447 karma · joined November 17, 2011
Even if you don't trust the journalists and editors at the NYT, the article links to primary sources from the US Supreme Court, Wisconsin Supreme Court, Pennsylvania Department of State and more so you can do your own research.
As a non-Trump-supporter who doesn't trust the mainstream media, where do you get your objective facts about politics? Do you just watch CSPAN or something? It seems like you'd miss out on a lot of important news that way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idempotence#Computer_science_m...
> Fully managed service Be an absentee landlord
...
> Senior engineers from Google, Apple and a host of other technology companies purchased the PoPs.
[1]: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/grpc/?view=aspn...
If developers had a choice in payment processors, they could choose one with smaller minimum per-transaction fees, aggregate multiple payments from the same customer, try out subscriptions instead of microtransactions so the payment processor takes a smaller cut, etc...
If I was already using curl to predownload and audit the script, I'd probably just execute the script I already downloaded which would be safe. Most of the people piping to bash directly do no auditing at all because they trust the source. If you're going to put a malicious payload in a script, you don't have to be that tricky about it.
Most people wouldn't know anything was up in any event until someone else discovered the attack and started raising a fuss on social media. I don't think serving the malicious script just to people who pipe it to bash (or really just download it slowly for any reason) would stop everyone from finding out. It would just make the malicious script more notable when found.
I have a friend who took this advice way too literally when we were 18.
I was in the car when he got pulled over for speeding once, and he refused to say a single word to the officer. He handed over his license, registration and proof of insurance, but wouldn't answer any questions.
The cop asked how him how fast he thought he was going, and my friend didn't even tell the cop that he wouldn't answer his questions. It was just the straight silent treatment. The cop was clearly getting agitated. I was begging my friend just to answer the questions, even if just say he didn't remember or something, but he refused.
Fortunately, his grandma is in the backseat and really saved the day by apologizing for her idiot grandson. My friend wound up only getting a warning thanks to his grandma, but no doubt we would have gotten a big ticket at the minimum if he kept the silent treatment up.
Another time, we both got busted for launching bottle rockets in a public park a couple weeks after the 4th of July. There were several witnesses including the people that called the cops, but once again my friend did the exact same silent treatment to the cops. I sang like a bird about my own actions while being careful not to say that my friend had also launched rockets.
Fortunately the questions were directed at both of us, and we weren't asked specifically who all was involved before my friend felt guilty that I was taking all the blame and started talking to the cops himself.
Good thing because in Ohio launching bottle rockets is an M-1 misdemeanor carrying up to a six month prison sentence. The cops could have been jerks, but instead they recommended that the prosecutor drop charges after we did some community service. Had my friend stuck with the silent treatment, I fully believe we would have been punished more severely.
Again I urge common sense. Every situation is different. Had it been someone else or somewhere else or a slightly different situation, being quiet could have been the right decision. This could be an example of white privilege, but so far in my life, I've never regretted just being honest with the cops.
If they wanted to stop the so-called fraudulent usage of the pass, they could have just asked. He cancelled so many flights because he thought that was allowed. If they told the guy he would lose his lifetime pass if he kept cancelling or no-showing, he would have stopped.
AA didn't give him a single warning. He always booked through an human agent, so they had plenty of opportunities. Instead they let him through airport security, and took his lifetime pass at the gate leaving him without his luggage.
This was clearly the act of a company that had a huge liability based on a one-sided contract that was easy for them to break out of. The only question is whether it was worth the PR hit, but it doesn't seem like the blowback has been that bad so far.
It seems to me that they saw the opportunity to make a lot of money, and figured having a lot of money is a good problem to have and they could figure out what to do with it later.
The fact that they have no specific public plans for the money is telling. They mention vague plans for grants, scholarships and a perpetual endowment, but how do we know they won't keep most of it in the endowment and use most of the interest to pay board member salaries? If the board decided to do that, who could stop them? Who elects the board?
I particularly don't like this response:
> This makes me one of a VERY small group of people with any arguable personal property interest in network 44. And yes, 25% of this space, which is VERY unlikely to ever be used by hams, has been sold to Amazon.
> Rather than try to personally profit from this, we all readily agreed to place the entire proceeds of this sale into a 501(c)(3) charity chartered to support amateur digital radio and related developments. No one is buying a yacht or a mansion.
https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2019-July/102138.h...
I'm not saying I expect the board will use the money to buy a yacht or a mansion, but the whole tone of that email makes it sound like they feel entitled to do so, and it was only their own magnanimity that caused them to give the proceeds to a 501(c)(3).
