Buge

There was no sarcasm that I can see. snowwrestler was earnestly saying we should doubt that "bachelors degrees contribute no value".

> One would need to dig deeper to get a really informed opinion.

There are a ton of security experts who have indeed dug deeper, and came to the conclusion that it was Russia.

If we can't say "Asian" then let's also stop saying "black" and "white".

With the military, I think other countries around the world intentionally don't invest much because they know they can rely on the US's military to scare off attacks.

Healthcare might be the same thing. US residents pay a lot for healthcare, and that's used to fund healthcare research. Then the products of that research are given to other countries without them having to pay much.

The article seems to be saying Roblox is a successor to Minecraft. But Roblox was released under that name in 2005 (I created my Roblox account in 2008). Minecraft was released in 2009.

>International law hasn't stopped the US before. So why bother?

Because we should try to improve the situation not make it worse. I'm also not sure which international law violations you're talking about.

It could be better than the current situation. It could give a single popup when you visit a site, and you would click yes/no and it would remember that forever. You would never get a popup for that site again.

With the current situation, there often isn't even a no button! You're required to click yes. And then if you ever clear your cookies, it pops up the box another time.

Additionally people who don't like the popup can simply go into their browser settings and say allow for all sites.

100% agree, I've argued for this same thing in the past.

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/7h28hi/google_co...

The CVE number was reserved in July[1]. That doesn't mean the vulnerability was found in July. The vulnerability was reported to Google October 29[2], so between report to fix roll out was only ~2 days. Although the bug tracker entry is hidden[3], you can deduce the time the entry was created by iterating over bug IDs, which indicates it was filed between 8:56 AM PDT[4] and 9:11 AM PDT[5].

The fix was sent for review Oct 29 4:29 PM PDT and submitted at 5:47 PM[6]. It was cherrypicked Oct 30 at 9:51 AM[7].

>Date Entry Created

> 20190718

> Disclaimer: The entry creation date may reflect when the CVE ID was allocated or reserved, and does not necessarily indicate when this vulnerability was discovered, shared with the affected vendor, publicly disclosed, or updated in CVE.

[1] https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=2019-13720

[2] https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2019/10/stable-channel...

[3] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=101922...

[4] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=101922...

[5] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=101922...

[6] https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/18...

[7] https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/f1b501721e5...

>"make a product and sell it."

So put journalism behind a paywall? That was suggested yesterday and was highly downvoted. People on HN hate the idea of paywalls.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21393146

There have been a number of articles mentioning that same guy. Apparently he's an employee of Black Cube.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/world/black-cube-nso-citi...

jammygit hopes that the publicity around Citizen Lab helps Citizen Lab get more funding.

More court documents can be found here:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16395340/facebook-inc-v...

>Whatsapp still processes complex data from any stranger in the world entirely without a sandbox.

Isn't that also the case with every phone and desktop email client?

There have been a number of posts about NSO on HN, and most of them do not say Israel in the title. But most of them do say "NSO Group" instead of "NSO", so maybe this title should have said that too. Although you might blame that on Reuters as well for not having "Group" in their title when that is actually in the name of the company.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&prefix=true&query=NSO&...

From 2014 to Feb 2019 (during which I think a lot of the hacking occurred) it was 100% owned by the American company Francisco Partners.

On the other hand, "Israel's" makes it sound like it's a governmental intelligence agency rather than a company. Misleading context could be worse than no context.

I've found that using a VPN reduces my streaming ability. Using Private Internet Access in the past I was forbidden from watching anything on Netflix. Also I was forbidden from editing Wikipedia even on an old account with positive editing history.

On the other hand, sometimes "pirate" seems to have a positive connotation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8ju_10NkGY

And interestingly the 3rd highest comment on that video currently is about Disney+.

>I’m not sure there’s really a way to translate that effect to human beings in any ethical way, regardless of how you feel about safety.

It's unclear to me what you would want to select for. Being physically fit? Being smart? Being motivated? Being ethical? Being friendly?

A "bug" in your phone could do the same.

> Why does the device have to record and send everything to the cloud to provide this experience?

It's everything after the hotword, not everything.

Sad to hear. Reminds me of Hal Finney who died from ALS in 2014.

>As a user, you can just disable automatic sample submission.

I don't think disabling it really helps. It sounds like the goal is to prevent malware on your machine from ever leaking data on your machine to some external server. But even if you disable automatic sample submission, the malware on your machine could still submit a program on its own to Microsoft that leaks your data.

Ok, then "the law shouldn't be just designed".

We shouldn't let a defeatist attitude discourage attempts at improvement.

I was thinking Amazon would raise prices slightly, not make stuff slower.

The percent impact would be negligible, I expect lower than daily fluctuation. Anyway, the law isn't just designed to protect shareholders, it's designed to protect everyone.

If someone can make money by fraud, that money is not justification to allow fraud. The US economy relies on dependable contacts.

I don't see how it's that similar. Employees getting a new job is often very difficult, so would create a lot of difficulty for a lot of people. Whereas Amazon raising their prices by a few cents shouldn't be much work.

> theyre editing posts for perceived or pretend offense

Who are "they"? Monica in that part is upset about people coming along and adding weird grammar into her posts. Those people could be other mods, or could be even regular Stack Exchange users. At no point does she say Stack Exchange staff are editing her posts, or that the editors were following a Stack Exchange rule.

> then you would just use the pronouns and there wouldnt be any issue

Monica has said she never uses 3rd person singular pronouns. So no, she would not "just use the pronouns". And people have taken issue with the fact that she never uses 3rd person singular pronouns, that's the reason she was fired.

> they dont talk about anyone who specifically wanted different pronouns in that story

Just because Monica doesn't mention a specific person by name in the blog post doesn't mean there wasn't a specific person involved with the situation. I think it's very likely the story Monica is talking about involved a specific person.

You mean this quote:

>June 2018: There was a TL discussion about gender-neutral pronouns and then "preferred pronouns". (I know they're not "preferred", but this was the phrasing used by the people bringing it up.) Some moderators who are not native English speakers expressed confusion. I said I avoid singular they for that reason, 95% of the time you can write around the problem, and (on SE) I'm offended when someone edits my posts badly to solve a gender-neutrality problem. (Editing well is fine, which usually means pluralizing or using a name or something like that instead of either generic "he" or singular "they".) Some people said not using preferred pronouns invalidates the person; I said for me it's not about the person at all but the quality of my own writing (an important part of my identity). Tension rose, other people said some things I saw as bullying, and I stepped out. For a long time after, I didn't enter the room unless strictly necessary. Note: no employee said anything to me about my role in this conversation, and while some other mods disagreed with my position, none said anything like "this is a Code of Conduct (CoC) violation". Employees witnessed this discussion.

I don't see anything in there that would apply to fictional characters (Alice and Bob). It all seems to be only about real people. Also I don't see anything in there that indicates Stack Exchange says you can't refer to Alice as "she", unless Alice specifically wants to be called by some other pronoun.