To my knowledge, it is illegal to sell exploit kits to actors that you know are going to use the kits to commit crimes (e.g. if someone sends you an email saying "I'm looking for an exploit kit so that I can attack company X and steal their IP", you cannot legally sell to them). It is otherwise legal to sell, rent, or give away exploits to the general public or to resellers like Zerodium as long as they are not marketed as criminal tools.
A good regulatory scheme will give people flexibility in how they comply with the rules so that productivity and innovation aren't (overly) constrained. If you find that you constantly need to break rules to be productive then it means you need regulatory reform, not less oversight or enforcement within the current regulatory context.
Well to be fair a private jet flight is 2K to 10K per flight hour to use, so I think they're entitled to somewhat higher expectations than the average flier.
I don't think this is reasonable because it seems to place enormous regulatory burdens on almost all businesses depending on how you define moderation. For example, if I am a physical business that has a code of conduct banning certain behavior (which I would say is analogous to moderation), am I now liable whenever someone doesn't adhere to it and I don't catch it? If I am a small forum, am I now liable for policing potentially hundreds of users if I have any sort of eula?
I agree, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Windows is legitimately confusing for noobs, so I don't see a problem with making the noob learning curve less steep as long as all the "real" functionality that a power user, dev, or admin would regularly use is left alone on the same paths, with the same UX or syntax.
I think you're missing the point though. These are people who aren't optimizing for quality of life as most people define it (i.e. work as little as possible and reap maximal rewards and time with people you care about). Work / achievement / solving problems / obtaining resources becomes the goal itself. It is never enough because you can always have more / there is always something else to do / there is always another problem to solve / there is always another company to start etc.
Its the same thing for people who are serious about the gym. You can deadlift 600 lbs? Cool, now its time to try to get to 650. If you hit 650 it is time to plan for 700.
Sure, you could, but the point is that they have a worldview which prioritizes work and achievement which is why they keep pushing. The work / achievement / resource obtainment is the goal itself, not quality of life as others would define it.
Because being somewhat of a workaholic or craving power / money / achievement is how they got to be wealthy in the first place. This is roughly akin to asking "why don't strong and fit people stop going to the gym?"
Naively I would assume that one risk might be the seat itself causing you damage upon impact. At those speeds could there be a risk of the entire seat coming apart on impact and impaling you with metal shards?
That's totally valid and as an employer you are obviously entitled to set your work culture and select for the types of employees you want working for you. It sounds like I would be a poor fit for your org.
> We should optimise for productivity + life outside of work instead
Says who? If you want to work 40 hours a week, have your weekends off, and relax more, that's great. You are optimizing for more time off than me as you value it more than I do; cool. However, if I want to work more than 40 hours a week and my total output ends up being higher than yours then I should absolutely be rewarded by my company for it. All things being equal, I should promote faster; I should get better raises; etc. You are optimizing for one thing, I am optimizing for another, and that should be fine.
Unfortunately I don't remember as this presentation happened almost ten years ago. I do distinctly remember the one element I mentioned though as it seemed sort of absurd (even though he is obviously not responsible for the NIH budget and would almost surely agree with me that it should be raised).
Would this still be an effective attack if you used a single VPN provider with multiple hops and your adversary was not someone like a nation state? Alternatively, what if you did basic VPN chaining (e.g. you vpn to a pfsense instance or something on a VPS and configure outbound traffic on that server to be routed through a commercial VPN)?
You see the same issues across government. I remember listening to Francis Collins, the head of the NIH, talk about the major problems in academic life sciences at my University. He opened by saying he wasn't there to talk about comp or funding which was amusing considering that every problem in the space ultimately tracks back to hilariously inadequate funding and comp.
At least they are moving in the right direction. IIRC, in the past .gov had a policy saying you can't have used marijuana in the past 3 years or any other drug in the past 10. Now I think it's 1 year and 3 or 5 years respectively?
> If the US is truly a nation of free people, why do they keep doing as they are told?
They want to and choose to. Working for those entities gets you paid and (at least theoretically) raises your quality of life if you don't have a lot of money. Fighting the man gets you a life of hardship and pain. For some people it is worth it but for most its not. Most people care more about their own well being than that of others; I don't think that is news or even a particularly offensive statement.
I'm not sure if its an absolute requirement, but remember you are trying to make it appear as if you have moved to that state and made it your state of residence. Not filing a change of address form looks strange without any other data in that context.
If you want to avoid people knowing your address, I would recommend using a "private mailbox" (PMB) service and making that your official address. This gives you an address that is recognized as a physical address by most services and USPS but basically functions as a mail proxy: they will receive your packages / letters and forward them to another address you provide them. If you are concerned about stalkers or other hostile people, you could have the PMB forward mail and packages to a P.O. Box or commercial mail receiving agency (UPS Store et al) which is not where you live. Escapees and America's Mailbox are examples of PMBs with receiving facilities in South Dakota.
You have to fulfill the residency requirements for state X while also not looking like you live in state Y.
Like another poster said, you can go to South Dakota for literally a day or two and fulfill their residency requirements, but that is not likely to be enough for tax purposes. You should be employed by a company registered in that state; you should have a physical mailing address in that state (e.g. a PMB); you should file a USPS change of address form listing your new mailing address as your official address and change your registered address with service providers like banks and telecom; you should avoid spending more than 182 days per year in any other state as another poster mentioned; etc.
Indeed. We should have been out of there long ago once it became clear that we did not understand the conditions for victory anymore / when we realized that we did not want to allocate the resources required to win. Staying this long was pure sunk cost fallacy combined with weak leadership. Kudos to Biden for having the balls to rip the bandaid off, as painful as it is.
> Masters degrees are cash cows, which is why no one in unregulated industries cares about them. People in regulated/unionized industries also don't actually care; even educators, who at least nominally see intrinsic value in education, go to borderline diploma mills to get that union-mandated raise at minimal effort.
I don't mean this rudely, but it is attitudes like this which cause the CS interviewing process to be 100X more painful than the interviewing process in any other field: "I don't trust your credential so I demand you prove your competence to me on the spot and let's do 5 rounds of interviews just to be sure."
I worked retail for a year as a kid and dealt with this issue. Another reason stuff is destroyed is to prevent insider issues. You will naturally have merchandise that gets damaged in day to day operations or becomes no longer viable to sell and needs to be taken off the books. This presents an obvious avenue for theft by insiders (employee says functional item X is actually broken or they intentionally partially damage it, they record it as broken so it isn't being tracked anymore in inventory, and they walk out the door with it or throw it in the trash out back for their buddy to pick up). Requiring destruction of all decommissioned assets is the only reliable way to stop this from happening.
It literally astounds me that managers don't understand that if you force people to shop around to get any improvement in their situations they will resent you for it. It costs time to secure another position, and if you only needed to pay me or give me X + Y initially to retain my employment, if you make me get an offer to negotiate it is going to cost you X + Y + Z because you wasted my time.
Yea the current Amex Platinum annual fee is insane but the lounge access you get on that card is pretty amazing. It really is worth it if you travel a lot.
You could set up forwarding with Anonaddy, Blur, or SimpleLogin such that you could disable the address the minute you noticed spam originating from it. Alternatively, set up a SMTP redirector:
If they get too big and powerful they can theoretically pose a threat to Xi Jinping's hold on power. These crackdowns and the actions against Jack Ma are designed to show that the state will always be in control.
This would really only work if a third party that didn't answer to local government or the police held the footage. Otherwise it is literally inevitable that you would have inappropriate access or politically motivated leaks.