of TWO video streams up my cellular), and each of my two initial viewers (using their own phones or tablets or whatever devices that can communicate with each other equally well across the global internet without any SERVERS, CDNS, or MIDDLEMEN in between, using IPv6 as God intended) pushes it to two more, and so on, then within 10 hops and 1 second of latency, all 1000 of my viewers can see my stream. Within 2 seconds, a million could see me in theory, with zero additional bandwidth required on my part, right? In terms of global bandwidth resource usage, we are already within a factor of two of the ideal case of working multicast!

It is true that my 100 peertube subscribers in Japan could be triggering my video stream to be sent through the intercontinental pipe multiple times (and even back again!), but this is only so because the peertube protocol is not yet geographic-aware! (Or maybe it already is?) Have you considered adding geographic awareness to peertube instead? Then only one viewer in Japan will receive my stream, and then pyramid-share it with all the other Japanese.

P2P, IPv6, and geographic awareness is something that you can pursue right now, and it gets you within better than a factor of 2 of the ideal multicast dream! Is factor of 2 an acceptable rate of waste of resource usage? And you can implement it all on your own, without requiring every single internet backbone provider and ISP to cooperate with you and upgrade their router hardware to support multicast. AND you get all the other features of peertube, like say being able to watch a video that is NOT a livestream. Or being able to read a comment that was posted when your device was powered off.

Also, I am intrigued by the great concern you give for intercontinental bandwidth usage, considering those pipes are owned by the same types of big for-profit companies as the walled-garden social networks and CDNs that are so distasteful. From the other end, the reason why geographic awareness has not already been implemented in bittorrent and most other P2P protocols is precisely because bandwidth has been so plentiful. I can easily go to any website in Japan, play video games with the Chinese, or upload Linux images to the Europeans, without worrying about all the peering arrangements in between. If you are Netflix you have to deal with it and pay for peerage and build out local CDN boxes, but as a P2P user I’ve never had to think about it. Maybe if 1-to-millions torrent-based server-less livestreaming from your phone were to become popular, the intercontinental pipe owners might start complaining, but for now the internet just works.

Good luck then! Actually curious to see how it will work out.

Almost all taxes are collected from the paycheck before you even get your hands on it. The filing is mostly for the tax return on the overpayment. They’ve already thought of it. How you gonna stop paying?

The helicopter route at the time of the collision allowed the Black Hawk to fly as close as 75 feet below planes descending to land on runway 33 at Reagan National Airport, according to the NTSB. With allowable errors in the helicopter’s altimeters and other equipment as well as Army rules expecting aviators to hold their altitude within 100 feet, it could end up being much closer.

“How much tolerance should we have for aviation safety whenever civilian lives are at risk?” asked Todd Inman, NTSB board member. “How much is that tolerance,” he continued. “I think it should be zero.”

Sounds like the tolerances weren’t big enough! Odd interaction putting those two paragraphs next to each other. NTSB demanding zero margin for safety…

End of Eternity (1955) by Isaac Asimov (and its reimagining in Palimpsest (2009) by Charles Stross) involve a time-traveling secret organization that has its headquarters hidden away in time/outside of time. They don’t so much drain resources though as manipulate history to ensure a safe course.

fraud

Sabotage. Property made unusable. Passengers were literally stranded in the middle of a journey.

It’s worse. They are saying that the EU copyright law, as written, only allows decompiling/reverse engineering to “fix bugs”. A bug fix would involve a software patch of some sorts. But the security researchers did not have time to write a patch yet, what they did is tell the customer “Yep, it’s fucked. Your vendor put in a killswitch to make the trains brick themselves.” So that does tell them where the problem is, but it is not a bona fide bug fix from the Bugfix region of France, and therefore illegal.

