qualeed

While I understand each of the words you have written, I have no idea what you are trying to say. What would you suggest I do with this information?

I get the impression that you were trying for something cryptic and profound sounding, but went a little too overboard and lost the underlying message, leaving the reader trying to decipher a bunch of meaningless 2 to 4 word sentences.

Not only does that not even come close to aligning with the original claim, as barbazoo points out, but there is also a difference between having a "positive view of the military" and wanting to partner with them at work.

PBS Spacetime had an episode somewhat recently about a black hole which is growing at many (hundreds? thousands? I forget) times the Eddington Limit. And, as far as I remember, it isn't the only one to exceed the Eddington Limit - just the one with the record for how much it exceeded it.

I'll try to dig it up when I'm not at work (or if I remember the exact episode through the day).

>but from what I gather, this lady seems like a pain in the a

I didn't get this impression at all, why do you think the lady is a pain in the ass..?

>During that visit, I was told that children could never be left alone, inside or outside the home—EVEN IN THEIR OWN BEDROOMS—until they were 13 years old. Social Services said specifically that I had to be in each room with them at all times until they were 13.

This must be a mistake from the CPS agent, surely? For one, it's obviously absurd (you'd get a CPS call if they found out you were "supervising" your 12 year old in the bathroom or while changing), but secondly (and I might be mistaken), in most places I've looked at/known people/lived in, you are allowed to privately babysit at the age of 12.

In any case, this whole thing is a bit too rage-inducing for a Monday morning read.

>Why would you not want people trusting their data with SaaS apps?

Mainly because after years and years (and hundreds and hundreds) of data leaks & breaches... every single person would be significantly better off by defaulting to not blindly trusting companies & applications with their data.

>Smaller developers building software benefits users assuming their data is protected

That assumption is simply incorrect. As has been proven literally thousands of times now.

Ideally, apps would be built to purposefully reduce the amount of data collected to the greatest amount possible (and only hold data for the shortest amount of time possible). Rather than now, where they collect as much data as possible, hold on to it forever, and then inevitably leak it.

There's a ton of little things like this (e.g. you also should consider not using bookmarks, or at least avoiding obscure ones).

A good overview is available at https://www.whonix.org/wiki/Tor_Browser#Unsafe_Tor_Browser_H...

Right, but the question was "why would you need to obscure your identity from the exit nodes", in the context of why the person chose Tor vs. a simple proxy.

It is a bit funny that you said "see how it works out", I told you I already do it, so you go with a dismissive "Good for you"

Anyways, I doubt anything I can say will ever convince you otherwise, you sound very entrenched in your beliefs.

They were concerned about the exit node identifying them, not the site identifying that a Tor exit node is connecting.

So that the exit node can't go to the site they were scraping and say "this is the person scraping your site".

There is partial mitigation for RAPTOR: Counter-RAPTOR from 2017 (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=795...) with mostly the same authors.

I haven't kept up with the space much since then, so am unaware if there is more recent work.

In any case, there are valid threat models where you want to mitigate website fingerprinting but aren't necessarily concerned with AS-level adversaries.

It's on by default in Tor browser.

You have to explicitly switch to "Safest" mode to turn it off completely.

>Why does Tor Browser ship with JavaScript enabled?

We configure NoScript to allow JavaScript by default in Tor Browser because many websites will not work with JavaScript disabled. Most users would give up on Tor entirely if we disabled JavaScript by default because it would cause so many problems for them. Ultimately, we want to make Tor Browser as secure as possible while also making it usable for the majority of people, so for now, that means leaving JavaScript enabled by default.

https://support.torproject.org/tbb/tbb-34/

For a guide that goes into so much detail (as far as suggesting enterprise-grade drives, recommended RAID configurations, etc.), not even a passing mention of Tails or Qubes-Whonix is a really interesting choice (read: discouraging omission)!

Figuring out someone is using Tor is trivial (e.g. list of exit node IPs https://www.dan.me.uk/torlist/?exit).

This mitigation helps protect the individual Tor user (e.g. with a unique 1726x907 px window) being fingerprinted across multiple sessions / sites.

You may find it unfathomable to do so, but I already donate quite a bit more than 2.5% of my salary, as well as hours of my time every week, helping people less fortunate than myself.

Whatever "reality" you're referring to isn't the same one I'm living in.

