There are 2 ways to handle it.

1 Stop the thundering herd.(make all the clients do something different). That may make things worse. Congestion in networks is usually exponential. You can't fulfill a request so you repeat the request, it can't be fulfilled so it repeats. You can add a random delay at the client end but that is just The US governments answer to the debt problem, it kicks the can down the road in the short term but it will almost certainly come back and bite you. Mathematically it is very easy for this scenario to become catastrophically exponential when a threshold is reach

2 Stop the congestion (make the handling process faster or add processes)

The system already has a cache to handle this but if its not in the cache it doesn't help. There needs to be an extra request cache exclusively for congestion scenarios. The existing cache request is already doing some processing, so extend that to route "thundering herd requests processing". This second cache does a bit more processing as well.As each new request is routed to it, it checks itself to see if this requestor is in the cache and removes it or overwrites it. It should never contain more than one entry per client.

When no more editions are made to this congestion cache (or the rate has slowed significantly) then the requests can be forwarded and processed via the original cache system.

Under this configuration, the congestion does not become exponential and should only delay the thundering herd requests. All other requests will be handled as per normal.

Once the original cache has the information there is no need for any thundering herd requests to be routed to the congestion cache.

Some clients will encounter some delays but not all and only on the "thundering herd process".

Most "bug zapper" design are wrong. It should consist of a light source and a single grid perpendicular to the light source rather than surrounding the light source.

The light source should also be constantly varying to ensure the insects' tilt (and hence their circling behavior) will also change the radius of their circles.

I think that was one of the theories being investigated by this research. The paper demonstrates that it is the actual light (of the moon or stars or sun or artificial source) they use to orientate themselves in the horizontal plain BUT that is not navigation. With a "tilt" in their orientation they will fly in circles around the light but this tilt also causes inefficiencies in their actual flight mechanism so will cause erratic directional stability as their flight path rapidly changes their spacial relationship to the light source. Whatever their navigation imperative (heat, cold pheromones,smell, sight, sound) will be affected by this spacial relationship instability.

Pure and simple.

Realistically this war is being fought politically in the worlds media. The fight is for public opinion. So the orders of the IJC are about war. The hair splitters may want to change the nature of war to "genocide" by one side rather than condemn BOTH sides in the conflict. "but we can only take evidence from XYZ and only on matters ABC"

It seems to me to be a case of the UN wanting to have a seat at the table. They have become more & more irrelevant in matters of real importance or conflict. This ruling is pretty meaningless regardless of what your beliefs are. Its just more media circus.

We can argue about statistics and false testimony who is right and which side is credible but we are just adding to the noise.

Most terrorist organizations & actions are the direct result of one group having no political power. It ceases when that group obtains political power.

It seems to me the original attack by HAMAS was simply to ensure that there is more war and that war can be fought in the worlds media. This ruling and the whole procedure is just more of the same.

Wars usually continue to be prosecuted till one (or both) side loses the political will to continue. Does anyone here really believe Israel will lose that political will, regardless of world opinion? Hasn't in the past. Just like Russia.

Well one of the very early reports/blog/information appeared on HN. A search on that day would possibly find the original source or more likely the "new" category report on HN. What i think then happened, is that various news services picked up the story and modified it enough to claim "fair usage". Trouble is most of these secondary reports were not complete because they had been modified and cut down, no comments taken into account.

Like most news services, they were not letting any facts get in the way of a good story.

Now the bloggers and social media picked it up from the news reports and added to the mix without ever needing to be complete or even close to the original.

These people have lots of followers and make money from advertising so don't really care about truth or authenticity, its all about clicks. No time stamping either.

Now when you do a search with most search engines you are hard pressed to find the original story much less any accurate or complete 'children" of that original post.

The search engines with their advertising maximizing value algorithmic results at the expense of "truth" or "real" or "complete" alter results we are looking for. This ensures the original source on the web has been replaced by a poor, usually inaccurate, and sometimes completely wrong sources.

