alldayeveryday

> So is it possible this is a fake breach in order to scrub further damaging evidence of others involved in the original 2016 cover up?

Can you elaborate what scrub means in this context? In what ways would this breach cover up the 2016 breach? Would the prosecutors suddenly lose their memory of the 2016 breach? Would evidence suddenly go missing?

Most solar panels are net negative as far as energy goes, that is to say it takes more energy to create them than the panel produces over its effective lifetime. But, yeah at least it was bootstrapped, right?

Green jobs, such as installing solar panels made at factories in China electrified by coal burning.

> It's very very dumb legislation, and I think derives from a very odd facet of belief found in some American Protestant belief systems - that for Jesus to come back, the State of Israel has to exist.

Protestants and the Israeli lobby have always had a very symbiotic relationship.

Why would something being a default imply that there is no real disadvantage to adopting the alternative position? Taking other examples, if the default is for women to have sex with only a single man, why is it implied that there are no disadvantages to women having sex with many men? At least in the way I think of defaults, the value of the default vs the alternative is an entirely different variable.

> Because why else would such an aversion arise?

> I don't think there are any sensible "defaults" for human cultures.

But, you seem to think a lack of aversion to talking about sex to be a default? To your question, I've known many people whom are not practicing any religion and yet have an aversion to sexual discussion, within a population that has a lack thereof. There are many such topics that some feel are not keeping with decorum to be discussed openly and widely - and without religion being involved. Let's say in China there is a general aversion to sexual discussion. What will be your explanation given lack of puritanical religion?

> But I wouldn't expect aversion to talking any sex to arise spontaneously among a population

I don't see spontaneity to be relevant here.

> Programming is writing down unambiguous instructions, and then grouping those instructions in meaningful ways. We’re coordinating work. It’s not rocket science.

I think missing here is that to be a good programmer, one must be good at dealing with ambiguity. The output might be unambiguous instructions, but the input is generally anything but that. Working with product managers, designers, business stakeholders, etc - a good programmer can identify and resolve ambiguity in the requirements given to them in an effecting manner. This involves asking the right questions and often doing discovery/research.

Why would a culture require a puritanical religions to have an aversion to discussion of sex? And do you consider an aversion to discussion of sex to be default lacking or present in a population?

Had a friend, gifted in mathematics, spend his first few years post university at a corporation where he was tasked to work on their trading algorithms. He described it as both challenging and soul crushing - and generally one of the most toxic environments he has ever worked in. It is a shame that so many of the most gifted youth are recruited into that field rather than solving problems that would benefit mankind to a greater degree - as opposed to banking execs.

Where did all the men with backbone go? And don't people notice that as soon as you apologize is when the other side strikes harder at you?

I'm not familiar with a definition of collective organizing that requires the conditions you describe, however I am fine with working with your definition.

My comment (rather sarcastically) alludes to the fact that Apple employees are coming together and making a demand. It surprises me how many people will immediately shill for the employer's position and act shocked that employees would collectively ask for something. "Can't they just go work somewhere else?"

Concerning this topic I commonly see the logic:

If P, then Q. Not Q. But still, P.

> Say women in tech want a male-free space? Well fine.

> The issue is, what then about "white men in tech"? Do they get to have a group to themselves, to discuss issues from [...]

An interesting observation that white men having their own space is an "issue" whereas any other collective is not an issue.

Imagine not getting worker collective organizing.

> all metrics that are important to us.

what does this even mean?

The fact that counting calories is difficult, or that some food labels might be wrong, is not evidence that CICO is incorrect. Just as the fact that different people burn different amounts of energy does not disprove CICO.

I'm astonished how many commenters are desperately trying to find loopholes in simple laws of physics.

> She is the director of diversity and inclusion for the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at Harvard (NORCH)

Why did I know this before I even looked?

>“The gut microbiota of those that are lean versus those that have obesity are quite different, so much so that we can often take the gut microbiota out of individuals that are lean and place it in those that have obesity and see weight shifts with no other modifications."

Yeah, so all that effects is CO (calories burned). This does not disprove CICO. I see Fatima has a limited grasp of logic.

> Calories in vs out is wrong because those who tote it assumes that only physical exercise has an effect on calories "out".

No, they actually dont assume that only physical exercise has an effect on calories burned. In fact, CICO is agnostic to the means by which calories are burned.

> This is why just restricting calories in and exercising more won't necessarily mean you loose weight.

Actually, so long as you burn more energy than you consume, you will lose weight. Again this is agnostic to how the energy is burned. What the body does to adjust is merely effecting the amount of energy burned. It does not effect the formula concerning CICO.

