wyldberry

The ability for hacker news commenters to grossly over-simplify and misrepresent things like this is unparalleled. Just like it takes all folks to make a village, it also takes those folks to do some missions that police forces have. The problem is when the culture of a police force is all of one type. There, however, is value in having people appear strong to those who would take advantage if weakness is detected. Today's punisher skull is yesteryear's ceremonial armor and masks.

I often wonder if the future of OpenAI is using GPT as a meta interface for the rest of their models. Interpret and extrapolate human intent and then select a more appropriate model to execute requests and return the asks in a human understandable format.

If it's mandated then they never had the control there to begin with.

I have a lot of good friends who took the path to be a physician when i opted back into tech. It's been staggering to see 100% of them say never go into medicine, at least in the US. Two are considering leaving the country to practice when their loans are paid off.

My personal side project is finding and documenting ways to get treatment while avoiding the insurance system as much as possible. IMO you really should only see a GP in the sick-care system as someone to order the most basic labs and screenings, and to receive reports you seek out on your own from specialists who take cash payments.

You can download the US Preventative Services App, punch in your data, and see the recommended screeners for your situation.

https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/apps/

I've yet to come across any tooling where i've said "yeah, i'd rather use this than run my code against your API and do the things I want to do".

Like nearly everything else in tech, security becomes much more impactful when the practitioner understands computer science, architecture, distributed systems etc.

On one hand, if you know what you're doing, Sentinel, KQL, MSTIC[0] are incredibly useful tools that show Microsoft's investment in security for the operations slanted folk. On the other hand, this is being billed as helping operationalize junior analysts navigate incidents better. I'm all for that, but the step from junior -> mid -> senior in SecOps/DnR/ThreatOps space generally comes from either annoyance at a friction in the processes faced, or genuine curiosity in something that's more of a SWE slant.

What I would like to see in this case is significant effort to expose decision context and learning points in the investigation so that when your incident goes for review or you grab a more senior analyst, they can have contest on how to grow the responder.

As a final note: i feel like we are hitting the marginal gains phase of what endpoint security tooling can look like. This tool probably gains significantly more traction if your org is a MS/Windows workstation shop. It may even play nice in Azure land. However, I would much rather see tooling shaped like this that are centered in production for detecting threats where we make money.

If you're hiring your first security engineer/head of security for your startup, it's much easier to reason about hiring someone with an AppSec or CloudSec background than it is detection. Perhaps shunting tooling that way will help the DNR people level up there and be valuable assets earlier.

Edit: forgot the MSTIC Link

https://github.com/microsoft/msticpy

All states play the same game. Of course it's math, economics, but it's also geography and demographics.

All of our injuries are self-inflicted. However, each state will attempt to act in a way to maximize power. In this inevitable confrontation that will set the next rules-based era of power, I want my side to come out on top.

There's never been a more ripe time for a third axis to open up stretching and bankrupting America. In America, and the west, we think often in terms of binary peace/war. This is not the same philosophy shared by those who wish to replace America as the world power.

It's good to have the frameworks in place to execute these things when we need them and it's my opinion that we will need them in the next five years.

I may have gotten Sweden/Norway mixed. When my father flew fighters and trained in Norway, he talked about the dispersion strategy employed by the Nordics. In addition to having mountain passes be able to serve as various strategic military points.

There are 3 models that roughly breaks down like so:

A - Standard runway takeoff, carries the second most amount of fuel B - VTOL, carries the least amount of fuel C - Carrier launched, carries the most amount of fuel.

There are tradeoffs each version makes. The F35 is the plane of the future for NATO and other US allies. Having the A variant able to take off and land from a highway allows (theoretically) you to have the less expensive to maintain A variant and deploy it all over your highway areas (Norway) for example.

initially yes, but with a more auditable trail. Intelligence agencies and other groups are no stranger to using stuff like this to get washed money to do things they aren't directly funded for.

In no particular order:

Pushes entities of interest towards using this new currency as part of sanctions evasion.

Creates downstream effects in tech for expanding the technology. Promising parts can be used to obtain budget for things that are even more off the books.

To this day one of the more prominent use cases of bitcoin/cryptocurrencies has been to turn USD into sanctioned currencies.

Moving stolen electronics for phone components has been a consistent revenue stream for a long time and there's a lot of organization that goes into it. No one is pretending this solves the problem, rather that it creates a negative incentive for targeting phones specifically.

The world of scamming and petty theft is vast. I've known some real slick thieves, and they are of the opinion that lifting a phone is just not worth it these days. However, this deterrent is obviously going to be effective on a spectrum. If someone is trying to sell you stolen goods, are you going to buy a new iphone from them on the off chance you can get parts out of it?

