Cost of moderation
exceeds the rent the store can collect?
Bad things happen.
2995 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Jan 2015
If you think the DoD has the technical chops to build it's own distributed, resilient network, you're the fool. The military doesn't build it's own tanks. Or make its own uniforms, bullets, or toilets.
Now, if in fact this was done on Azure proper, and not some isolated, dedicated network purpose-built for the DoD, then yeah, that's a problem.
First, there is a lack of specificity in the article regarding what communications the SEC is requesting. They are asking about communications related to the breach. There is no way that the SEC is seeking to role back attorney-client privilege. It is the bedrock of our legal system, and the attorneys at the SEC are as committed to it as any other.
Second, the purpose of attorney-client privilege is to protect the client in the conduct of legally permitted activity. It is NOT a cover for breaking the law, nor for scheming to do so. Yes, it becomes a fine line when a client proposes a course of action that may break the law. Again, the lawyers at the SEC are aware of this line.
Third, and this is perhaps the most infuriating part, the main tool that the SEC has to pursue insider trading is--wait for it--subpoenas! These lawyers are not seeking to protect attorney-client privilege, but to privilege themselves out of investigation. Read what they are saying. They are not complaining that the subpoena is overly broad. They are objecting to any subpoena being issued under these circumstances at all.
It is any wonder that the first thing is to kill all the lawyers?
Everybody has secrets. Every person has secrets too, including the person of government. And every government has and will have some version of a rule that says that they cannot be forced to tell you their secrets. Even in court.
Is that rule abused? Depends on your definition, but for me the answer is "all the time". Even in a country as liberal (by the old meaning) as the US. But that doesn't obviate the need for the rule.
Self-aggrandizing, and "I built Rails to solve my problems, not yours."
Don't take him seriously on anything.
Beyond that, AWS & GCP allow you to do things that are maddeningly difficult to do on your own. Rapid scaling is one. Resilience is another. If you don't need those, then sure, no need to feed their profit margin.
Wouldn't rule that out. NASA was about politics at its inception. It's been that ever since. The science is a side effect.
Someone skeptical at the outset would ask, "If you've spent all of this money on all of these missions without even trying to see if the instruments work--why should you get a dime more?"
Because governments outlaw the private ownership of gold before they go full fiat?
Again & again, I'm a HUGE critic of crypto. That doesn't mean that the critiques of fiat that cyptobros keep bringing out are in any way invalid.
Seriously, if fiat were better than gold, then why would private ownership be outlawed?
Government KNOW that people abandon fiat in droves under certain circumstances. When they do, they generally go to gold. Why is it gold that they go to & no bottle caps? Because they do. There is a genuine circularity when it comes to perceived value verse achieved value, and that is no small part why we get bubbles (in anything). But gold has some sterling (okay, maybe that's a bad adjective) qualities as a currency, which is what lead to it's adoption oh so long ago. Most of those still exist, although the modern economy has grown too large for physical gold to be able to keep up. At SOME point, you start issuing checks off your account. As soon as you do, the temptation to lie raises its head...
Just to clarify for those who haven't played before:
Step 1/1: Take person 1 from bus 1.
Step 2/1: Take person 1 from bus 2.
Step 1/2: Take person 2 from bus 1.
Step 3/1: Take person 1 from bus 3.
Step 2/2: Take person 2 from bus 2.
Step 1/3: Take person 3 from bus 1.
...
And yes, that clerk learns. Each client is checked in in half the time of the one before.
Whenever there is some new CPU architecture that comes out, there is always some commentard that makes this point--it doesn't matter how cool something is, or how powerful. What matters is that users are satisfied.
NONE of these tools, after apt-get or yum, are helping me in any noticeable fashion. Not Chef, who thinks that it is possible to take "self healing" from biology and apply it to the world of 1s & 0s, and to do so without having absolute control over the system. Not Terraform, that thinks it's a sin to test files written in a Turing complete language. Not K8s, that wants to take Google's solution to Google's problem and make it my problem. And certainly not snap, that introduces itself by violating 50-year old conventions, or systemd, whose premise is that I'm stupid.