Right, and my comments are not about your POV. They are addressing the claim of the doctor from the Harvard article who is saying that CICO is wrong, and then responding to your comments about whether or not her claim is absurd. In truth, we cannot prove or disprove whether the claim is absurd as this is a subjective claim. And so I suggest we focus instead on the validity of the claim rather than our subjective opinion of it. To that end, it seems we are in agreement that the doctor's claim is not true.

No, it is also absurd. To carry your example forward, it would be like someone saying "the idea of horsepower when it comes to vehicle speed is not just antiquated, it is just plain wrong!'

The shape of the car, as a variable effecting the vehicle speed, does not make horsepower plain wrong.

Agreed. The proof of the claim in the article is effectively that people are different. John and Sarah burn calories differently, which means that calorie-in/calorie-out is wrong! You heard it here here first - soon Harvard will decry calorie counting as a form of white supremacy. Joking aside, the Harvard article is hardly more than clickbait. It appeals to people who refuse to put in the work to maintain an effective diet. They merely need to label what they eat as "whole" and can then eat as much of it as they want.

> "This idea of 'a calorie in and a calorie out' when it comes to weight loss is not only antiquated, it's just wrong," says Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford, an obesity specialist and assistant professor of medicine and pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. The truth is that even careful calorie calculations don't always yield uniform results. How your body burns calories depends on a number of factors, including the type of food you eat, your body's metabolism, and even the type of organisms living in your gut. You can eat the exact same number of calories as someone else, yet have very different outcomes when it comes to your weight.

This is just plain dishonest writing. Just because there are other variables, or that different people burn different amount of calories, does not make 'calorie in and calorie out' wrong. If John burns 2000 calories a day and has different organisms in his gut from Sarah who burns 1500 calories a day, in no way disproves calories in / calorie out. All it proves is that people are different, a premise that the modern science community seems to find a challenging notion.

> And for food we should try to focus on whole foods and not calories …

This is just plain false. You can “focus” on eating whole foods and if you consume more calories than you burn you will gain weight. If you consume less calories than you burn you will lose weight. The science has not changed on this point. No one giving honest diet advice should tell people not to worry about the calories they consume if the individual has the goal to increase, lower or maintain their weight.

Services like Signal and WhatsApp can user 3P services that allow them to be notified when a phone number is rotated (given to a new user). They should ideally be doing this, I cannot verify if they are or not.

Second, Signal and other services have implemented secondary registration requirements such as a PIN, which they will require during a new device install or at other times.

Third, you can build models or crude business logic to identify when a number no longer appears used for a period of time. Carriers do not reassign a number immediately. Assigning a number thus one user cancelled, to another user, is seldom done before a 90 day hibernation period.

I used to work at a cell provider.

We do know. Check the texts you’ve gotten while signing into Signal. You’ll notice that they originate from short codes (like 22395) that are also used by other services like Discord, square pay, just to name two.

Furthermore, it still doesn’t matter whether Signal was using their authy service or not. There should be very tight data controls at Twilio where few employees would ever be able to retrieve clear text messages being sent to end users.

This incident is not getting nearly the attention it should imho.

Exactly. A malicious employee could login as any user to popular services like WhatsApp, Telegram and others that are SMS auth only, simply by knowing which endpoint to hit to kickoff an auth session initiation. I hope I am not understanding this exploit correctly. This would be a massive failure on Twilio part to allow employees access to the auth code.

Are you familiar with their API? We use their SMS auth service at my employer. Twilio is the one composing the outbound message including auth code. The API caller is not providing Twilio with an auth code and phone number. Twilio 100% knows which portion of the outgoing SMS is the auth code.

I disagree. They would not need to access the full contents of outgoing SMS to perform this duty. For example they could see the auth codes masked.

This incident points to something much more severe. What role was this employee(s) whose credentials were compromised? How did these credentials allow even an employee to get plain text auth codes being sent out to end users? Such a permission should be extremely limited in who it is granted to.

Not clear your meaning. Are you referring to the mobile phone being used during 2FA auth flows? In this case, the authorization is not to a device but rather to a number on the cellular network. You can swap devices without your bank knowing and without disrupting your authorization. Are you referring to mobile banking apps? If so, again, the bank is not authorizing an individual device. The authorization is a sign in session on the app. You can swap phones and download the app very easily without contacting the bank.

> It's not enough to buy a new phone. You need to contact every single service that's bound to the lost/stolen/broken phone and authorize the new one before you can use their services.

Are you referring to changing phone numbers maybe? If so, that is a totally different topic from OP and also from my comments.