I'd much rather the board of the organization see themselves as stewards who are not personally entitled to the money. Otherwise you end up with "charities" like the Trump Foundation.
I don't see how that's anything but reasonable unless you take the position that all software ought to be open source regardless the creators wishes.
The co-pilot apparently didn't realize that the sensor issue that disabled the autopilot also disabled the stall prevention. And that's despite an audible "STALL" warning being repeated in the background.
The captain was not in the cockpit when the whole situation started, but as he re-entered the cockpit during the stall he saw one of the co-pilots holding back on the yoke and told him to push the yoke forward to prevent the stall. The co-pilot followed the instructions, but only for a few seconds before pulling the yoke back again.
All of this is to say if the plane hadn't been known to ignore user inputs in most situations, the co-pilot might not have assumed the Airbus would do the right thing and climb no matter what when pulling back on the yoke. So in a sense, never ignoring user inputs might have also saved Air France 447.
> The former Countermeasures Manager at Equifax served in an acting and then permanent capacity from 2016 to 2017. He believed Equifax suffered a cybersecurity breach because of a “sophisticated” and “highly motivated” adversary. He added that, “if asset management was a perfect silver bullet then perhaps this may not have happened.” He told Subcommittee staff that he does not think the Countermeasures team could have done anything differently in response to the March 2017 vulnerability. He was as surprised as anyone that Equifax suffered a breach because of the “combination of the sophistication of the attack and the talent at Equifax. We had rock stars at Equifax who were de facto pillars in the field.” The former Countermeasures Manager believes the response to the vulnerability was “not only defensible, but justifiable.”
I think you'll be able to improve your conversion if all your sample images included text describing what the star map is commemorating. Ideally there should be at least one such image on the homepage.
I know this may sound dumb, but before I saw the video, I hadn't considered why I'd want to generate my own star map over just using an existing one someone else had already generated.
Once I saw https://i.imgur.com/IAQUyuN_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&fidelity=medi..., it clicked. Your website has a lot of prose telling me I can pick a star map for a specific place and time, but I skimmed right over that.
Most of your customers are probably going to put commemorative text on the poster/shirt/mug anyway, because star maps don't really stand well on their own IMHO. I doubt many people other than astronomers and star geeks would be able to remember the difference between two night skies commemorating different events particularly if there in the same hemisphere and season.
You might think your customers won't be as thick headed as me, but now that I understand it, I'm seriously considering becoming a customer someday.
This is common with e-commerce sites. Many don't require you to make an account to add items to your shopping cart or even to check out. But if you want to make an account, they make it super easy prefilling info they already have, and they certainly won't make you lose what's in your cart.
I have two suggestions:
1. Show a bunch of prominent examples of star maps on giftable items like mugs and shirts memorializing various events like a birth or a wedding. The more explicit you are about the stars matching the night sky on the day and place of the event, the better. I could see these making for cool party favors, but I think the concept will go over a lot of people's heads (pun intended) unless it's spelled out for them.
2. Offer a la carte pricing. The couple planning their wedding on a shoestring budget might buy a star map for $40, but starting and cancelling a $40 subscription could be too much of a hassle.
Longer term, I might look into partnering with a company like zazzle.com and integrating into their create-your-own-shirt-or-mug-or-whatever pipeline for a royalty.
Why never? While I'm not arguing that democracies are inherently super stable (that's empirically false), I don't think that democracies are inherently less stable than dictatorships.
I would think an system that peacefully transitions power with the consent of the governed on a regular basis would typically be more stable than a system where the transition of power is generally a once in a lifetime event dependent on whomever holds the most power in government during the transition.
I can understand the argument that transitioning power is less stable than maintaining existing power structures, but transitioning power is inevitable even if it's to an heir.
Did you reply to the wrong comment? That's why the parent poster led with this quote from IFS:
> By the time the 2016 survey rolled around, fathers were 40% more likely than childless men to see themselves as very happy.
If Apple used its dominance in some niche subgroup PC market to force buyers to pay a percentage of the total cost of all USB-C devices they buy, including non-Apple devices, to Apple to pay for Apple's patents related to USB-C. And if those buyers were companies like Best Buy that needed to be able to buy Apple devices or else lose access to over half their market. And if Apple refused to sell buyers any devices unless they agreed to those terms. And if Apple promised during standardization of USB-C to offer licenses to said patents on FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) terms. Then that analogy might hold a little water.
Of those 5 mass extinctions, did any of them make Earth less habitable than Mars is today? I'm genuinely curious.