rgblambda

>perhaps he got into hacking there because it's the only way to support his family.

North Korean hackers are state employees. They're selected for the role based on their academic ability (top achievers go to the nuclear programme). The state takes the bulk of the earnings, but it is a more comfortable existence than for the average North Korean.

Your typical North Korean doesn't have the kind of unrestricted access to the internet necessary to become a hacker.

I'm not entirely sure what I "did". Given that I don't do comms for a serious open source project, mind letting me in on your secret?

My point isn't about fighting back vs rolling over. Just that it doesn't achieve anything to guess at why Google did a certain thing.

Edit: Maybe you replied to the wrong comment? I didn't say anything about complicity and neither did the GrapheneOS announcement in the part I quoted.

I was actually just implying that it looks unprofessional. Say they cut an important security feature. Don't try to guess why.

>It appears Google cut an important security feature to save money.

If you're doing comms for a serious project, it's probably best not to speculate on the justification of an internal decision at a different org, even if you're reasonably sure.

And motorists definitely don't do any of those things.

As the Polish government have made very clear, the length of the transition period can be indefinite.

And it isn't really a negotiable. It's up to the country when it wants to join the Euro. They just have to promise that they'll do it at some unspecified point in the future.

And there was considerable debate prior to the referendum within the Leave camp as to whether to go for a "soft Brexit" (close regulatory alignment) or "hard Brexit" (what the final deal ended up being).

South Korean Intelligence and it's allies presumably have agents in the NK military who would give them advance notice.

In the UK a few years ago, they tested the government emergency alert system, which was basically your phone turning into an air raid siren, regardless of what SMS filters you had set.

I would imagine South Korea has a similar system?

I don't think anyone was claiming that or anything remotely close to it. I was explaining why the NSA wouldn't necessarily be in favour of more digitally secure infrastructure, because you seemed to be the only person in the thread who didn't understand.

The security vulnerabilities the NSA would use to spy on a system, or even just use as a jumping point to another system, can also be used by bad actors for other purposes, such as screwing with people's water.

Or outsource to a pilot procurement company in China.

There is precedent after all: https://www.propublica.org/article/microsoft-tech-support-go...

Also, the 130 IQ Engineer usually can't afford to wine and dine the business manager the way Amazon can. Or dangle the possibility of a cushy yet prestigious sounding job in front of them.

As someone from one of the territories mentioned, it was frustrating in the run-up to the referendum, and immediately after it, watching the local media try to get the view of English voters as to how they thought that was supposed to work.

The impression I got was leave voters either thought it would all work out somehow, or that they cared so little about the non GB territories to the point that they felt they didn't need to address to question.

Technically the rule never changed. If a licence inspector sees a TV connected to an ariel socket then you're breaking the law.

But there's virtually no inspections any more. There were a lot of bad newspaper headlines about poor single mothers going to prison for getting caught (and refusing to pay the fine, but that bit usually got left out), so enforcement basically ended.

It's actually a private company that operates the transmitters. The BBC have been paying for access until now.

They're banking on the number of kids using that mechanism to bypass the ban being small.

I'm not in favour of this but I'm acknowledging that if the number of children accessing social media drops significantly because of a VPN ban then they've achieved what they set out to do.

I don't like the salami slice tactics of not including this in previous legislation despite knowing that it would be necessary to enforce the social media ban. There would have been a lot less support if it was presented as a complete package that could be debated in it's whole.

Perhaps it'll work like dodgy boxes/firesticks, where you have a handful of people who individually set up their own service then charge a fee for access.

The idea is that it doesn't matter if the ban is fully enforced. Most children only have a smartphone and they're the target of the ban.

>Don't americans want socialized healthcare over their despised privatized system?

I haven't lived in either country but as someone who lives in a country with socialised healthcare, it mainly benefits the older generations, as health issues begin to crop up nearer retirement.

If a Canadian spends most of their working life in the U.S. then returns to Canada to raise their kids or to retire then they're getting the best of both worlds.

Something like nextcloud.com? It's appeared on HN a few times. Some European governments and municipalities have switched to it.

That's a separate problem.

And it's not "The EU", but really one EU commissioner. Many organs of the EU including the EU Legal Service have criticised CSAR (Chat Control) and the European Parliament has voted against it, effectively killing it.

Dutch and Danish are two different nationalities. To be fair they both begin with a D and end with a H so I understand the confusion.

There isn't even any indication of police involvement. "The authorities" could mean anything from the local police service to the National Crime Agency, to the National Cyber Security Centre (part of GCHQ) and anything in between.

And you can choose not to read their journalism. That's the value in having a reputation.

And I'll remind you that the alternative in this case is just believing the random redditor's version of events.

Putting aside that the source for this is a Reddit post linking to screenshots of text, as opposed to a news site where a journalist would have to stake their reputation on the story being true.

Anyone can report anyone else to "the authorities" for anything. It doesn't mean the unnamed authorities act on it. It's also quite strange that Yoti (if this isn't just a hoax) don't specify which policing unit is recieving these reports.

The original SG-1 did that already. Carter was the team leader for season 8 while O'Neill was base commander.

And Atlantis had a civilian woman in charge from the pilot episode.

It doesn't quite make up for it, but balcony solar is a possibility for apartments (with balconies obviously), provided they're permitted in your jurisdiction.

The co-creator of Stargate was interviewed about it and said:

>The only thing that is blocking the SG-1 movie or the Atlantis movie, the only thing, is the fact that the direct-to-DVD market has gone away

https://web.archive.org/web/20101001085140/https://tvdeathra...

Interestingly, he also talked about the need to appeal to an audience outside of the existing fan base, quite relevant to the current discussion:

>If you just try to hang on to the viewers you have and the numbers are going down, they’ll eventually go down to the point where the network and the studio will say, “OK, we’re done.” That’s what happens. That’s definitely what happens.