Macross8299

I think a "zero day" threat model and terminology is from the point of view of the blue team type of people running the system, not the vendor.

From someone running a system, it doesn't matter if the vendor had 0 prior knowledge of the vuln or if they had made 25%, 50% or even 99% progress towards a patch. The point is there is still no patch available for the vulnerability and your only defense strategies are the same as if the vendor hadn't known at all, so it's still a 0day.

I don't think "all Trump supporters hate immigrants" is a fair characterization, given that there are quite a few immigrants who are Trump supporters themselves.

also, Godwin's law?

The difference is that the US government isn't known for disappearing thousands of dissidents without trial and the president has a term limit. It's really not the same at all.

Even if those anecdotes aren't true, isn't the perception of Seattle being a homeless-enabling city likely to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy if it's believed widely enough? Homeless people in Canada definitely try to make it to Vancouver if they can because of the perception of an enabling local government and mild weather.

Shouldn't the city do something to dispel that perception, y'know, such as enforcement of vagrancy laws?

I believe even worse than showing you new sets of images is when the reCAPTCHA system gives you a "low trust score" and intentionally fades out the selected images, but very slowly, and replaces them with new images of the same type. Just downright feels abusive to the end user. Good luck if if you have tweaked any browser settings to be more amenable to privacy!

I wish more sites would implement a Jigsaw-puzzle-style similar to the Binance login captcha, but I can't speak to the efficiency of that in defeating bots.

I think as long as Comcast, AT&T, Viacom, Fox, CBS and Disney own over 90% of news media by viewership, I will keep referring to it as MSM since that is practically an oligopoly by any definition of the term

Is "losing press room access" supposed to be some understandable defense of knowingly deceiving the public into a war?

Doesn't seem all that different from the days of William Randolph Hearst.

>I am struggling to see the threat model being faced here.

We don't really know the full details of the breach, but if the facial recognition database contained names in a column associated with pictures, that data can absolutely be leveraged and cross-referenced against other "fullz" for fraud that even passes a lot of online verification procedures.

Why is the headline not "Facebook turned off features used by Cambridge analytica to datamine, microtarget and interfere in an election"? What a biased headline. Facebook really is damned if they do, damned if they don't according to the MSM.

Meanwhile, traditional news media is currently lobbying congress to make news organizations and online publishers exempt from anti-trust law in order to secure a better negotiating position with tech companies. [0]

I don't trust them to report on tech companies objectively one bit. And why should I? They have a vested interest in presenting negative coverage.

[0]: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/09/media/house-of-representative...

The reasoning is that the lawmakers don't really give a shit about antitrust or competitiveness of industries (because there are far worse monopolies to target), just control over the internet.

It's pretty obvious that these probes aren't in good faith at all. If the government gave a shit about antitrust law or consumers, we wouldn't see things like Equifax/Transunion or Verizon/AT&T and other oligopolies that currently exist in the states.

The government and both parties want more control over the internet and the tech industry. Antitrust is a convenient trojan horse to get it.

So we should delay life-saving and world-changing technology as long as possible until we can get some sort unrealistic international consensus (good luck with that, look at climate change) on the technology to make sure that the hand-wringing leftist collectivists and moralizing rightist collectivists are happy and nobody gets left behind?

I think it's hilarious that all the anti-CRISPR/anti-gene-editing people bring up dystopias when it's pretty obvious they want to live in a very Harrison Bergeron world.

Facebook isn't an editor, though, it's a curator. You use them interchangably but I think there's a crucial difference. An editor modifies to inject their own standards into the work. A curator just includes or disincludes as-is.

>let's make that explicit from a legal perspective and regulate them.

Most people would also be pretty uncomfortable with the government vicariously deciding what they can say through Facebook. I'm sure it would cut both ways, as well. Not a stretch to see a president using an "anti-fake news" provision to stop damaging news about a scandal spread about him on social media.

Why is Facebook obligated to play the role of referee in games of political fact?

Yeah, I really have noticed an increase in "Facebook is bad" content from mainstream media, usually blasting them because people use the platform to spread fake news as people have used any other platform to spread fake news since time memorial. Where were these hand-wringing articles when Facebook was pioneering the degradation of privacy standards or pushing invasive tracking across the web? I guess those don't threaten the old media business model as much.

An average facebook user being able to ascertain the authenticity of something is a very poor barometer for its authenticity or legality.

