surge

Maybe its a dumb question, but isn't something like OpenCL meant to solve this problem?

It's literally less in that the time the copyright is enforced (aka regulated) is less.

Some DA's are absolutely pro crime and you find out its the same small number of ppl stealing cars and getting released after charges are dropped or reduced after they've gotten caught.

I think, the top schools should remain academically rigorous, even if that means some kids even those from disadvantaged backgrounds don't cut it, I'm of the opinion they're probably better off going to a more average school anyway, being the first in your family to get a degree, for instance is a huge leg up. There's kind of an expectation that some schools (MIT, Carnegie Mellon, etc) have more academic rigor. As you said it makes the degree meaningless, if an A at a community college is the same as an A at Stanford, what is even the point of all the added tuition and debt?

I also believe this is a side effect of "everyone has to go to college", you're no longer getting the most academically gifted (of which I am not a part either). It's far more likely with a larger portion of the populace or diverse populace going to college you're going to get several students that struggle because in certain majors you can't coast through college like you can many high schools.

Hey Scot,

I met you and we chatted for a bit at a bar after hours at a tech conference years ago, before you dropped you were a GitHub co-founder towards the end. You actually gave me some advice that has worked out well for me. Just wanted to say thanks!

I see people go all out in LV and drop a lot of money at restaurants. I guess it depends. Then again if you've already been in LV for a few days due to BH you might be over the bell curve on spending for the week. I guess it depends on when you get in. I tend to drop more money Wed-Thur.

All I see here is someone made a bigger list from multiple other lists from prior breaches. This isn't "the mother of all breaches", this is clickbait. Unless there is some new confirmed breach somewhere that in fact contains 26 billion records ex-filtrated, the only thing this is the mother of is a nothing burger.

The service itself is cloud based and no cost.

This is a good addendum to my post, it expands upon it. I don't even take it as a correction, and I learned a bit. Thanks for this.

I don't know who Shoshanna Zuboff is (I'll 'kagi' them), but I agree with the points made. It's been an evolving strategy of how to exploit users as a resource for financial gain or at least cover the costs of the free tier service.

Yeah, this just follows the rule of if its free, you are the product, not the customer. You're going to get ads and relinquish your data in exchange for the service.

For proton, I assume they have a free tier (I don't know I pay for it). So I guess they let people know to push adoption or get people to make the jump, but the assumption is they have some conversion rate to paying customers. For those that never want to pay for email as their usage scales, they're better off staying.

I think the entertainment industry hit a bubble of sorts tbh, a lot of writers given free reign to do whatever with no oversight. You can write for a show that is largely panned and still get a second season. There's something else going on that I can't quite explain. But it seems producing things that audiences actually want to watch, or follows basic good writing standards, seems secondary to other concerns.

Sadly, I keep Prime for the free shipping, the video was a nice ad-on, so I can only be so upset, but it does reduce value of the membership. I still find it offensive to pay to watch ads, I don't care if that was the cable model for years, we finally got away from it and I don't want to go back, no more than I want to go back to listening to the radio or buying whole albums to consume music.

I'm getting closer to investing in a nicer media center setup and buying/ripping content I own. Especially since, I've gone Gen Z and find most of my evening viewing to be on various YT channels. If I'm going to spend 22 minutes to watch mindless, low production value, mildly amusing drivel, I'd rather it be by an individual content creator than another semi-reality competition show which seems to be most of what's on streaming platforms these days. I'll watch the odd series/show but I find myself getting bored and not finishing them.

They weren't using tax dollars. The service is paid for by the bills, its simply not for profit, it just treats the fiber lines like roads and side walks, a common public good. You can even choose your own ISP.

The same happened in my state.

There was just literally a scandal because real estate developers were inflating prices because it’s more profitable, even if it didn't reflect market demand.

Developers have the same incentive, they are not incentivized to build properties they'll make less on, even if supply goes up. I've seen lots of properties built, they can be half unoccupied/empty and the rents/leases don't change. They're simply not going to lower the value of their own properties, they'll keep it inflated because at least then it’s a tax write-off/loss.

This increased supply concept is being parroted but no one can provide examples of supply being increased and rents going down, or the very least demand can't be kept up with and no area gets saturated to the point prices go down. Usually the opposite happens, new apartment/housing = nicer neighborhood = more desirable area = rent/housing values go up. We usually call this gentrification. Not unless it was a government subsidized project or section 8 housing or a local economic collapse and people leaving (which cheap rent means little if there are no jobs/economy).

Developers are very risk adverse, they’ll never build in an area that risks supply outstripping demand.

I don't understand how people can live for 20 years, see these patterns and still believe the theories they get taught in economics 101 in school and think they're fully educated on the matter.

Unemployment has changed, it used to mean people that want to work but can't find jobs. It meant if a factory or industry left your town, and you can't move, and you can't find a job, and end up going on a government check or something. You're taken off the roster. It's not that you don't want to work, its that no jobs are available. No one's asking you because you stopped going to the unemployment office because its useless. If you lose a full time job and work two part time jobs you're considered fully employed, even though you lost benefits and have to work crazy hours.

If you think administrations don't fudge the numbers to make themselves look more successful I don't know where you've been. Statistics are easy to mess with, and administrations favor the models that make them look better. It doesn't matter whose in office. Places like WV have seen mass unemployment for decades, but the numbers look better because people have gone on checks or government assistance and given up, thus aren't counted.

It's very telling most of the people here live around economic centers and find it very easy to ignore what stark reality is in most areas of the country. It's easier to believe a fairy tale told by the government, and only be critical of it when the opposing party is in office, when supposedly nothing has changed.