Newag [train maker] claims that the Dragon Sector [whitehat hacker] team endangered passengers’ safety by modifying the software without proper experience. But Newag then turns right around and claims that Dragon Sector did not modify the software at all. They point out that EU law only allows reverse engineering of software in order to fix bugs. And if Dragon Sector did not actually modify the software, it cannot have fixed any bugs, in which case their reverse-engineering must be illegal.

I ended up doing a recheck. On the plus side, the verification found several instances of bitrot from the old failing SSD. Fortunately, all the 99%-complete torrents quickly re-downloaded themselves. The whole internet is my backup!

Yep! The “save response as” works in more cases because it already includes all the correct cookies/referrers that sites use to protect against hotlinking.

As the other comment said, if you inspect page html source (ctrl-U) and ctrl-F search for “mp3”, the URL of the embedded audio file is also right there in plaintext in the middle of javascript code, but it’s merely good fortune that the developer left it easily visible and not renamed or obfuscated in some way. Saving from the network tab works in more cases in general.

You don’t need to use yt-dlp to fetch files :D. It will let itself be used as wget, sure, but the browser is already capable of saving files - that’s it’s job! Paste the link into the address bar.

Open up developer console (F12) network tab and reload page/play audio. In the list of network requests, look for something that looks like the resource you want (e.g. in this case, filename: “mp3”, initiator: “media”, type: “mpeg”), right-click and “save response as”. This doesn’t work on every site, but works on yours!

Fancier sites do not serve media files directly but fetch encoded chunks of data and recombine them using javascript. To get the whole file back you need to re-implement the javascript, which is what yt-dlp does, but only works for sites it knows how to handle.

There has never been a law that someone selling something must offer the same price to everyone. Outside of some government regulation, like banning discrimination based on a few specific protected groups under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, government-set energy prices on state-granted monopoly electrical grids, annual rent increase percentage caps, etc. merchants have always been free to set any price on any product or to any customer.

Democrats hate progressives. The two would be separate parties in a sensible democracy, but in the legacy first-past-the-post American system, splitting the party while Republicans exist is political suicide. There are more progressives than center Democrats, but they are not as united as the core establishment Democrats are, which made any one of them irrelevant in primaries up to now. RCV has given them a real chance for the first time. For example by giving Lander votes to Mamdani in the instant runoff. The moment RCV got implemented, long-serving Democrats started suddenly getting kicked out in the primaries. This terrifies them, so Democrats will continue to fight against RCV in the future. Just look how both Cuomo and Adams will try to commit political murder-suicide now by running as independent in the general just so that the “official Democratic party nominee” would not win.

Ah, I can see OP’s line of thought now:

• you have a point A’ on a plane and a random point A
• you find a midpoint B and draw a sphere around it. A and A’ are now a diameter of the sphere
• pick two random points D and C at the intersection of the plane and the sphere
• by the “triangle inscribed in a circle/sphere where one side is a diameter” rule, such a triangle must be a right triangle
• therefore both angles ACA’ and ADA’ are right angles
• thus C and D both satisfy the conditions of the initial question (with all points renamed: A=P, (C or D)=H, A’=A)
• OP never defined what a projection is, it being “4th grade math”, but one of the requirements is being unique
• C and D cannot both be the projection, therefore the initial question must be answered “false”: just because AH is perpendicular to PH doesn’t make H a projection.

I like treating posts as puzzles, figuring out thread by thread WTF they are talking about. But dear OP, let me let you know, your picture and explanation of it are completely incomprehensible to everyone else xD. The picture is not an illustration to the question but a sketch of your search for a counterexample, with all points renamed of course, but also a sphere appearing out of nowhere (for you to invoke the inscribed-triangle-rule, also mentioned nowhere). Your headline question is a non-sequitur, jumping from talking about 4D (never to be mentioned again) into a ChatGPT experiment, into demanding more education in schools. You complain about geometry being hard but also simple. The math problem itself was not even your question, yet it distracted everyone else from whatever it is you were trying to ask. If you ever want to get useful answers from people other than crazed puzzleseekers like me, you’ll need to use better communication!