ArnoVW

my layman understanding, a real statistician will surely intervene.

standard deviation is a measure that informs about the distribution. A high standard deviation means a "wide bell curve". A low standard deviation means that all values are closely clustered around the middle of the curve.

So if your value is 2 x standard deviation (for example) that means it is a relatively rare outlier, since 2 x standard deviation covers 95% of the bell curve. In particle physics I believe they require 5 standard deviations to confirm an observation.

I have a handful of endpoints, used by staff that represent a low level of risk, that use Firefox for that precise reason.

But really, we have a couple of million enterprise end-users, some of which surely using Edge. If we as much as move a button without telling them about it three months in advance, it's the end of the world. In 10 years time, no customer has raised it.

While this is true, allow me to give another POV. I run corporate security and internal IT for a 100 person SaaS. I "nudge" our users towards Chrome. Why? Because I can manage Chrome using the config infrastructure provided by Google. Because Google has more resources to secure their browser. Because my observability and DLP stuff works with Chrome and not with Firefox. And I'm probably still missing out on a bunch of things.

Those are real, practical reasons. Not just "if I do this I get to check another box".

Yes. I know. It's a pain that when you cannot do what you want to do. But it's not your laptop. It's the company's. Supporting more browsers to the same standard that I just described would take engineering resources, of which I do not have an infinite supply. And the priority goes to keeping the company secure.

Yes. Or at least that is what I understood from the Radiolab episode on “how do aesthetics work”

https://radiolab.org/podcast/anesthesia

The day they introduced non smoking (late nineties?) a friend of mine found out as the aeroport. He made a big stink, canceled his ticket and booked a new flight for Amsterdam - NYC with the only company still allowing smoking: Aeroflot.

He spent the better part of a day, flying via Moscow.

The next time he had to fly he grudgingly accepted it.

Sometimes even Shaw's unreasonable man has to come to terms with defeat.

Without thinking too hard I can name a few?

The rise of authoritarianism? Inequality? Revival of geopolitical "realism"? Decrease in empathy and holistic thinking? Increasing willingness of the general population to engage in political adventurism? Accelerating resource consumption (and decelerating resource stocks).

And if you consider none of those "real" problems, I know some people seem to have forgotten about it, but what about climate change? Given the half-life of CO2 and methane, that's a problem as "real" as they get.

agreed. The problem is, often, when you can have "for free" something that is "good enough", you stop looking for better.

40 years ago, there was a market for:

  * newspapers

  * cameras

  * navigation tools

  * HiFi equipment

  * photographers, translators, etc

Same thing will happen for all the other markets that AI will gradually eat. Sure, you can find a human that can do better. But that costs 90$ / hour and requires finding someone, negotiating a contract, etc. But when people can do something good enough in 30 seconds with something they already have access to, and move on with their life, then that's what they'll do.

So just raising the floor will have a big effect on society.

Well if one would get theological about it, I do believe they were given the land and then expelled by god. The Bible is quite explicit on that point.

I don’t remember seeing the memo that god gave “back” the land, so logically speaking they are acting against the will of god.

I believe the idea is that friction and resistance is proportional to the square of the speed. After a certain speed, every 10 mph extra starts to really count in your mileage.

And those that do have not yet understood what will happen when those seasoned workers retire, and there are no juniors or mid that can grow because they have been replaced by AI

While I understand why you would say that, I think the way "spy network" was meant, was in the way that their job is to spy within the US. And given the resources at their disposition, and the size of the US, "worlds biggest spy network" is not wrong.

Also, they do head up the main counterintelligence effort of the US.

How the mighty have fallen.

actually, they raised $1.03 billion at a $3.5 billion valuation.

That would work if obesity levels increased equally across the globe. But even if obesity does increase globally, there are very wide disparities. Contrary to popular belief, there US is not the world.

There's a pattern where criminal organizations fill governance gaps rather than starting as genuine governments. The Yakuza did this opportunistically at certain historical moments. Hamas is a similar example (not a criminal organisation, but..) , allthough they are more of a institution-building than the Yakuza ever was.

my more generous interpretation of the situation is that people do not see the work / effort / complexity of operating a solution. They think that open source is free, when in reality it is cheaper (generally) but not free.

You need to pay the hosting. You need to install it, configure it, and patch it. And when stuff breaks, you have no one to call upon but yourself.

But, as you say, if you can do all of that, open source is amazing value.

Yes. After having flattened it and occupied / denazified it for a bunch of years. The Germany after WW I was not trusted.

No. It delends on how you ask.

Did you walk over? Did you say hi? Did you lower yourself to be around their height? Give them a second or two to get used to you? Tell them first that their noise is loud ? Ask them in a respectable tone if they would lower it, just a bit? Did you give the impression that you were asking, not demanding?

Of course I won't ask a drunk or aggressive looking person. But there is a wrong way to ask, and a better one.

In France I see (and hear) more and more use of a special type of warning device, "le cri de lynx" that reduces sonic pollution by building sites.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BljL3XO0fyg&pp=0gcJCTIBo7VqN5t...

If you pay for Workspace (like he says he does) your data is your own, just like for any SaaS product.

No need to consider. The UK and France have nukes. France even has a two-tier response. Not enough to vitrify Russia or China five times over, but enough to make them reconsider.

If memory serves, that was relatively easy? Compared with this?

You fly to the entry, point towards it, and then rotate until rotation speed and phase match.

But yea, the docking computer was definitely easier =)

Thanks for the link. Yes, that does give pause for thought:

--

For example: once, when I was eight years old, I’d done something wrong that warranted a spanking. My dad commanded me ‘come here.’ I hesitated, building up my willpower, before complying. He spanked me and let me go as I sobbed. He then said “You hesitated. That’s disobedience - come here to get another one.”

