A_No_Name_Mouse

Some speculation but “Right now, there is really no way of knowing who is behind North Korea’s current internet outages,”

https://lyricstranslate.com/en/wear-sunscreen-lyrics.html It's funny and most of it is pretty solid advice.

Wieckse witte is a Belgian white beer that tastes just as good with or without alcohol. For the past few years I've been drinking more of that than any other beer with alcohol. Friends of mine enjoy NA IPA, but that is to bitter to my taste

I wonder why they only show a picture of the non-contested negative test and not the positive one with the disputed URL so we can validate the evidence ourselves.

As far as I can tell, the schema does not allow combined information stating "prior illness" and "1 out of 2 jabs". So it does not even provide enough information for countries to decide if that level is acceptable, even if we had a common deciding policy.

Does it reflect a state of prior illness where only 1 jab is required instead of 2? Or is the doses element adjusted to reflect that?

Edit: could be in the top level "r" for Recovery group element

Edit 2: no, the recovery element does not allow information on vaccination, and vaccination/recovery group cannot be combined

I don't think this is correct. It matters whether the person removing the second ball can see the colors and choose accordingly. If you can, and you willingly remove a single blue ball, you have the Monty hall problem where you stick to your choice. It does not influence the chances, it is still 1/2. But the way I read the problem, you choose a ball at random, look at its color, it happens to be blue. Now this gives you information on the composition of the remaining balls. The chance is 1/3. To drive home the point that removing a ball "can influence" the odds of the first ball: what if you took out an extra ball that turns out to be blue? You now have two blue balls, leaving the chance the first ball was blue zero.

Can anyone elaborate on what a company wide restore operation looks like in a big company? I worry about this because IT support teams tend to test restores per system. But what if it's thousands of systems going down at the same time? If this happens I even wonder how long it would take to restore productivity if the ransom is being paid. Also, what percentage of systems would typically be infected?

Plus it does not contain the classic line "At [...] we take security very seriously" which to me is one of the most stupid things to say when you've just been breached.

Nice video.

> There's a company experimenting with these along highways to get energy from vehicles driving by.

Those turbines will be slowing down the windflow, causing extra resistance for the traffic. The video doesn't mention that. Does anyone know if that effect is significant enough to reduce or even reverse the overall benefits (especially given the large % of ICE vehicles)?

I thought this had to be an April fools day prank, but apparently it went live a couple of days ago and was on the news.

Anyway, this means a second stream beside the Iceland vulcano on my 2nd monitor. It's about 1km. from where I live, and I had to learn about it on HN...

Edit: link to cam is on https://visdeurbel.nl/

Related: can you hear the temperature of water? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri_4dDvcZeM

Correct, there are a few objects that are spectacular. However they don't change much in time. So the novelty wears off pretty quickly. After seeing them a couple of times my telescope is now collecting dust in the attic.

Why would they encode the ip in transactions sent to an address instead of from an address? Anyone can send BTC to an address, while only the botnet operators would be able to send from it. Then it would be unlockable.

Thanks. In this context it makes perfect sense.

Your comment resonates with me but I'm not sure I fully understand it: "compliance transfers risk out of the project and onto the standard/model": If I choose to be compliant to a standard, some of the risks are mitigated, not transferred; some risks I have that are not covered by the standard are not mitigated or transferred, but still unknown, because I chose not to look into the threats (but just comply with some standard). So how does it transfer risk out of a project?

"A business PM won't problematize those things because it will demand a solution that gets in their critical path. The best they can do is manage it": If you identify a risk you can still choose to accept it and do nothing to mitigate it. So why does it demand a solution?

"you've reduced the flexibility of the business to manage that risk": Why? Again, risk identification does not automatically mean risk mitigation. If you're aware of a risk you may choose to detect problems instead of prevent them from happening. How else would you be able to manage risk if you are not even aware of it?

Maybe your comment is related to something I have experienced. I often think about a theoretical situation related to the movie the Matrix. Suppose there exists a complete risk analysis that provides insight into every aspect of risk for a company. By taking the red pill responsible management would instantly see all these risks, but it cannot be "unseen", so they would have to act to reduce them to acceptable levels (taking away resources that would otherwise be devoted to business functionality). Would they take the red pill or the blue pill? I think most managers would choose to stay ignorant.

[edit: wording]

I don't understand the title of this article. The combination of "2021" and "still" implies that something happened that makes this policy nonsense given the current state of affairs. Did I miss something?

I'm in the EU and clicked agree before I realised the implications. Now I want to withdraw my consent, but there doesn't seem to be a way to do this. Am I overlooking something or is that not possible (which would violate GDPR)?

> The solar system passes through the crowded part of our Milky Way galaxy about every 30 million years.

How is that possible? At our sun’s distance from the center of the Milky Way, it’s rotating once about every 225-250 million years [1]. Plus the crowded part would be rotating along with us at roughly the same speed.

[1]https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/milky-way-rotation

If you're interested, my mother in law is for sale. Very cheap but she comes with a no return policy.

"Hits back"? They just state they don't agree without giving any reasoning.

Is there any advantage in using this method over HMAC with the key stored in the HSM, without pepper or salt? It seems overly complex to me but I'm not a cryptographer.

If they're going after individual sites, could a 'workaround' be to keep switching domain names with a suffix like the week number? With a redirect on the main site to the site of the week. It would require new takedown notices every week.

Thanks. I'm not a developer so I guess it's relevant, just not for me.

A compony moves their code repository to a different provider. Honest question: why is this news worthy? Am I missing something?

I would have expected a responsible disclosure timeline, but it looks like he didn't report this to MS

https://outline.com/sG2n47 for reading without signing up

I can see how that works for an internal network. How does this work for SaaS solutions that would normally be directly on the internet? Would they have to be "shielded" to be on a private network and somehow be "Boundary enabled"?

And could this be done in a way that is completely transparent to the user (without them having to start a connection to the worker first, and then make a connection to the desired service)?

Wonderful video, really clear!

Is there a simple paper that explains how this works on a technical level? I have a hard time visualizing how a connection to a remote host would be set up if it runs through Boundary. Does "without requiring direct network access" mean Boundary works as a proxy? And how does Boundary enable the connection if the host does not have direct network access?