There are more robberies than a mugging. Pick pockets are a real scourge. If you have a reliable way to turn stolen goods into currency, you are incentivized to take that item. Jewelry -> pawn shops for example.

The anti-theft measure here makes it not profitable, or much harder to profit, from taking a phone because you can't resell it or strip the valuable parts. I had a friend get pick pocketed in spain, and the next day the phone was several countries away.

Just because people can get mugged regardless of perceived wealth doesn't mean that we don't try to reduce the risk.

I think we may mean the same thing, but zero trust has a connotation of negative rights, versus always prove is a way of framing things in a more positive assertion. At least that's worked for me at the last couple of places i've been.

Should every client application have to authenticate and authorize? Probably not every but the overwhelming majority probably and those that don't should have a good justification as to not. The challenge after that is "how long is this good for?".

Zero Trust is such a bad branding for how the architecture works. It's just "always prove" architecture.

No one ever outright says "get rid of animals and mono-crop the world" but that is the reality of what it would take to feed humans on plant based at scale world-wide based on thermodynamics in general. Finding unbiased sources and well-designed studies is hard. When you dig into the research, often you will find that what is written about doesn't match the research.

It's quite clear that you can live a healthy life with most calories from plants in some capacity. It's also quite clear that you can do the same with animals. Where it gets dicey is when we get into the specifics about farming methodologies, sustainability, and ethics.

This is why i linked to white-oak pastures to give an example of regenerative agriculture practices that are proven to work. What's important is that when we talk about animal consumption that there's a ton of sins by the cattle industry specifically that need to be corrected. Moving to a regenerative agriculture method will lower their profits quite a bit, and they often find it helps their message to misdirect towards the "plant-based" (overloaded term) crowd..

The current battle in Montana between Bison restoration and ranchers versus the cattle industry is a great example [1][2] of how cattle industry behaves. Bison restoration and Bison ranching has taken off in Montana and Idaho. There is abig push to try and restore the natural grasslands and grass species that the Bison grazed on to improve the ecology of the area as a whole. Cattle are not compatible with that plan (imo) in Montana. However, bison are ruminant animals which are the linchpins for keeping the soil healthy enough to grow crop without large petroleum inputs (fertilizer). So 900 million cattle may not be a boon on their own, but if we put environment appropriate ruminants (goats, sheep etc) in the same places we can still perform regenerative agriculture.

This topic leans towards heavy nerd snipes because there's so many rabbit holes to go down. For example:

of the land that is used for grazing animals, how much of that is suitable for farming the big three (wheat, corn, soy)?

Assume that every human is capable of getting enough calories to survive: Are they getting enough bio-available nutrition to meet the minimum needs? What about to perform closer to an optimum of mental and physical capacity?

What does it really mean to be nutrient dense? Are we actually able to extract all the nutrients? What about if we started consuming organs again instead of just ribeyes?

[1]https://apnews.com/article/health-environment-and-nature-bus... [2]http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/2/19/yellowstone-...

The issue is not plants vs animals. It's the messaging and misinformation around "plant/animal-based" terminology. People align very strongly one way or the other because of an intersection of morality with strongly held cultural beliefs. Then they advocate, one way or the other, and fund studies designed to show their outcomes. Food is a space very, very fraught with intentional misinformation.

This fundamentally ignores a bunch of realities around land quality, thermodynamics, and nutrition bio-availability.

Generally what's wrong with (everything in the nutrtition and fitness space) that the terms are overloaded to mean whatever it is the person speaking it deems at the time. Example: Paul Saladino (carnivoreMD) touts an animal based diet. Then when you dig into what he really recommends for eating is animal products + fruits and plants that have limited defense chemicals that can cause (for some people) disruptions in their life.

The position i advocate for is regenerative agriculture where we sequester more carbon by using the animals to mimic the natural grazing cycles and provide fertilizer for plants. This is incredibly important because in order to produce crop yields like we do, we require massive amounts of fertilizer, which requires petroleum inputs to create which gets us back to thermodynamics. To do crop rotation appropriately in a sustainable way, you need ruminant animals.

It's a complex topic that I invite everyone to spend some time taking a look at because there's really big money in meat production as well as artificial meat production that have a vested interest in winning you over.

There will eventually be a holy war in the comments about how plant based will save us if only we get rid of animals and just mono-crop the world continuing to destroy the soil and biodiversity of the planet in the name of more calories.

There are alternatives that are shown to both provide enough calories, sequester more carbon than created, and steward land to mimic the natures natural cycles.

https://whiteoakpastures.com/pages/environmental-sustainabil... https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/50249804-sacred-cow

There's so much more in play than calories when it comes to our relationship to food and the natural world.

