whoknew1122

The AWS issue related to DNS entries. And IAM doesn't use Dynamo DB. It wasn't related, other than an outage gives a good way to obfuscate TTPs.

ADHD and ADD have been rolled into one diagnosis: ADHD. There's Predominately Inattentive (PI) [which you might see as ADD] and Predominately Hyperactive-Impulsive (HI).

This is my experience with ADHD - PI

How they describe themselves, posted without comment:

"The Middle East Forum, a think tank founded in 1994 by Daniel Pipes, promotes American interests in the Middle East and protects Western values from Middle Eastern threats. In the Middle East, we focus on ways to defeat radical Islam; work for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; develop strategies to contain Iran; and deal with advancing anarchy. Domestically, the Forum emphasizes the danger of lawful Islamism; protects the freedoms of anti-Islamist authors, and activists; and works to improve Middle East studies."

I'm not sure how important that is to remember. The president is issuing the orders. The president is chief executive of the country.

The president can't pawn off responsibility to some White House staffer or think tank. An executive order is the president's order.

Is it useful to look at the people who wrote or lobbied for the order? Perhaps if you want to want to understand the context of an order. But none of that context mitigates the president's responsibility for any order. At the end of the day, it is a single person exercising their sole authority to issue executive orders.

The best thing I can say about OAuth is that--as an identity dude--it keeps me gainfully employed. If only because people often implement it incorrectly.

I concur. I work in architecture for a large public cloud provider. I'd definitely double-check that something like this isn't already in the market (or open-source).

It would be interesting to see a novel script though.

Civil asset forfeiture is when law enforcement seizes property of someone suspected of a crime.

Jones was sued and lost. Now his assets are being liquidated to pay off (a small part of) the judgment against him.

Two entirely different concepts.

But what is the response that works?

Average: I can't afford groceries at the store. Inflation sucks.

Response: Well, inflation plays a part, but grocery stores are still recording record profits despite inflation.

Average: Are you suggesting grocery stores shouldn't make as much money as they can? Free market hater! Communist!

Let's be clear. This guy had CSAM and was caught using digital forensics. The cops would've been able to secure the search warrant at the time had they been required to do so.

This isn't some innocent person who is spending time in prison because of a legal technicality.

Laws can also be unconstitutional and remain a law--the law just can't be enforced. For example, in the state of Texas sodomy is still technically illegal, just the law is unenforceable. But if the Supreme Court overrules previous court decisions and says anti-sodomy laws are constitutional, the Texas law immediately becomes enforceable again.

The law is super complicated.

It dates back to the constitutional ban on "ex post facto" laws. Meaning, the government can't retroactively make something illegal. Which is a good thing, IMO.

So, for example, it's illegal at the federal level to manufacture machine guns (and I'm not going to get into a gun debate or nuances as to what defines a machine gun--it's just an example). But a machine gun is legal as long as it was manufactured before the ban went into place. Because the government can't say "hey, destroy that thing that was legal to manufacture, purchase, and own when it was manufactured."

This concept is extrapolated here to say "The cops didn't do anything illegal at the time. We have determined this is illegal behavior now, but we can't use that to overturn police decisions that were made when the behavior wasn't illegal. In the future, cops won't be able to do this."

The cited ruling answers your question

The court ruled that at the time, when the State Police opened the file, they had no reason to believe that a warrant was required. While the search was later ruled unconstitutional, no court had ruled it was unconstitutional *at the time of the search*. One of the cornerstones of American jurisprudence is that you cannot go back in time and overrule decisions based on contemporary jurisprudence.

From the opinion: 'the exception can also apply where officers “committed a constitutional violation” by acting without a warrant under circumstances that “they did not reasonably know, at the time, [were] unconstitutional.”'

If you're interested, the discussion of a good faith exemption (and why fruit of the poison tree doesn't apply here) begins at page 40 of the doc.

Can we stop euphemistic language like this:

> In a letter to staff, Houston said that the reduction in headcount would impact 528 people.

He fired 528 people. That's what he did.

Also, he impacted a lot more than the 528 people he fired. Those who didn't get fired have to take on the work that was being done by their fired colleagues without an increase in pay.

As someone who has worked for less than $40,000 a year, and someone who now makes more than the average pay of someone at DropBox--I'm not sure it's a useful conversation to say "Hey, someone else has it worse." Yes, it'd suck to be a laid-off staff member of a university making $40,000. It also sucks to be a laid-off cashier at a grocery store making $16,500.

This talk of money also ignores the negative effects on mental health from being laid-off.

But the most important point here is that a CEO making an obscene amount of money takes "full responsibility" and... still gets paid an obscene amount of money. Easy to take responsibility if you have 0 consequences.

