> Because in this particular case it endangers subject's life.
This seems like a stretch. Mr Back is already a well-known wealthy person who (presumably) owns lots of crypto. I think it's a stretch to think this article significantly increase the danger to his life.
Lol you guys are really in a cult aren’t you? You’re implying that journalists should never out people that are too wealthy? Do you not see the massive red flag here?
It’s the logical conclusion to his statement, why should Satoshi be treated differently, given more privacy rights, only because he’s a billionaire? Or do you think that making an exception for him is the logical choice here?
I don't have anything to add that isn't already argued in other comments in this thread. I'm just pointing out that your opinions are not logical derivations.
When learning the Kalman filter, it clicks in place much faster when there are two or more inputs with different noise profiles. That's why it exists and that's what was its original use-case.
Yet virtually all tutorials stick to single-input examples, which is really an edge case. This site is no exception.
Kalman filters have always been about state estimation. What you consider an exception is the default in the vast majority of state estimation scenarios.
Before I got into control theory, I've read a lot of HN posts about kalman filters being the "sensor fusion" algorithm, which is the wrong mental model. You can do sensor fusion with state estimation, but you can't do state estimation with sensor fusion.
I have a chapter in my book that introduces sensor fusion as a concept. If you want to dive deeper into the sensor fusion topic, I would recommend Bar-Shalom's or Blackman's book.
I have 2 family members who are/were special agents for the FBI. Much of their job is harvesting evidence to build cases by spying, which frequently comes more in the form of “spying” in the way we saw in The Sopranos.
The FBI is also the premier counter-espionage organization within the US, so it is tasked with spying on suspected foreign / turned spies.
It is much more than a spy network, but it is exactly that as well.
All cleared citizens are subject to warrantless search at any time by the FBI, some for the remainder of their life. You don't have to be a suspect to fall within their panopticon.
That’s at least partly because upping application for a security clearance, they are signing a contract to do that.
We don’t know how much the Trump political officials managed to avoid those onboarding requirements. It has been widely reported that at least some of them bypassed eligibility requirements and polygraph. It’s probably not a huge leap to assume these same people were not required to consent to these forever-after-searches.
While I understand why you would say that, I think the way "spy network" was meant, was in the way that their job is to spy within the US. And given the resources at their disposition, and the size of the US, "worlds biggest spy network" is not wrong.
Also, they do head up the main counterintelligence effort of the US.
A friend of mine went to a local mushroom picking course and among things they mentioned that morels are difficult to cook from fresh, because of the gastro problems. Apparently, the advice was to dry them before using in recipes.
They aren't 'difficult' to cook. They are dangerous to eat if uncooked (and thus undercooked).
While true morels themselves can be dangerous while uncooked, there are similar looking species that are both less and more dangerous.
Species of Gyromitra or "false morels" like Verpa Bohemica will commonly all be called "morels": both as an intentional cultural colloquialism or simple misidentification.
Depending on which hemisphere you live in, some Gyromitra species may be more dangerous than true morels. They can also be more dense and harder to cook thoroughly.
Most mushroom species will cause an upset stomach if undercooked. Drying is an effective way of reducing both dangerous and uncomfortable compounds. It's suggested for morels out of an abundance of caution, but it is not a necessary step.
(Note that not all compounds are destroyed! "Magic mushrooms" are famously traded dry for example!)
The advise to add an additional preparation step also increases the chance someone will notice the wrong species hiding in their ingredients. Undesirable species can have overlapping habitats and climates so its not uncommon for a careless or ignorant forager to pick the wrong thing.
Despite many people such as you and I yelling at random hippies and hillbillies online, they continue to call everything "morels". Reread my comment again: it is true that people colloquially misname dangerous species. I cannot help this. I can only point this fact out.
Morels contain several volatile compounds which cause gastric distress. (Forgive me for not looking it up at the moment, but one of them is/was a compenent of rocket fuel, which teenage me loved.) They have to be thoroughly cooked to burn those off. Or else dried.
Specifically for soup - which is, arguably, their best use - most people won't saute morels long enough before adding liquid, so it's always best to use dried for that. Otherwise, standard, boring, dry-sautéed + butter until tender works great, and has never given me a hint of upset.
The instructor of your friend's mushroom course may have been giving maximally-cautious advice, rather than trying to communicate nuance to the general public. That's often a wise choice. :-)
PS. If you're at all interested in foraging mushrooms, buy a copy of All the Rain Promises and More, by David Aurora. (If you're elsewhere than North America, buy a local guide, too, but still get ARPM.) Aside from the mushroom content it's wonderfully entertaining.
That advice makes no sense but it is way easier to cook with dried mushrooms. Maybe that's where the folk wisdom came from. When you us mushrooms your goal is to remove as much mushroom juice as possible and replace it with fats oils etc. When you start off dried it's easier
It does make sense; the poisons in morels (and many other "edible" mushrooms) are highly volatile. Heating them in a pan drives off the harmful compounds; heating them more gently in a large volume of liquid captures the compounds.
There's a variety of mushroom that has killed in the US, but is reportedly sold in Scandinavian markets. My theory is that Scandinavian recipes specify pan-frying or drying them first, and the unlike USian skipped this step.
reply