I owned one, and I'd say it's as capable in truck duties as a crew-cab short-bed F-150, which is to say, not very much. Can't fit a full sheet of drywall in the bed, etc. The short-bed crew-cab F-150 is by day a carpool vehicle with room for everyone's toolboxes and by night a family minivan that can hold everyone's sports bags. That was perfect for me, I knew what I was getting, but even the gasser short-beds are pretty useless as trucks.
I would wager they're cheering, because this builds the moat they don't otherwise have. Want to do business in America? Get government-approved. Can't afford the regulatory fees, or your government won't let you submit to foreign programs? Good luck!
Yes, this has been a steady play from the start. From the skynet fears, to the safety fears, now the it's to powerful fears. All of these have been a play to get the government to lock out any smaller or foreign competitors and build a moat where there otherwise would be none.
What does the past have to do with it? Have you paid attention to his recent work? He's reporting on things that virtually no one else is, e.g. leaks of calls between Ehud Barak and Eptsein as well as Israeli government involvement in wiring Epstein's residence in New York with cameras.
Not to disparage Ryan Grim at all. That's fabulous work. And grimly fascinating, because it means that Israel may have horrifying kompromat on active senior politicians. And the insights into the horrors of Israeli political sausage getting made pretty much confirms what was obvious already, but it's really nice to see a first-hand account. I get it.
But given a choice between a 20 year old spy thriller involving a Prime Minister who retired 25 years ago, and a dead man, versus a revealing exposure of the dystopia we are all going to be living in imminently (whether Chinese or American), I think the balance tips toward the current winners.
Since you seem to know of his reporting, you probably have seen his work, or that of Drop Site, that falls squarely into the category of exposing the dystopia by reporting on a genocide, the profiteering from military contractors and Big Tech, the complaisance from world leaders, the corruption, the media bias.
You can hold the view that other issues (including the NBA) are more important, but pretending that criticism of Israel has any chance of being recognised by a Pulizer prize would be lying to yourself.
It's all so obvious that the Israeli government was explicitly part of the epstein op huh? That's why NYT and WaPo don't report on these things? Yet they get a Pulitzer on an expose on Trump, who no one knew was a bad guy. Got it.
I don't think I've seen even a single mention in any mainstream news source that there is a risk the dirt that Israel has on trump is being used by Israel to blackmail him to do their bidding.
This article conflates agricultural use, which is not treated and is drawn directly from groundwater, rainfall, and rivers, with urban use, which is treated and much more expensive. I find it baffling that the person who put their name on this article would fail to make this critical distinction, given their credentials.
The kernel team has been at odds with the CVE process and the oss-security community about this stuff for many, many years now. It's a big part of why the kernel team established a CNA and started flooding CVE notifications; they don't believe that security problems are different than non-security problems, and refuse to establish norms or policies based on the idea that they are.
> […] they don't believe that security problems are different than non-security problems, and refuse to establish norms or policies based on the idea that they are.
They believe there is no difference being able to get root and not being able to get root? It seems to me that to-be(-root) and not-to-be(-root) are quite different.
No, they believe that almost all bugs in an operating system kernel are also likely to be security bugs. The ones which get domain names, POC exploits, and CVE assignments are the ones which were found by security researchers. But the bugs that get found and fixed by kernel developers regularly without fanfare are also very likely to be exploitable. It's just that nobody took the time to cook up an exploit chain. To kernel maintainers, it's silly to assign CVEs to just some of the likely exploitable bugs just because a security firm found them. So they decided to take the reigns and handle CVEs themselves, to ensure all potentially exploitable bugs are marked as such.
It's such a bizarre viewpoint. I wonder when Linus will see sense.
IMO it's pretty obviously not a view that they seriously hold, it's just one of those technical justifications people come up with to avoid admitting something they don't want to admit - in this case that Linux has a poor security track record.
I think it's an extension of the premise that you should just be taking the whole stable tree with all its patches constantly, whether they're labeled as security fixes or not, because you can never really know for sure some bugs weren't security bugs.
I don't agree with the premise, but I do think it's a sincerely held one.
I dunno, if you think about it for more than a few seconds you can see the obvious holes in it, like it's definitely true that some bugs are "may allow RCE", but you also can do a LOT better than not even trying. And even if you do say "we're not putting the effort in to backport security fixes" (which is fine), that doesn't entail "security bugs are just bugs".
These are smart people. If it wasn't about their own project I really think they'd have a different point of view. I wonder what they say about Microsoft's security bugs for example!
I don't think I said I agreed with them, or that the position had no flaws, I just said I thought their stance was sincerely held.
People can earnestly believe illogical or inconsistent things. Arguably those are even easier to get stuck believing, as you already had to accept some friction in the inconsistencies earlier in your internalizing them, so now you're even further into sunk costs around it.
The kernel begrudgingly admitted of the existence of LTS releases, they really don't like long-lived kernels and people not tracking at or near the latest release.
Literally never. Why would he? He's surrounded by sycophants. And we have Greg for whenever Linus isn't involved anymore, and Greg is just as boneheaded.
Respectfully, I don't think they're missing the point. Banking, as an institution, has its flaws, but deposit insurance isn't one of them. These vulnerabilities exist whether or not they follow specific disclosure rituals, and systems should be deployed with defense-in-depth so that one privilege-escalation flaw is a recoverable event. Inventing tortured counterfactual analogies doesn't change the basic thrust of the poster's point: the account is insured, so getting drained by an attacker is not a fatal problem. Of course people should still take steps to prevent that from happening, but that doesn't mean prevention is (or should be) the only cure.
My point specifically is that some damage isn't recoverable if there's a vulnerability that gives someone root access. This makes the bank analogy inadequate in the first place. Im not trying to argue about whether deposit insurance is good or bad. Saying they would get the money back assumes the damage done to ones machine would be recoverable, which may not be the case.
My understanding is that FDIC deposit insurance only protects against bank failure, not fraudulent activity. Getting your account drained by an attacker may or may not be covered by a patchwork of other laws at various levels, and you could very well end up shit out of luck.
"brain as prediction machine theory" is dominant among whom, exactly? Is it for the same reason that the "watchmaker analogy" was 'dominant' when clockwork was the most advanced technology commonly available?
Charging for street parking is a good step, but American neighborhoods still don’t have great transit and most people still have cars even if they are living in a house/apartment without parking. We aren’t like Japan where car owners have to prove that they have ample parking for their cars.
You would be very wrong, but I live in Seattle so my experience differs from yours. Definitely here in Ballard I’d say 50% of the residents are parking on the street.
(statistically, you are probably right if you are talking about the entire population of America, but we are really only concerned with a few dense cities and parking minimums have been on the out for a couple of decades now)
If the automobile was brand new today, I suspect that it would be a hard sell to convince people that taxpayers should pay to provide free storage for people's private cars.
reply