rlpb

Is cash centralised money? Because just as courts can order cash transaction reversals they can also order cryptocurrency transaction reversals.

Is this then to counter tax avoidance by companies that conveniently transfer the profits out of the country? "Oh no we made a loss in France so no tax to pay in France because we had to pay our Irish subsidiary €1bn for digital services".

I don't know if this is one of those cases but governments are generally trying to figure out how to avoid such transfers away of tax revenue.

I imagine it's possible to design a blockchain where transactions are 1) artificially delayed; and 2) can be blocked by anyone who has the key.

For example, take Bitcoin, except that each transaction must be posted twice to be considered to have modified the ledger between 7 and 14 days apart as measured by the number of intermediate blocks as a function of the difficulty requirement. If a "blocking" transaction makes it to the blockchain in between, then the transaction is deemed to have been cancelled. A "blocking" transaction must merely demonstrate ownership of one of the transaction inputs.

If you hold large funds, you could keep a remote monitoring system somewhere that is empowered to block your own transactions.

The blockchain design could be enhanced so that a blocking transaction proves ownership of the original inputs but cannot sign a transaction itself.

Failure mode: someone trying to legitimately block a transaction could find themselves unable to get their blocking transaction mined. But in practice they'd just up the transaction fee, and game theory should take care of it.

This was just a thought experiment. A point that comes to mind is that given this is possible, what you describe isn't an inherent property of cryptocurrency, so if there's a benefit to having this property then it could be done.

A neat functionality in bash and other common Unix based shells is that you can have variables. So you can do:

(navigate to one directory)

src=$PWD

(navigate to another directory)

dst=$PWD

(navigate wherever you like)

You can now do: ffmpeg -i "$src/scene1.mp4" "$dst/output-scene.mp4"

If you avoid spaces and other special characters in directory and file names, then you can skip the quotes.

This is conveniently not limited to a system wide partitioning scheme.

> If we showed the EV cert DN in the the address bar next to the domain instead of hiding it in a place that takes two mouse clicks to reach we could expect at least a portion of victims to notice.

The article covers this. Apparently research demonstrated that the number of users who would notice is not significant.

> EV certs would still satisfy nonrepudiation, in a way. You'd have to be pretty bold to run a phishing site under a company registered in your targets' country under your legal name.

I don't think that would be the failure mode. It'd be a phishing site that uses a compromised EV cert issued for an obscure small bank in a far away country purporting to be a major brand bank in your own country, taking advantage of the asymmetry in cybersecurity budget between those two entities. Users would have to actually check the EV cert DN every time (unlikely so successful for a phisher then) or rely on things orthogonal to EV certs like pinning.

Is that still how it works? What about browsers like Chrome that default to DoH?

Fedora uses LUKS where your backup key can just be a regular passphrase. A key derivation function is used internally to help with mitigating brute force attacks.

You might be interested in `git notes`. It does what it sounds like you are missing.

> To your point, it was briefly possible to buy them for under $100 until word spread that they make decent steam machines, so I'm guessing that Sony doesn't need to sell any games to turn a profit.

I don't follow your logic. If the BC-250 was made from PS5 quality control failures, then why would their pricing have any bearing on the PS5's profitability, except as an effort to increase margins? Does cost not remain independent of pricing?

As far as I cam infer from what you said, it could be that the PS5 was sold at a loss and still is even with the BC-250 helping, or that it was sold at a profit and is still is with the BC-250 helping. What am I missing?

> Many sites support passkeys but only the native passkey stored on the current device, but not a hardware security key.

That's a function of your browser, not the site.

Your point about multiple passkeys is valid though. That affects me too. I use multiple hardware keys but cannot enroll many sites because of this.

I always assumed that if I add other Google accounts to my Android phone then they'd be linked together, so I avoided doing it. It's a pain because Google apps require it. For example I can't join a Google Meet from my phone for this reason because I've always kept the Google account I use for email separate from the Google account I use for Android (and then K-9 Mail via IMAP to access it to avoid connecting them there).

Ironically this means that my experience with Google apps on my Android phone has always been poor but other vendors' stuff work fine. For example I use Fastmail for some key email addresses and this works well for me whereas I cannot use the Gmail app.

I guess I made the right choice.

> Just bear in mind that if they don't like how often you return or the circumstances, they will issue you a sudden lifetime ban

I think that if I had to return frequently, I'd find a different vendor well before Amazon would decide they don't want me as a customer.

