ExoticPearTree

https://spear.cx/Thread-Selling-RO-Thy-arss-shall-be-spanked...

and click on the links in the article - they are screenshots from inside the system.

Like this one for example: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iZc93XfViOk7izusgIG1ni7Kmsx...

To answer your question: yes, in this specific case, documented.

Depends on the vendor. Some just admin access to the array, other require a two person authorization to delete it.

Its a bit more nuanced than that. The company responsible for ensuring the cybersecurity of the system told the press that "they secured what the client told them to secure and it was not their job to tell the client what needs to be secured".

I was worried about the societal implications of being unable to prove land ownership but it seems that may be avoided.

You know, it's not like people would come and steal your land overnight because you can't provide proof of ownership.

Do you know that this system was making fundamental security faux pas or are you assuming the reductive argument where determined enough hackers couldn’t break any system with built and maintained by diligent engineers?

You should take a closer look at the screenshots posted by the hacker: entire systems and network devices with the password P@ssw0rd for the admin user. Now you tell me.

You can downvote all you want, but there were actual admin accounts with the password P@ssw0rd. So in your view incompetence should just be ignored because blaming people for lack of common sense will hurt their feelings?

ESTA and visas are two different things:

- with ESTA, your country of origin is "trusted" and individuals in general undergo a lower level of scrutiny at a US port of entry.

- with a VISA, you country of origin is "not trusted" and individuals are granted the right to travel to the US after they undergo interviews at an US embassy and get approved.

Neither is a right to enter the US. Just a right to be transported by air/ship to a US port of entry. If the CBP lets you in it is a different story.

This is the US version. Other countries have their own rules.

Some countries in the EU only issue biometric passports only. And they have your fingerprints in them.

Others I imagine issue both types of passports and that's why some people are fingerprinted more often.

How can you claim a "core kernel of universal shared values" without nation-wide universal health care, workers rights, liveable minimum wage, things that demonstrate a fundamental belief in equality and shared values??

Because the US shared values are not your values. Everything you mentioned are socialist pipe dreams, especially the equality one. None of us are equal to each other. Some of us are good at something, others at something else. This equality crap needs to die rather sooner than later.

If you dig a little you will find that the US is a very nationalistic country, more so than even communist countries.

In some countries, like a poster mentioned, they include the “built” size, not the actual liveable size. Sometimes the balconies are included in that, and it is misleading. Two bedrooms in 900sqf liveable is one thing vs 3 bedrooms in 900sqf built area including balconies.

As someone who uses LLMS for coding, ideas validation and research, I think the article is biased against AI forctge wrong reasons.

If you know what you are looking for and know what “a solution looks like”, AI is amazing at distilling ideas. If you have no clue, the AI will return “clueless” solutions.

It is just like before the AI: there are people who know how to search the web, read and understand documentation and so on. And then there are peole who are incapable.

AI is naking the latter category fail incredibly fast. Really, nothing new under the sun: garbage in, garbage out.

You do know it is illegal in most places to sell under cost, right? So why would be legal for a government to sell something below cost but illegal for a company to do the same thing?

The governement of Unraine is sending its people to die on the frontlines while the elites party in Kyiev and their president is an entitled choosing beggar. How are they helping the prople again?

Crime scene cleaners? The Sanitation Department?

Still cheaper than having 10-20 cops sitting around talking to the person.

The coroner will take the body. Just as if that person was shot by a robber.

People nearby don't have to look if they don't want to.

You're conflating issues: governments started wars, they lost, new governments did not want to repeat the war because the people that elected them opposed it.

Human rights, at least in the US, were the won by a lot of suffering from the ordinary people, not by the benevolence of any senator/congressman/president. They passed the laws to appease the people, not because they wanted to.

Science comes when governments do not impede research. Do you think SpaceX would have existed if the government decided to help? NASA has become a shell of its former self, launching rockets into space that cost more than who knows how many Falcon launches. Government at work.

I could go on, but we, as a species, need a government to kind of keep peace amongst our selves and not go overboard too much. But more than that, governments are a hindrance to human evolution and development.

Socialism is always the problem.

If you're talking about the Nazis in Germany, socialism is in their name, you now? If you're talking before Hitler, the Kaiser was socialist. So socialism anyway you slice it.

I never understood this selfish desire to stop people from killing themselves. What's it to you if a person jumps from a building or shots itself in the head? Did you ever think that they might have had actually good reasons for doing what they did?

Probably with the exception of a country or two, governments never run a successful business when competition is involved. Never ever. So no, it is not desirable for the government to intervene in any way in private business and "save them".

It has electrolytes.

The argument that nothing will be saved is that I am trying to say, taxpayer money will be sunk into a failing business until the politicians will find something else to save by nationalizing it.

What you're missing is a simple bext step in your thought process: why are you so entirely sure that Russia will not suffer any single consequence for doing so?

There could be consequences. But I am wondering how painful would they be and if the US would get into a nuking game with them. Would it be worth it for the west to become a wasteland just because there needs to be consequences for Russia.

Edit: you have now replied many times with "I don't understand why Russia doesn't nuke Ukraine". Perhaps you should take the time to try and understand?

Hence the question here again and again: why doesn’t Russia unleash the nuclear armageddon on Ukraine? They would stop the Ukraine’s attacks on itself and get a very large no-go zine between itself and NATO - win-win.

Otherwise why have nukes if you can’t use them?

1. That I see it as payback for the KMT losing the civil war.

2. Yeah, dunno about that, who will do what exactly to China? I also think that, since you mentioned it, Japan would intervene, China will pretty much use it as an excuse for retribution on what the Japanese did to the Chinese during WW2.

I maybe missing something, but it feels bonkers to me of why with all the MIRVs they have on hundreds of nukes they do not feel the need to carpet bomb Ukraine with them.

Maybe I'm dumb, but what good are they then if you cannot use them to annihilate your enemy?

Nuking all the major population centers would pretty much destroy the ability of Ukraine to manufacture weapons in any meaningful number and it would also deprive its army of any new soldiers, no reinforcements, no food supplies and so on. I think it will change the course of the war pretty fast and pretty drastically.

The internet never forgets: you go and find the first speech about why the war was started and look at the outcome. You can then judge for yourself if the war was won or lost. Obviously with all its nuances.

Retaliate for what? They wouldn't be attacked.

That's the thing I don't understand: why would they try to nuke Moscow if they weren't the ones attacked? And would they risk their own demise (considering the imbalance in warheads between them and Russia)?

All countries are affected, not just China.