Russia's military is being decimated, just not at the line of contact currently. You're watching a protracted battle play out all across the world right now between Russian interests and Western interests. Some of these include:

1. Russian/Wagner (now admitted to be the same) neocolonialism in African states, most recently Niger. Within days Niger stopped trading Uranium to France. Conveniently, France is the least dependent on Russia for energy and will force the French to buy outside of Niger and then refocus on Russia.

2. The latest naval drone hit on a Russian oil tanker in the Black Sea took place well beyond the expected range of Ukrainian capability, which likely means someone else (Turkey?) helped at least get it into launch range. This coupled with the Ukrainian position that all russian ships, and all ships trading with russia are now targets in the Black Sea is also big for the area.

Currently Russians may not be dying in droves defending their positions. However, the knock on effects for russian military capacity, industrial capacity, and naval capacity are incredible. The longer they flounder and the more they commit to Ukraine, the more their traditional enemies are able to take advantage of their weakness.

If russian gas and oil cannot flow out of the black sea safely, their PMC backed interests in Africa and South American become less effective, and the corresponding governments will look elsewhere for influence/protection/trade.

There's not much prestige as a BSU alumni (and someone doing a masters part-time there), but I do distinctly remember chatting with materials graduate students and them mentioning that they chose BSU because of the ease of availability for equipment required for research and having Micron right there.

There's a few good things that the university offers which is surprisingly strong. When i went back to prepare for a CS masters (military, self-taught) I was surprised at the quality of the undergraduate degree in preparing students for industry, and how quickly the security program was invested in (INL does a lot of investment here).

All that to say: it's a pretty good school, especially for it's price. I only ever had one bad professor, and it was in the supply chain management department. And it was (is still?) the only raptor biology masters in the country.

I understand where you are coming from, it's just naive to think that a nation state won't form a counter action to preserve it's ability to wage war.

That would likely require a return to mandatory service.

The real question is: if it's true, what do you think those who tried learned from it? Did they find a way to achieve their goal without any outright observable changes from the public's perspective?

In Marine Corps bootcamp, this man is lionized for his accomplishments during service. After my service ended I read war is a racket and it profoundly changed a lot of my viewpoints.

Sounds better than the 40k future.

Yet we clearly prioritized certain foods and the human body adapted around those foods. Over time tribes converged on what plants were safe to eat (and which had defense chemicals that didn't make them suitable to eat), and prioritized certain animals for hunting.

One thing I find interesting with that is how tightly coupled mongol armies were to an animal based diet, and how they reportedly looked down on farming and agrarian societies.

You'll often find many people not willing to wade into discussing food and exercise anymore because peiple treat it almost religiously. It makes discussion hard in the space because now food is so tightly coupled with society and culture.

We know the ancient greeks and romans exercised. Warriors of successful societies prioritized being fit of body. To have a discussion we'd have to get to common definitions of what exercise is.

It's been interesting to watch the health and fitness space around brain health and correlations with diet and exercise. People seem to finally be converging around some common truths that have been known for thousands of years. I All roads seem to be pointing towards finding a balance between what we are evolved for as a species and modern life.

I literally sit in cybersecurty chat channels where people who know tons still cannot get the "plenty of tools" to block this to work correctly. The ones that do have spent thousands on equipment and monitoring capabilities. You don't even come in with examples of how to do it properly, let alone for non-swe/network engineer/ families to do it. Just hand-waving away "i'm sure mobile devices could".

It's nothing like a parent bringing home the beers. In order to participate in education and social life your kids need access to the internet and devices. You parents are giving you a tool to do a job that comes with a negative externality of being able to access adult websites (and anything else on the internet).

It's not ridiculous for parents to vote for representatives who will put legal blocks in place to force a change since there's no way to vote with your dollar here, even if the source is religion where making children is a core tenant.

I'm very familiar with living with LDS. I'm in Idaho.

Way late to this, but to me this ultimately comes down to:

"How do we handle the negative externalities that access to the worlds information at our fingertips has caused?"

In theory parents are responsible for general outcomes of their children.

However, do you expect non-tech, and realistically, non security/networking people to have the toolset to understand how to set up their networks and their devices to block access to this content? It's already a hard problem to solve in enterprise, or at least non Gov/Defense enterprises (hello Bluecoat?).

A company has no incentive to block users from their content like this unless their is a negative effect from letting someone view it who shouldn't. They say "you're the parent block it". It's almost as if a child walked into a bar and said "give me a beer" and the bartender did. Then didn't get in trouble because "the parent should have stopped it".