I need to be able to take my programmers' code and turn it into an app in an image that I can test, then deploy to my fleet while maintaining sufficient visibility to know about and fix issues before my customers have any clue that something happened. That's it. And, I'm lazy. I want to be able to create and maintain my one-liners to do this without a huge amount of work on my part.
What I DO NOT need is some Microsoft employee's vision of the world being forced on me. Or someone's attempt to violate the most basic rules of system management being forced down my throat. Snap & Flatpack don't look or smell like tools that want to solve problems for me. They look like tools for someone to snatch control of my system from me, while giving me very little in return.
Seriously, folks. It blows my mind that anyone would try to enter the VC world without either having someone they REALLY know and trust guiding them, or doing some substantial study on scams. There is a LOT of shady activity in that space, and whether our not a particular actor is a scammer sometimes depends exactly on how you define a "scam".
But yeah, some of these folks clearly had bought their own hype. It's much more of a question of who was going to take them & for how much than anything else. In practice, it sounds like many got their lesson from the School of Hard Knocks cheap by comparison.
I built a floating point emulator at AMD in the '90s. I've seen things you people would not believe.
There is a LOT of seriously ugly behavior past that 53rd bit. I don't know your education or background, but please look VERY carefully at the code being generated to ensure that you understand what you are are getting. i86/i64-based ep is one thing Double-double is something else entirely. Which gives more precision depends ENTIRELY on how double-double is actually implemented, and where you are in the operand space.
Seriously, while I'm well know here for "use the **** library" when it comes to crypto, here I'm the opposite: the libraries that I have seen have VERY disappointing characteristics. If you are technically competent enough to demonstrate that 53 bits is not enough, you can probably develop a library that is reasonably fast that does what you need.
who outside the FAANGs have a big enough plant that the "computers are cheap, developers are expensive" rubric is no longer true. Because Go was developed specifically because Google deploys systems in lots of 100k, and at that scale, it's not the computers that are cheap. Go is absolutely punishing to develop in because the business problem it solves is not developer time.
And if you are stuck using K8s, I'm sorry. Maybe the programming skills you gain will make you attractive to G.
The only caution I have about what you have said is that those individuals that think that they personally are the smart one over and against the crowd have very reliably been proven very, very, deeply wrong. And those who insist that they are the smart one, if not checked, have very reliably proven to be very, very, dangerous.
"The market can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent"--about they only quote from that guy I agree with.
Tell me what exactly about chip & pin that _requires_ it to be less secure than contactless? There is no reason for a card to communicate more information just because it is inserted. None. In the mean time, contactless by definition requires some sort of EM wave interaction that can be intercepted FAR more easily than with the contats.
The fed's case here might not be all that strong. The rules of contract apply, and if people fail to understand a contract, that doesn't make someone who does a criminal. On its face, this might well look like a kind of pump & dump, but the law regarding pump & dump involves persuasion that goes being merely buying & selling.
I know everyone wants to treat coin like some sort of security, but it's a huge stretch in most cases to do so. Unless we're talking about stock in a company with no employees, assets, liabilities, or product, with unusual requirements for board membership, where the board issues itself shares according to rules set by a majority determined by how many shares a board member can issue themselves...
Are you running Android?
You are running stalkerware.
Are you running with a voice assistant?
You are running stalkerware.
Are you running a maps application?
You are running stalkerware.
Are you taking pictures, uploaded to a cloud?
You are running stalkerware.
You want to know why I've never purchased a "smart" phone?
You now have a clue.
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
Some old dead obviously un-hip dudes.
So, uhh, yeah. This has been a security feature at a LARGE number of places for almost two decades. Credit card data is stored with a separate company, who provides only a token. That token is stored as part of the user record. The separate company actually processes all credit card charges, and only accepts connections from the IP address that the merchant uses for those purposes, and only credits the merchant's account.
So this one, I believe.