You say:

>.5% of wealth also means non-liquid assets such as house

But they said:

>Total U.S. household net worth (excluding real estate)

The rest of your comment, to be honest, just sounds like you fundamentally don't like poor people and have some strong biases against them.

>One in 7,000 people, according to his unpublished analysis

>But we shouldn’t paint it like I was bailed out by some algorithmic PR radar and nothing else.

>[...] assumed to be manipulation

I think you're reading way more negativity into "PR" than I'm intending (which is no negativity).

It's very clear Tarus is a caring person who really did empathize with your situation and did their best to rectify the situation. It's not a bad thing that your issue may (most likely) have been brought to his attention because of "PR radar" or whatever.

The bad part, on Amazon and other similar companies, is how they typically respond when a potential PR hit isn't on the line. Which, as I'm sure you know because you experienced it prior to posting your blog, is often a brick wall.

The overwhelming issue is that you often require some sort of threat of damage to their PR to be assisted. That doesn't make the PR itself a bad thing. And that fact implies nothing about the individuals like Tarus who care. Often the lowly tier 1 support empathizes, they just aren't allowed to do anything or say anything.

Money is typically much easier to deal with than data or account restoration. With that said, it's nice to hear a good support story every now and then! People don't usually take the time to write a blog post (or comment, etc.) when they have a quick and productive conversation with a support agent, so all we end up hearing are horror stories.

>but that doesn't mean it was just a PR move by Amazon

Being a PR move isn't inherently a bad thing.

The bad thing is the lack of support when PR isn't at risk.

>It's fair to say that without the blog post this issue wouldn't have been noticed or fixed, but anything past that is really just speculating about people's motives.

My only (minor) issue with the blog post is starting by saying "Not because of PR" when the opening email from the human at amazon was "saw your blog". I think it is evident that Tarus Balog did indeed actually care!

>So no, it wasn’t PR-driven in the reactive sense.

At my small business, we proactively monitor blogs and forums for mentions of our company name so that we can head off problems before they become big. I'm extremely confident that is what happened here.

It was PR-driven in the proactive sense. Which is still PR-driven. (which, by the way, I have no problem with! the problem is the shitty support when it isn't PR-driven)

Regardless, I 100% feel your pain with dealing with support agents that won't break script, and I am legitimately happy that you both got to reach someone that was high enough up the ladder to act human and that they were able to restore your data.

Awesome that the author got their stuff back. But...

>My data is back. Not because of viral pressure. Not because of bad PR. [...]

>“I am devastated to read on your blog about the deletion of your AWS data. I did want to reach out to let you know that people in positions of leadership, such as my boss, are aware of your blog post and I’ve been tasked with finding out what I can, and to at least prevent this from happening in the future.”

So, yes, because of bad PR. Or, at least the possibility of the blog blowing up into a bad PR storm. I'm guessing that if there was no blog, the outcome would be different.

Not just people who don't speak English as a first language.

I was recently linked a list of 1,000+ words that "shouldn't be used" because they're "evidence" of AI. Oh, and if you use bullet points, obviously AI. Dashes? AI. Paragraphs with opening and concluding sentences? AI!

You seem to know more about this than me, so what about the "aircraft movement logs" part? I would think it'd be hard to copy that to the pilots ahead of time, given you haven't logged it yet. (Or am I misunderstanding the type of "movement logs" here?)

But your other comment seems more likely: keep the people/equipment where they are to reduce the recovery time down the road.

I'm guessing the system handled sensitive/critical flight information:

>The system manages flight information like crew scheduling, weight-and-balance calculations, and aircraft movement logs.

This would probably be better suited under the original comment so that the original commenter has a better chance of seeing/reading it.

>The burden of proof is [...]

Sometimes we can just talk about things without having to pretend we're in a court of law or defending our phd thesis.

Original commenter wasn't asking for anyone to prove anything, or trying to prove anything themselves. They just observed that some conversations are hand-waved away.

This is a pretty good example of what parent comment was referencing, I think.

You say "Asimov’s three laws are not a good framework.", then don't present any arguments to why it is not a good framework. Instead you bring up something separate: the framework can facilitate story writing.

It could be good for story writing and a good framework. Those two aren't mutually exclusive things. (I'm not arguing that it is a good framework or not, I haven't thought about it enough)

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make, but generating and distributing non-consensual nudes is already "obviously prohibited" (by law) in many jurisdictions. It is also explicitly prohibited by twitter's terms of service.