The enshitification net is now complete.

(I don't think HN is at fault, but like google/bing/amazom/microsoft, HN finds itself as a web influencer its its own right)

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38886672

Points: 5

# Comments: 5

No its called unethical behavior and has become the norm for big tech.

The google/Microsoft contributors whether working after hours or as part of their employment have some influence in the direction of Firefox.

That may be deliberate or benign (a really good direction by google, in a workers mind, will bias their thinking in other projects and visa versa)

That is one disadvantage of open source. A foundation can't avoid that unless you setup like Greenpeace and don't give the riff raff any real say.

Firefox users are "captured" by any adds on google search even though they may advertise chrome.

People that comment here are interested, most users of browsers ARE NOT. It is so much easier to use the default. Google knows this, Twitter knows this.

One of the more brilliant ideas in Firefox was containers, chrome could not implement them because of architectural constraints but rather than build on that beautiful idea, Firefox went in a slightly different direction that Chrome & Edge could follow and still protect their advertising revenue.

One thing I found, sadly, was that people I love and trust including family often become greedy and grasping when there is inheritance at stake. Bear that in mind when you make a list with access details to things like bank accounts.

You may not believe it but that is what will happen to your family.

I like to think it is a reaction to grief, rather than an innate selfishness.

But any property in joint names AUTOMATICALLY becomes the property of the joint owner and IS NOT subject to any restrictions

What????

In most jurisdictions, the law says the executor of your will can operate on the will, its contents etc, but there are strict legal requirements and it is NOT automatic. A court usually has to OK it.

In Australia it is a probate court. It takes several weeks to make sure the will in question is the real and most recent.

As a general case, the courts allow the estate to pay for things like funerals etc.

If there is no will then someone has to apply to the courts for administration.

Your "next of kin" is a Hollywood dramatization and in Australia has absolutely no actual power to do anything.

Usually the "next of kin" will actually do the organizing to inform the executor (if the executor doesn't know)

So the important things to put in your "In case of Death file" Location of will Name of Executor Burial insurance details (if you have any)

Location of a secondary file for the executor with email account and website account passwords, Bank Account details, Insurance policy details Location of a secondary file for the executor with email account and website account passwords, in short everything the executor needs.

I also have a document containing the "order of my life"

This is how I have organized my life. Whose name the cars/boat/golf buggy is in, what insurance companies, Utility companies for power water and services, clubs I am members of, things like roadside assistance etc. How I buy and sell my equities and shares, who I am paying hush money to and who is blackmailing me from porn hub. Basically all the minor things I do in everyday life.

If you are uncomfortable with this topic, if nothing else investigate an "Enduring Power of Attorney" (it may be called something else in your jurisdiction).

This expires with your death but it allows the holder to make medical and other decisions should you become unable to make decisions for yourself (dementia, coma, stroke accidents that leave you in a vegetative stake) (In Australia a spouse has that right automatically but if your spouse is unable to make that decision (died in the same accident, has dementia etc) then you NEED an Enduring Power of Attorney). Your children do not have the right and your executor in the future can take legal action against them)

This is way more important than a "in case of death file"

Consider what happens when you use output from LLM as training data for LMMs. If there is any "falsehoods" or "incorrections" then the very processes of LMM training will provide "bias" in it's output. That will then become exponential. That is the disinformation issue you mention. I would submit that this is/will/should be the paramount area for research and hence progress. In that regard there doesn't seem to be much progress at all, except to deny or cover it up.

Just like the self perpetuating myths on Wikipedia, where entries are corrected and then those corrections are repeatedly replaced because people read it in articles quoting previous (bad) information from Wikipedia.

I guess we can have an army of moderators (probably need several hundred thousand) correcting data or "preselecting" only truthful real data for training. That means for the most part its not Artificial Intelligence, its human.

oh wait we have that :D