Average FB user probably couldn't tell you if Panama papers were authentic or not, so should those be banned from dissemination as "fake news"? Plenty of people would like to make those go away as slander, I'm sure.

>so are New York Times articles, because classy journalism looks good on the platform

Interesting that a journalist thinks that Facebook is optimized for what "looks good" rather than what drives eyeballs. Facebook is just giving the people what they want. (To say nothing of how self-congratulatory that sentence is)

That assumes an "interesting" financial investment has to appreciate faster than all other investments that exist and that nobody would ever trade returns for less risk.

People buy bonds, so I don't think that maximizing ROI is always necessarily the criteria for a desirable investment.

I get that you're being sarcastic, but to further emphasize your point:

As I understand it, Riot Games had something similar implemented -- a jury of peers called the tribunal to render decisions in order to punish bad player behaviour (griefing, hate speech, etc) and it still didn't scale to the amount of incidents and abuse reports they were getting nor did it filter out frivolous reports. They ended up switching to automated systems as a first line of defense against obvious bad actors anyways.

These are some great tips! Been looking for something similar to this app to help create anki decks directly from documents, kudos.

A sidetrack but are there any good resources on using Anki for learning mathematics? Google brings up a lot of varied and conflicting info. I know nothing is a substitute for working through proofs yourself but surely flashcards can help with memorization of proofs and theorems?

Article doesn't say that, just that

>The investigators’ reconstruction of the attack made it clear: even if, somehow, Valérie had had a loaded gun in her hand when the bear made his move, she wouldn’t have had a chance

Really bad luck and a tragedy either way.

Grew up in Alberta, but spent a lot of time as a kid in the Kootenays in British Columbia, so no stranger to grizzlies. I've seen a few while hiking as well, very scary.

I think the idea that a handgun cannot penetrate a Grizzly's skull is a myth anyways. Plenty of accounts of people shooting attacking grizzlies dead with a large calibre handgun. Bear-spray can work but what if it doesn't or what if there's wind working against you?

Is the comment of "she should have had a gun" really that insensitive? I say this as someone who grew up in bear country and knew people that had bear spray readily accessible when outdoors. I'm sure some of them would've carried handguns if Canadian gun laws were less restrictive and not dictated by urbanite easterners out of fear.

You forget that there is a significant and very vocal segment in education and academia opposed to such standardized exams as the exams are perceived to undermine equity and social justice.

Which may very well be a valid point, given the explosion of the SAT prep cottage industry.

I think this might backfire, though.

It's the same problem with Veracrypt/LUKS hidden volumes. If they know about the sandbox capability, they could easily say "okay, now unlock the real one" if they find nothing incriminating. What happens if you _did_ unlock the real volume/sandbox in the first place and have nothing incriminating on it?

Only remedy for this is having arbitrarily many sandboxes.

>“what other industry is there where the top decision-makers have never done the basic work of the company?”

Not to belabour a point sibling comments have already made but I think it's the other way around, actually. Much more common to have a CEO in tech who has been in the trenches than in other industries.

Compare the likelihood of a tech CEO having some software engineering/programming experience to the likelihood of an oil and gas executive having worked as a roustabout or a welder, or a healthcare industry exec having done rounds as a doctor or nurse.

>Facebook earned about $172 billion since 2013. Do you think facebook would have earned $167 billion while behaving legally?

>5 billion is ... an order of the magnitude off

So you're saying a 30% of their income came as the result of illegal activity? That's a pretty strong statement to make. What proof do you have of that?

Do you want to punish Facebook for doing things that are legal (but arguably not ethical) or do you want to punish them for doing things that are illegal? The former means you're essentially advocating for an ex post facto law and it's easy to understand why some people would see that as not fair.

>But also because crypto is totally unregulated -- and by the rules of the game, if you have the keys, you have the coins -- you have zero recourse.

I don't think that's true. If you could go to the cops with dead-to-rights evidence that someone stole your coins, pretty sure the cops could still charge them with larceny because the law still views cryptocurrency as a form of property. Plenty of people have been charged with crimes for stealing cryptocurrency -- the ex-secret service agent who stole from the custody of the Silk Road investigation comes to mind.

It's just that catching and prosecuting cybercriminals across jurisdictions is a _very_ hard problem that it might as well be that you have "no recourse" in 99.99% of cases.