lordlimecat

Both are attacks on availability in an IT context which is what makes it illegal. The goal is to cost the company money by reducing their ability to use recruiting systems, which is rather analogous to taking down a website in the eyes of the law.

The intent to access systems in an unauthorized way in order to disrupt those systems-- the clear intent of this script-- would fall afoul of the rather broad CFAA.

There is a difference between picketing-- which is refusing to work-- and actually sabotaging company systems.

The DDOS would fall under (among, I'm sure, other laws) the CFAA and could be a felony if someone wanted to pursue it.

Said money will be recouped when they sue the people flooding them under the CFAA and seek damages.

My understanding is that there is poor evidence that any of the vaccines cause a statistically significant increase in blood clots over any other vaccine-- that the act of getting an immunization can (very rarely) trigger a blood clot regardless of what it is and COVID just happens to be in the hyper-sensitive spotlight.

In the case of the mRNA vaccines (e.g. Pfizer) it is the spike protein targeted, and that has a hard time effectively mutating because most changes to it make it less infectious. Other aspects of the virus may change but the spike so far has been relatively stable.

This is not my area but isn't the point of the mRNA vaccines that that virus' DNA is never introduced into your body? You only end up with a narrow transcribed slice of that DNA targeting a specific protein.

I've also never heard of your immune system targetting a genome; how is it generally gaining access to that genome when it is encapsulated?

My understanding of the spike targeting is that COVID is only so infectious because of the specific configuration of that spike protein. Change it too much, and it stops being nearly as infectious (and thus stops being COVID as we know it).

By the time you're experiencing symptoms, the infection has been present for some time. Most of the symptoms you experience are from the immune response mounted, but do not represent the time your immune system was exposed to the virus.

It does work if you rely on actual relevant data. Disparity is a terrible measure, especially when you consolidate the entire world into one pot. China has higher taxes than the US, and far worse inequality as well as far lower median incomes.

Europe has substantially higher taxes and cost-of-living than the US, but lower median, PPP-adjusted median, and median post-tax post-government-transfer disposable incomes than the US.

When you compare countries by their tax rate compared to what the average (median) citizen ends up with, it does not seem to be the case that higher taxes result in greater personal financial security. Frankly, whether lower taxes results in more billionaires is irrelevant to the question of whether it increases the quality-of-life or economic security of your average person.

Imagine pointing at one of the richest societies to ever exist (across all quartiles) as an example of how bad its economic policy is.

The theory of trickle down does not suggest or imply that inequality will decrease. It suggests that allowing the entrepreneurs (eventual billionaires) to succeed will result in an overall increase in wealth throughout society. Using an inequality report to "debunk" it is to entirely miss the point.

You could note that, for instance, despite having a lower-than-average cost of living for the west(^1,2) and lower-than-average taxes for the west (^3,4), the US is top-five for both average wage (^5,6) and PPP-adjusted median income (^7,8). And despite what you may think, even adjusting for government transfers (e.g. healthcare) does not tilt the scale: the US boasts a #1 (or #3, depending on who you ask) PPP-adjusted disposable income (^9). These generally apply to medians too, so one cannot even fall back on skew to explain it away.

Meanwhile, when we speak of "inequality" and billionaires, China has above-average taxes (seems to be 25% across the board with no carve-out for capital gains), yet has far worse inequality than the US.

As with most things economic, reports like this can be crafted to fit whatever narrative you like. But if you are sitting in the US in 2021-- one of the wealthiest societies in human history-- and complaining about how bad capitalism or low taxes are, you're badly misinformed about the "normal" economic state of a human and where you sit. Here's a hint: it's probably in the 95th percentile across history and the 90th percentile today.

Sources:

Cost of Living

1. https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.js...

2. https://www.worlddata.info/cost-of-living.php

Taxes

3. https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/personal-income-ta...

4. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLE_I6

Average wage

5. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-in...

6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

PPP-adjusted Median income

7. https://statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-gdp-capita-...

8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_w...

PPP-adjusted Disposable household income

9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_c...

If you are saying that a Windows application cannot tell if virtualization is in use, you are incorrect. It can both tell whether you are in a virtualized instance (e.g. if you have Hyper-V on) and if you are running a hypervisor. In the former case, a simple hardware inspection would suffice, and there are a dozen other methods to tell such as used by virt-what.

None of this is relevant. Maybe Docker's interface is "improperly configured" for the gaming use case. It remains a headache, and using a console is a viable solution that allows you to work with buggy instances of Docker without disrupting your gaming.

If I am understanding correctly, it is an Xbox issue because game systems do not like virtualization / emulation / containerization functionality because of its potential for enabling cheats. Many test proctoring systems are the same way-- the presence of a virtualization service, driver, or hypervisor will trigger a red flag.

So again, for the huge number of people whose life involves technology there are a lot of things that can throw a wrench into that PC for gaming, and in those cases a console makes a lot of sense. It's a little odd to me that this bothers you so much; surely it is expected that consoles have a good usecase given their popularity?

So now the kids need a PC to game, and the parent needs a second PC to game, and I'm wondering how this is more reasonable than a single dedicated appliance that costs less than half of the two PC setup.

>I’d say your kids pc doesn’t need docker on it.

I have nephews who are tinkering with Java and python, and I assume will be hitting docker at some point.

You're being incredibly nitpicky over a reasonable example of why PC is not as plug-and-play as a console. On a console, the game will work. On a PC, there are a lot of factors that may prevent it from working.

The entire "use a PC" premise is that the PC can be useful for gaming as well as for non-gaming uses, and the counter-argument is that those non-gaming uses can easily cause problems for the gaming uses. Docker is not the only example, tools like fiddler or wireshark or ghidra could cause problems. But heaven forbid that a gamer on hackernews be a tech enthusiast, right?