Having been a victim of grooming, trust me. It's better to talk to the parents than to give a child a gift without the parents' knowledge.

First thing I do when playing a multiplayer game with proximity voice chat is to turn voice chat off. Makes play sessions much more enjoyable.

Sure you may miss the 5% of chat that is actually tactical and relevant to the game, but it's a very small price to pay in order to avoid edgelords and other toxic people.

> As a gamer dad, I try to show my kid better games to play, but because they aren't free, his friends can't play. Just drives him to keep playing and wanting more Robux. It's compounded when his favorite Youtubers play...

If there's a paid game your kid really likes, perhaps you can talk to his friend's parents and buy the friend a copy of the game. ...I say talking to the friend's parents first, because just gifting a game to the friends would be creepy.

But buying friends copies of a game we want to play together is something my friend group routinely does and we're all adults with disposable income.

It's not just GitHub and it's not just because they don't want to pay bug hunters. In my career, I have escalated multiple bugs to my employer(s) in which the response was 'working as intended'. And they wouldn't have to pay me another cent if they acknowledged the issue.

In my experience, there was two reasons for this behavior:

1. They don't want to spin dev cycles on something that isn't directly related to revenue (e.g. security) 2. Developers don't have the same mindset as someone who's whole job is security. So they think something is fine when it's really not.

At least where I work, RSUs are often dangled to you as a way to justify a lower base salary. RSUs are built into the 'compensation philosophy', wherein the RSUs are combined with salary to calculate total compensation.

You're underpaid with regard to salary, so you'll lose a lot more by foregoing RSUs than you would if you were just paid a fair base salary without RSUs.

The other day I was talking to my wife about my frustrations at work, and she said "Well, just don't quit before you get that RSU vest." And I'm sure I'm not the only one who has had such conversations.

Amazon has a few different programs to retrain people for tech jobs, such as non-tech Amazonians, people separating from the military, under-represented people, etc.

Exactly this.

I'm not for victim blaming generally, but who puts their money into a company that says this:

>"...create a parallel system of existence that will change how people live, how we interact with people around the world, and even how companies and corporations will conduct business."

What is supposed to mean, other being some thought-terminating word salad to fool less cynical people?

I'm not sure how this has anything to do with AWS. But I guess you can use it to confirm your idea about vendor lock-in if you're bound and determined to convince yourself you're right. For what it's worth, working at AWS, I see a lot of companies who use Entra for AD and then federate into AWS using that.

Most probably won't. I think you're greatly overestimating the technical chops of the average PC user.

I reread it every 2 years or so. There's so much in there that you see new things every time.

I'm with most of this. But then we get to:

>In one recent example, voices on the PSF Board were demanding that a condition of funding for a particular PyCon be the formal adoption of a “human rights plan” - a measure that would pose a significant legal and personal risk to its organisers. > >The entitlement and assumption of cultural superiority embodied in these ideas are absurd and offensive.

I can't track down what this 'human rights plan' requires. I also understand that Europeans (and Americans) need to be very careful when projecting cultural norms to other places. I'm not here for cultural colonialism. And there are some countries where supporting LGBTQIA+ rights (and others) is illegal.

The PSF should be careful when it comes to trying to force organizers to take stances that would put organizers in legal jeopardy. But if you find it 'absurd' and 'offensive' to support human rights beliefs that are espoused by a funding body... don't take the damn money.

People can disagree on what human rights exist, and how they should be enforced. I'm well within rights to ensure that funding I'm giving you is contingent on respecting the rights of the people I serve.

Sorry, but there are some hard lines. And support of human rights is culturally superior than non-support of human rights. And if you don't like that, don't take the money.

Work-life balance is when you work the same amount of time at work and when asleep. Right?

> Heck, you wouldn't say that Ken Griffin is full of shit to his face if you met him but you said it on an online forum.

You severely underestimate people if you don't think some people would curse him out to his face. I worked for him as an employee of a subcontractor. They wanted NDAs not only from the place I worked, but wanted to bind me personally to their NDA. I told someone who directly reports to him something much stronger than they're full of shit.

Dude is a toolbag, no matter how much money he has.

I've worked with many, many companies as an employee of Amazon. The majority of the companies I've worked with aren't VC funded companies. That's anecdotal of course. But it'd be incorrect to imply that AWS gets most of its revenue from VC funded companies.

The 'they' here is Amazon. This is how it should be read: "Amazon started out as a retailer, and opened up a bunch of their infrastructure to competitors. The idea that they'd make it easy for competitors using their infrastructure to beat them makes zero sense.