At this point I was in a lot of pain, and the effort it took to voluntarily subject myself to another one was now way more. It took me a few moments before I could force myself to approach again. He spanked me again, let me go, and as I sobbed, he told me again that I had hesitated, that this was disobedience, and that it warranted another.

By this point I was in even more pain, and it took even greater effort to overcome my body’s desire to flee or fight. And so again, there was a few second delay. And so he did it again.

He did again eleven times. And when he told me the twelfth time to approach, something in me completely broke. It didn’t matter that my body was now in overwhelming agony - possibly the greatest pain I’ve experienced in my life - the only way to make it stop was to abandon my will entirely, to become a mindless obedience creature that would walk straight into the fire instantly when commanded. So I did, he spanked me one last time, and then he stopped.

Well the vibe I am getting from testing22321 is more one of "there should be unconditional support from society". See the points about free education and (supposed) unlimited benefits in Autralia. As said, it's not that I am against them, I just don't see how as a matter of practicality that would work on a societal scale.

I know the current situation in the US. So if you want to argue that the US has in general a poor social safety net, find someone who disagrees with you. In my mind, as long as Americans see themselves as "temporarily embarassed millionaires" living in the "greatest country on earth", and keep voting against their own interest, I don't see that changing any time soon.

We were talking about a boss who made passive aggressive remarks. And that it was unfair that people could not stop working. I just pointed out that the responsibility of the social protection could not fall on the shoulders of individual employers.

We have created trade unions, works councils and labor laws to protect against the most egregious abuses of power. Many countries have a social safety net. All of these are good things.

I just don't see how one can argue in good faith that "not working" (the original point) should be a human right, guaranteed by society without any condition. On a macro-economic level how would that work?

Not sure what we are arguing here.

So we have established that the original point "the boss that you work for has power over you" is unfortunate but logical.

We have also established that a social safety net is a good thing, have agreed that it cannot be the role of individuals, and that we have delegated that to the state.

In the case of Australia, your example, it is actually a very sober system. There is no unemployment insurance like there is in Europe. In France or the Netherlands, if you lose your job and it is not your own doing, for two years your income level is sort of maintained (generally ~70%). Not in Australiaa. In Australia, if you lose your job, you go straight to the "JobSeeker Allowment", which is a fraction of minimum income. There are conditions to this allowment: you have to be registered as a job seeker, develop a job plan, apply to a set number of jobs or do a set number of trainings, volonteering, etc. So again, force is being used to get you to work, and if you do not comply, you lose (part of) your (already sober) rights. This is basically the same "basic income" that exists in many western societies.

And so now we're talking about university fees, which is another thing altogether. But OK, let's discuss university. There are two main ways that this is organised. Either the state subsidises basic secondary education, so that entry-level schools are (almost) free (generally still one months income per year, or thereabout). Generally this means that "better" schools are private and have annual tuition costs of upwards of a year of wages. This is for example the case in France.

In other systems, the state provides you a student loan. You may or may not have to pay interest over the capital sum, but it is still a loan. In some countries you don't have to pay back the loan if you finish the education. For example, in the Netherlands it is a loan, but it becomes a gift if you finish the education "on time".

In your example, Australia, is a "income‑contingent loan system". Repayments start once your income passes a threshold. The amount never becomes a gift, though if you never cross the threshhold the debt disappears when you die (well, your children pay it out of your inheritence, if something is left).

So, again, no free money: there are strings attached to incite people to work.

I'm not saying that this gives me great pleasure, just that this seems logical, since without extrinsic motivation it seems likely that a big set of economic activities would not be possible, for lack of manpower. Some day we may have a society of abundance, à la Star Trek, where money does not matter. But we are not currently in that society, because we do not have unlimited resources and energy?

in the last 50 years I've lived in NL, UK and FR.

if your point is that on a societal level there should be a social security system, we're in agreement.

The exchange was about how "a boss" had power over you. I just pointed out that an individual company could not be held responsible for that security system. So yes, your boss has power over you?

But even society as a whole also forces you to work. If you temporarily lose your job you will still get (roughly) the same income, but only for a short time. And only if you try to look for work.

If you lose your job for longer, you still get fed and housed, but it's a painful experience. Partly to force you back to work, but mainly for a simple economic reason : we don't have infinite wealth to redistribute.

To redistribute wealth you need to generate it first. If there were no "force" on people, people would be less likely to drive a bus 8h a day, wake up at 3am to bake bread, or work 8h a day in a factory. I agree that their life would be better, and they might take better care of their children or parents, make more art, or read more books. But since that does not generate a working bus system, bread, or money that you can redistribute, I don't see how society can work if we don't "force" people to work, at least a little bit?

but if you no longer work for your boss, why should he pay you? in fact, how could he pay you? if the value your work should create has not been created?

do you want to force him to pay you? would that not just be the same thing in reverse?

does that mean that everyone should be paid by everyone?

I never understood this sort of reasoning.

I think you are misreading the article. The general is warning that if we do not show preparedness and willingness now, in the long run it will cost more.

Si vis pacem para bellum

My guess: an entire VM wrapped in a binary

if you attach documents by linking to a Google Drive document, sure.

if you attach documents 'inside' the mail (i.e. MIME encoded multipart) that is most definitely not secure.

1) you do not know how that mail gets delivered, not necessarily via servers that support encryption 2) you do not know how that mail, or the attachment, gets stored on the local machine 3) you do now know if the mail, or attachment, is sent to someone else 4) you cannot revoke the access to the document once the Need To Known stops

In our ISMS, sending Highly Sensitive data (ex: customer data) by attaching directly to a mail, is strictly not allowed by the IT charter. We explain it during an on-boarding meeting to all new staff members. And it's a fireable offense.