On the rare occasion I want a return, I've assumed that the reason they handle it without any issue is because they can see my lifetime purchase value vs. my return rate.

Maybe they don't care about my stats I guess but whichever way I'm currently happy in that regard.

I do worry that the competition is being wiped out, but I don't believe in boycotts for idealistic antitrust reasons.

> if the judge says that the transaction must be reversed, you get it reversed, even if that means delivering cash in briefcases or something like that

So if I pay cash for something, I can get it back if a judge orders the counterparty to do so.

Why is cryptocurrency not the same? Can I not go to a court and get an order, exactly the same?

Of course I may not know the counterparty's identity or they may be in a hostile jurisdiction, but how is that different to cash that has escaped my jurisdiction?

This may be a joke, but it's notable that the EU has the Cyber Resilience Act, which makes producing devices with this kind of lack of security illegal. Broadly speaking it takes effect from December 2027.

> ...and possibly declining various offers to stay

Unless there were several efforts to get you to think twice before subscribing, clearly trying to get you to think twice before unsubscribing is not as easy to use.

Interestingly this gives rise to a business opportunity for indies. Create an indie-only music service that doesn't include the big labels, and encourage indie lovers to use it on the basis that artists get more of their money that way. They should still be able to manage viable margins since they don't have to sink disprortionate royalties to the big labels.

Planning permission isn't required if what is there has been established for over ten years without objection. I suspect that's the case here.

However, I think you're right that no bank will lend. They expect only a cash buyer who can "regularise" it and sell it on at considerable expense. Hence the price.

Apparently they have planning permission approved already to build houses on this land.

As far as I can tell, the actual house is missing. This is the outbuildings and tunnels and associated non-dwelling rooms only, and planning permission exists to build a house on this land. I suspect you won't get planning permission to use what is there as a house, but instead are required to replace this with a house according to the approved plans.

Perhaps they split the previous house out into its own plot and sold it separately.

Here's the actual ad, as opposed to a journalist writing about it:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/93958275

There's some precedent on how do deal with this on this side of the pond. Require the list price to be achievable with some card at no extra fee (so no cheating with a high annual fee card or some exclusive condition for example) and have the merchant disclose which. Then the extra fee only appears with cards that charge more.

Or put another way: the list price must be reasonably achievable, but charging more for "extras" (eg. a more expensive card with benefits) is always permitted.

It's not relevant. The moment criminality (in the view of other nations with these kinds of laws) hosts itself there, they'll find themselves hauled in front of the UK courts, and find that their "micro nation" isn't recognised and that the UK both claims jurisdiction over them and is able to enforce it.

Installing from distribution package is much safer than curl+bash because it doesn't require you to extend trust to anybody else. You could argue that malicious code could still pass through the distribution mechanism, but at least it's fully auditable and you're guaranteed to be in the same boat as everyone else.

If the various regulatory bodies are disclaiming jurisdiction over the matter, then what is preventing these companies from proceeding without their blessing?

My Kindle was fine, but then Amazon decided I couldn't buy any more eBooks for it without buying a new Kindle. So I bought a Kobo instead.

It's `curl foo | sudo bash` that's the bigger objection. Running software usually shouldn't require root, and then the equivalence argument you make doesn't hold.

And yet we we all use human written software even though we can be confident that the next severe software vulnerability to be found in it is just round the corner.

I think the law needs to change. Statutory damages for any initial refusal that is later overturned, whether by a court or by the company themselves. Treat it as breach of contract.

This is is to change the economics so that there is a cost to a business for automatically denying, just as there is a cost to the claimant when the business automatically denies.

> Home/auto insurance will often give you a black hole for claims; the adjuster won't get back to you for months at a time. But if you keep calling them enough to be annoying, they will usually eventually pay out.

Fortunately I live in a more reasonable country, where I don't have to keep chasing them; I can simply claim through the court system instead. I think the system works here - I haven't heard that to be a problem here.

I certainly want the gate. I just acknowledge that some kind of relationship with the hardware manufacturer for the benefit of the ordinary consumer is the best that the technology industry can offer right now.

The trouble is that we haven't figured out a trust model that works when we do exclude that relationship. The traditional Windows "run setup.exe" model is terrible for modern expectations of security. The alternatives available today are still very far behind the safety that ordinary users get today when they do enter a relationship with the manufacturer. Unless you're an expert and not a typical consumer.