_null_

>shift that determination from agency specialists to judges

All correct until this bit. They in fact want to shift it back to congress, who should do a better job in specifying what power they delegate to unelected heads of executive branch agencies.

There is literally no way a Democrat controlled Senate even reads this bill.

To your point though, a good example of that kind of thing is the idiocy of Republican states who passed years of anti-abortion "trigger laws" in case Roe/Casey were ever overturned. They all assumed those precedence would never be overturned, and so they could be as extreme as they wanted.

Now they are reckoning with their posturing.

The "Green New Deal" was 100% a messaging bill, never intended to pass, and was admitted to be as such by those that drafted it. Just one example.

*I'd argue that most people in either party do _want_ to govern. But each one is being hijacked by loud minorities who would rather perform.

This is just the first in a long list of "messaging" bills that will come from a very slim Republican House, because there is Democratic control of the Senate.

They know it won't become law. The point is to rile up the media, get hits on cable news, fund raise, and generally be useless as a governing body. This is what both parties do when they are out of power, and I would say is what they _prefer_ to do. It's easier than governing, makes them money, gets them media attention, etc.

Both parties here in the US _want_ to be minority parties so that they can behave this way and assume no actual responsibility for anything.

Also, Musk repeatedly said publicly that he wanted to buy the platform specifically to address the issue of bot accounts.

Lots of mail gateways / mail security appliances do DNS lookups of URLs in the message body in order to check domain reputation and filter phishing links. It looks like he's using a DNS canary token which would be triggered by those as well.

>YouTube will never change and it will only get worse.

Private entities can be swayed by their customer's demands. Not saying that YT _will_ be swayed, just that this sort of creator outrage has a place in the market system, and "throwing a tantrum" over their bad behavior doesn't always have to be met with "private entities can do whatever they want!"

Chick has been my favorite since I began playing jazz in High School 20 years ago. Endlessly creative and a masterful player up until his last day. Since the pandemic started I've been watching him stream on IG and YT. He never lost a note and was always exploring new composers, techniques, and ways to expand his musical world. An absolute wonder and inspiration.

I never imagined that this story would be on the front page of HN. It's like seeing two of my worlds collide out of nowhere.

Serious question: Why does the bank care about the TLS key exchange?

>Running your own resolver will give the authoritative servers the ip address of the request, but does this leak any assets to any potential attacker? The owner behind the authoritative servers already get the web logs so what additional information is being leaked.

This is addressed in the panel. The argument is that there is some "privacy mixing" because owner of the authoritative server only sees a highly-trafficked resolver as the source, and not your home network resolver.

Tangential anecdote: I supported a product recently that had a password generator feature that admins could use to create a “random” password for a new user account. The password would be emailed to the user (the admin never saw it). The generator used a wordlist file that the developers must have grabbed from an online dictionary. It was about 10k words and contained MANY offensive ones. Pretty much any obscenity you could imagine and more. It was obvious no one had sanitized it.

I filed a bug a couple years ago but it still isn’t fixed. Luckily it’s a seldom used feature, and I haven’t seen anyone affected yet.

This seems like pure laziness. Did the developers really not have an understanding of basic PKI? Or did they realize late in the game that their local web socket was gonna require HTTPS and slap this on at the last minute?

I guess what I mean is that the results of these types of studies are useful, but only in pointing where to look for a more direct mechanism. In other words, we found a correlation, now we can look more closely at the elements involved to find causality. Mostly it seems like the correlation is accepted and then untested theory is exposed as fact to explain it.

I have been reading for years about the numbers of studies being done (especially in the public health field) that can be whittled down to correlation without any strongly proven causality. Is this an issue with science, or with how the media reports on science? Is it really as bad as it seems?

I understand that it's difficult to control for various factors when doing large scale studies of health and behavior, but my perception as a layman is that there is some willful ignorance or absence of rigor. I realize this is perhaps too harsh a statement; I'm just trying get my point across.