So they'll be more incentivized for profit, not less. Also, OP never said any of this, you're just doing the thinking it out for them.

My point is the housing being built isn't going to serve the those who are housing insecure or migrants working construction jobs. If anything these places are taking over the neighborhoods that used to serve that sector.

Every time I see moderate density housing built, it's luxury apartments (almost always 5 over 1) that have rents higher than my mortgage. I don't see how this is accounted for.

"Yes, we have one party here. But so does America. Except, with typical extravagance, they have two of them!"

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/One-party_state

Where will the immigrants live?

Or rather, unless you put them up in hotels and send them back when done, how do you account for providing them housing when housing is already constrained?

Things are doing great while:

- Drug usage increasing

- Depression/suicide increasing

- Life expectancy going down as a result of the above

- Homelessness increasing

- People are forced to take gig jobs, but this is somehow counted as fulltime employment.

- Taking people off the unemployment numbers because they haven't been able to find a job for 6 months or may have given up.

- College becoming unaffordable and leading to massive debt

- Housing becoming increasingly unaffordable, middle class households can no longer buy a home (technically to me means they're not really middle class)

I can go on.

Fudging the statistical measures by which we define economic slumps or saying its all cool cause Wall Street is recovering doesn't change what reality is for the average person. Things are getting worse for most people while getting better for smaller portion (wealth disparity increase).

Juicing vs changing is just spin.

Edit: Since I can't reply, if your measure doesn't account for unsustainable practices, then its not really a measure, or you're intentionally "changing" the measure to leave out accounting for unsustainable practices. Measuring growth in a fund when its all just a ponzi scheme isn't how we measure fund performance on a report. If this is done, its either intentional or incompetent. Either, is very bad when dictating policy.

One of the dichotomies I've noticed is the talking points about affordable housing juxtaposed with saying the concern with "illegal immigration" by the opposite side of the political spectrum is overblown.

My thing is, even if its not the main issue causing issues with demand, I don't see how you can bring in nearly 3 million "undocumented migrants in a year" who are all going to compete for the lowest tier of the housing market, and outcompete single parents, etc on what they can afford in rent (since many have several adults rooming together and sharing rent). If you only have so many affordable apartments/houses etc to go around in a town/neighborhood/borough, etc, an influx of a few thousand, especially in high population areas is going to drive rents up and create constraints on the market.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/migrant-border-...

It's certainly not helping. I don't see how you can not link these two issues, if you bring in migrants, documented or not (or not migrating through legal methods), they need housing, and its going to be the undocumented ones competing for housing in the sector with our most vulnerable citizens.

There seems to be some level of cognitive dissonance politically, at least in the media, when it comes to these two issues. Maybe those on the ground notice it or have tried to call it out. But if I can see it from my middle class suburbia, I don't see how this is getting missed, if not outright ignored.

All that to say, while certainly a local issue, this is a national issue I feel is at play here that local governments (short of stunts like bussing ppl to Martha's Vineyard or NYC), have no control over.

They've literally been changing the measurements of economic indicators to make things seem better than they are.

Bug Report: My terminal color settings are a bit unusual and I'm getting yellow snow.

This is purely anecdotal, but he looks the stereotype of a villain and I always had a hard time taking him seriously because of it.

He literally looks like the devil in Rick and Morty. There's some other classic villains I'm sure are a more apt comparison but I can't think of any at the moment. https://rickandmorty.fandom.com/wiki/Lucius_Needful

Oh, your problem is you don't have anyone doing risk assessments (see Risk Matrix for an example) and quantitative risk analysis and measuring cost to fix vs likelihood of occurrence and cost of an incident against that fix over an extended period. It's a bit like an in house insurance adjustment. Tangentially, a lot of companies decide to buy insurance as a "fix" for a risk. Because the insurance costs less than implementing whatever solution is required.

Just good enough often times is an orgs own policies and standards, and security teams catch when things aren't meeting those standards.

Your complaints are a lack of maturity in your cyber security organizations. There are cases where a business can absolutely decide its "good enough". But that decision is made by people other than those that point out the vulnerability. It's usually done by which ever team handles security remediation or they talk to someone who handles that analysis as part of the remediation process if the fix seems prohibitive. Cost to fix can also go down as new solutions become available or infrastructure changes and a new design makes it easier to build in a fix/control/detection or whatever. So re-evaluating "accepted risks" periodically to see if its something that's easier to implement is also part of it.

Cybersecurity shouldn't be in the business of saying no (unless its something insane like storing passwords in plain text on open shares), we're here to say, "here's some problems we see", here's where we think we can help, everything else is up to the frameworks and policies your company has set to adhere to or someone at a higher level to say cost exceeds risk, we accept the risk until such point cost comes down, etc. Cyber should also be helping to put in systematic controls that make good controls the default, and good practices easy to implement, so that ops and devs don't have to think about it.

This is literally what I do, but okay.

Threat Intel informs the red team, and we'll model our ops or threat emulation exercises off of that information, we also have a few members that came over from threat intel. Last I checked, Threat Intel engineers don't write malware to simulate malware real threat actors that target a companies industry use.

I think you're speaking from your limited experience at your own company. Again, you have to have a mature blue team before you're ready for a red team. Most orgs aren't ready for that, especially if you think Qualys covers your threat models. That's just vulnerability management and might catch some apps/hosts that missed the patch cycle.

If it's word salad, maybe its because you're out of your depth when and ignorant of how these programs are supposed to work.

I was going to say that, early terminals had less resolution than many TV's, in the early days, especially as graphics drivers weren't standardized yet or had CPU/Memory constraints on how many pixels it could draw.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_display_standard