brunes

You're debating with AI slop...

Tobi didn't write any of this. He probably has never even read it.

The description came from an LLM. It's slop.

He didn't write this, some AI did. And a shoddy one at that given the bugs and AI slop readme.

The answer to his question is right here.

It's frustrating to read articles like this written by people who obviously don't travel much and therefore have no clue what they are talking about.

- Yes there are way fewer overhead bins than there are possible space for. This is a very well known thing to anyone who has ever boarded a plane.

- Not having carry on bags is an unworkable solution to anyone who ever has to connect anywhere, or values their time in any way. - Checking bags adds a minimum of 20 minutes on either side of the flight in the best of cases, and when you have a delay and rebooking, not having checked bags will very often be the difference between you making the flight on the same day at all or not at all. - The real problem, as any frequent flyer knows, is that airlines don't enforce their sizing guidelines. If they actually did, then a solid 30% of carry on bags would be refused at the gate because they are too large to fit properly in the bin and take up more space than should be allowed.

You are misreading and misunderstanding this whole paragraph.

The purpose of 10.4 is to allow zoom to send your call to other services, like say YouTube for live streaming, or any of the dozens of other services that integrate with their APIs. Without 10.4, three quarters or more of Zooms use cases would no longer work.

It's not a privacy violation because Service Generated Data is not PII.

All of this is a lot of BS about nothing.

It is depressing how few people seem to be able to read or understand basic legal text nowadays.

Service Generated Data is *very clearly defined* to not include user generated data. Service Genrated Data would include data like APM, error logs, aggregate stats around how many customers use features. None of this data us PII.

It is depressing how many CISOs and others reposted this drivel.

Because Apple makes a shitton of money selling ads on iOS using its Ad ID.

Wait, did you seriously buy into their marketing BS about how they care about your privacy? Apple cares about making money, and that's it. They hamstrung Google and Meta on iOS simply so they would have a monopoly on advertising trackers on the platform.

They committed three person-years, not three years. This project would need dozens of person-years over a three year period.

Also a comment on Github is not a binding support contract. Meta executives could deprioritize this project at any time... hell the person making the commitment could already be laid off, we have no clue. As someone who worked in big tech for a long time, trust me - it needs to be in writing with an exec signature.

That is the commercial API. People keep treating these the same, when they have nothing to do with eachother.

The commercial API has nothing at all to do with the third-party client API.

Name a single other major social network around today that has an API and allows third-party clients. The only one I can think of is Reddit - and even in that case, there are numerous features already being locked out of third-party clients. They are on the same path as Twitter, and at some point they will realize that maintaining a gigantic cost center that provides no revenue (since they don't control ads) and does not allow them to rapidly innovate or build a brand (since they don't control the app) does not make a lot of business sense.

The death of the Twitter API is long, long overdue. Bad for us consumers? Sure. But these companies are not charities, they exist to make money.

How do you position this against AWS's own Security Lake announced at re:Invent in November (https://aws.amazon.com/security-lake/) ?

Your architecture diagram looks like a carbon copy of theirs.

You're ignoring something critical here.

The whole reason these address validation and KYC measures exist is to protect against fraud. They aren't done "just for fun".

Please explain how bitcoin solves for that problem. Hint: it doesn't.

The cost to store nuclear waste is $600 / kg

When Starship is fully operational the expected cost to launch payload will be $20 / kg

IE you can have a 30x margin of error and still just launch the nuclear waste into space.

I have been doing this for ~ 10 years or more. It is trivial to do if you own your own email domain, and only slightly more difficult with GMail.

There are other benefits that the article author does not cover, that become clear when you think about how threat actors analyze breach data.

"Yes".

Next.

In my opinion, technology does not affect core morality, all it does is amplify the positive and negative.

The invention of the knife, of the bow & arrow, of gunpowder, of rockets. Each one of these pieces of technology amplified the ways humans can harm and kill each other, as well as created other technological use cases. Their creation did not create changes in morality.

Social media is a tool, no different from a bow & arrow. It can be used for many use cases. Some of them have negative effects. That does not make it moral or immoral.

Technology does not create nor affect morality, it is how the technology is used by individual users that does that.

In most civilized countries, parental leave is at least 1-2 years.

Google still has a ways to go.

There are a couple of misleading things in this post.

The assumption that Chromium (& Webkit) is controlled soley by Google, is outdated.

If you think Microsoft would have made a strategic shift like basing Edge on Chromium without ensuring they had a seat at the table, you would be very mistaken - and they did not.

Microsoft, Google, Brave, and Samsung all contribute to the core, Microsoft very significantly.

What would truely make XMPP stick and be a killer app, would be if enterprise interoperability could be shown between apps like Microsoft Teams, Slack, and Discord. The amount of friction that enterprise consumers like myself have to deal with because none of these things interoperate is immense. Making them interoperate at a basic level via XMPP does not seem like it would be overly challenging.

You seem to underestimate the burden of moving.

People have spouses, children, families, responsibilities. Not everyone can just pick up and move. Also, not everyone wants to move - some are very happy in a given location for various tangible reasons.

It is so trivial now for companies to source talent from anywhere on the globe that the days of employees negotiating salary based on location are pretty much over. You are competing at a global level now.

Remember: if you can do your job from anywhere, then someone else can also do your job from anywhere. Folks who reject their location-based pay will eventually be replaced by others who are just as skilled but have until recently been shut out of the market, and will gladly take it.

I am pretty sure they are not even a script kiddie... they are just a fairly immature troll.

Not sure what caused the original email, but the reply is just a copy/paste of various unrelated things and security incidents that the person Googled without even understanding enough about them to form a comprehensible narrative.

Which tells me they are simply trying to get a rise out of someone.

The way the grammar is constructed I would not be surprised if this came from a pre-teen.

Does anyone have any pointers as to an example hostname that would trigger this? I am trying to determine if one can write a signature for it.

--Conclusion: inet_aton() is the only option, and the hostname must have one of the following forms: "a.b.c.d", "a.b.c", "a.b", or "a", where a, b, c, d must be unsigned integers, at most 0xfffffffful, converted successfully (ie, no integer overflow) by strtoul() in decimal or octal (but not hexadecimal, because 'x' and 'X' are forbidden). --

So essentially, any DNS lookups of the form a.b.c.d, a.b.c, a.b, or a where a,b,c,d are all numbers, should be considered suspicious?