The utility of crypto comes from two factors: its decentralization, and its pseudonymity.

The decentralization is only useful in a world where the central authority (e.g. banking system, governments) are not trustworthy, and this excludes legal activities where a legal remedy is enormously valuable. I've heard that international transactions are a use case, but realistically if a country reneged on a financial transaction the remedy is and always would be soft- or hard-power based (diplomacy, sanctions, military).

The pseudonymity is only useful to the extent that you don't want the government to track you. But our societies have generally decided that the government should have oversight into how we spend our money to stop criminal activity. Agree or not, this is the consensus: so it makes no sense to argue that the government should then tolerate a system that undermines its rules.

If we wanted to allow anonymous transactions, we could do so much more efficiently by simply removing KYC regulations on the banks. We aren't going to do that, and in fact KYC is broadly being implemented at crypto exchanges so for the overwhelming majority of crypto users there is no real benefit: you're already centralized and everyone already knows what you're doing.

Even for the speculative investors there is limited utility: they could simply invest in derivative securities on traditional markets without incurring the incredible cost of performing crypto transactions.

The fact that USB-C is a bloated and complex standard does not imply that other solutions are better. Magsafe is only nice to the extent that all Apple laptops used it, so if you were in the apple world and never lost your $50 charger it was fine.

But in the end it was Yet Another Laptop Charger, and it made travelling a pain for anyone with multiple laptops of different make. The current status quo is not perfect but it is much better than it was.

I'm going to hazard that much of the punchline is due to terrible QC / fraud problems on the shipper's website. It would not be a former bookseller named for a South American river, would it?

USB-C PD cables will work for your new laptop same as the old laptop. I can bring a single power brick (with 3 USB outputs) and charge a macbook and a windows laptop and my phone-- all at once.

Will it support higher wattages? Maybe not: the cables have to advertise their supported wattages. But maybe that's preferable to years gone by with shady USB cables that would happily cook your phone due to bad wiring.

QC is a red herring here, as it was never a USB standard. Some vendors decided to piggyback on a standard connector with a goofy protocol: as if some motherboard / switch vendor decided that the PS2 connector should also be used for a high-end network connector as well.

Were in a room with 150 engineers, techies, and problem solvers who have been asked whether a cutting implement is overly complex or dangerous.

100 of them have provided an opinion and 99 of the opinions are that it is. Everyone in the room is bleeding.

I think it's fair to say that there's an issue with the tool, Stockholm syndrome not withstanding.

For a moment there it sounded like you were equating his inflammatory research with the feces left by his office and the vandalism of sound equipment during his sessions.

Many of the responses he has gotten would be criminal outside the institutional process. It's a specious comparison.

Protonmail cannot, cannot protect you on their own from all privacy concerns, nor can they educate you in a frontpage splash.

Proper Opsec for dissidents requires multiple layers and technologies and simply cannot rely on a single vendor. Any proper company accepting credit card payments is going to be subject to court orders and there are limits to their ability to resist them.

Protonmail has taken extraordinary measures to limit their exposure to those risks but anyone who is assuming they can e.g. be an enviro-terrorist or CCP dissident and be safe solely because they use Protonmail is terribly naive and ignorant..

I fail to see why it is their duty, or in their interest, to explain the nuances of Swiss court orders and extent of their powers in their marketing material.

If its something you care about, you should not be making your choices on the basis of marketing splashes and you should certainly not need your email provider to explain Tor to you.

>Seems reasonable to understand "no tracking or logging" to mean that in the event of a government demand to produce records, they could honestly reply that no records exist.

No one with the least understanding of the internet could suppose that Protonmail could not be forced to provide the IP address associated with a user's login, which I assume is what happened here.

The individual in question sent in 15 Pepsi points and a check for $700k.

The Pepsi points were irrelevant here. If he had spent a ton of money to make equivalent Pepsi points then maybe there would be a case here.

It's not generally government subsidy, its "corporate ethics" which is to say PR and investor relations. It "looks good" and attracts business, especially government.

As I've thought about this, the conservative in me has reared its head and asked, "Why is this a federal issue?"

And the more I think about it, the less of an answer I have. This primarily affects farming states, which are in a really good position to pass laws that force manufacturers to either comply or leave the state. California has had good success doing this with other things (e.g. emissions standards), and farming is a niche enough category that JD can't afford to just ignore an entire state of farmland.

I don't live in such a state. I know some of the story, but it's not my problem and it's a bit presumptuous for me to step in and assume that I understand it well enough to solve it. Federal legislation usually does a bad job of solving the original problem anyways, after all of the sides are done negotiating over it. Far better for the farmers of Nebraska to directly appeal to their state legislators and get a bill that truly addresses the issue.

I have worked at companies where their referral bonus schedule rewards white males at one-quarter the rate of female Asians.

But the application of course states that race and gender are not considered....hmmm.

>you can have stickers that decay over time and void your warranty

They claim it voids your warranty. It does not.

This is an important distinction. Ask them for the warranty repair, if they refuse send a demand letter. If they blow you off take them to small claims court.

Is the sticker actually a violation of Magnusson-Moss?

They cannot enforce what the sticker says, but lying is not necessarily illegal.

Ironically given the anti-GOP slant of the story, that amendment was introduced by.... Harry Reid. Which, of course, NPR conveniently neglected to mention, instead crediting a GOP house member for "shepherding it" (its approval was unanimous, and needed less than 30 seconds debate).

Any time you get stories like these implying that one side and only one side has corruption on it, you need to look real close because it's almost certainly a load of biased baloney.