entire-name

That's the thing, the paid apps, music, movies, etc. are actually just licenses. And, although I didn't read the contract myself, I'm pretty sure the Terms and Services all users agreed to during the purchase of said license (or even just during account sign-up) stipulates that the company reserves the right to revoke any license purchased for any reason, etc.

Though I do like your way of thinking. Potentially, if there really is a violation (which there was not in this case, but just an example), then, in theory, the company can implement a system that allows users to still access the content, but remove interactions (e.g. in the case of fraud, remove the ability to transact, etc.). Of course, this requires resources to implement and maintain, so it's unlikely to happen.

I'd say it's less of a "BIOS update to fix a software bug" and more of a "BIOS update to provide control to the user to perform a workaround for a software bug whose fix requires at least two, but probably more, parties to rollout".

It's the same; if you click on "Donate" on the foundation website, it goes to Signal's website (the one you linked to).

I think OP means they don't mind sharing their information with the search engine (be it Google, another engine that provides better results, or even a better Google in terms of results), _as long as_ OP has control over exactly what is being shared.

As an aside, I do see the trend for some companies to provide this control nowadays. Even Google is doing it (e.g. you can auto delete your information, or turn them off completely): https://myaccount.google.com/data-and-privacy

Of course, whether or not you believe Google is doing what you have configured in the backend is another question... and there is nothing anyone can do to actually make you believe it short of giving you complete access to the entire Google backend. Or is there a way to verify without exposing? Maybe an interesting research topic...

Redirection like this doesn't seem to work if it comes first on GNU bash 5.0.17(1)-release.

For documentation purposes, this is the exact thing I tried to run:

    $ < <(echo hi) while read a; do echo "got $a"; done
    -bash: syntax error near unexpected token `do'

    $ while read a; do echo "got $a"; done < <(echo hi)
    got hi

It has a dependency on XLS[cc], so they share their limitations: https://github.com/google/fully-homomorphic-encryption/tree/...

Was your pay cut due to your location, or simply due to the fact that you were work-from-home?

I guess it depends on what your price range is. For most people starting out, the price range is generally less than $1M. At that price, you will generally only have townhouses or condos available to you, which will generally have HOAs. It sounds like the properties you have been looking at are more akin to "multi-tenant" units in which it is much easier for all owners to collaborate. The properties I'm referring to are those with many more units, and in these communities, an official HOA is usually already set in place long before the first unit was purchased (agreement already set with the builders).

That said, I should probably qualify my original comment with "Bay Area within 1 hour of typical office locations in the Bay Area on typical rush hour commute". Here, "typical office locations" will include San Francisco County, San Mateo County, and Santa Clara County. This then limits your property locations to San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, and Alameda County. In _these_ locations, $1M can generally only get you a condo or townhouse with many units (at least the last time I checked).

Unfortunately, in competitive markets like the Bay Area, HOA neighborhoods are the only option available to you in your price range for most people starting out. Your other options are to rent, or to move to a location far from where you work. (Or to live with your family if that is available to you, and all parties agree on it).

Now, of course, if you can and prefer to permanently work remotely, then moving to a further location from where you work may be a good option for you. But then you will have to consider the risk of you being able to continue to have a job that allows permanent remote work.

Isn't item (3) more of a policy thing rather than a language thing? Granted, I actually never coded in Kotlin (and very very little in Go), so if it's "encouraged" in Kotlin, then your point (3) makes sense.

I was browsing YouTube the other day, and got recommended something similar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0VYsiMtrNE

Very interesting indeed! The title of the video translates to "Electromagnetic festival music".

My current solution to perform backups with local encryption (locally encrypted before syncing) is to use a gocryptfs setup. Specifically, I create an overlay with gocryptfs in which the overlay has the unencrypted filesystem, and what's physically written to disk are the encrypted files.

Then, I create another mount on the physical disk and simply sync _that_ mount to multiple remote sources. Of course, this solution is fairly simple, and does not provide the features like file moves. Further, this approach potentially "leaks" some information, such as how many files I have, the approximate sizes of each file, etc.

This was set up a while ago; will definitely take a look at NFreezer to see if it's time for a refresh of my setup.

Let me rephrase. One attribute the education system should provide students is the ability to think critically. By being able to think critically, a person should be able to have the capacity to see and understand the arguments on both sides. From there, a healthy debate can commence on which policy is better.

Keep in mind my previous comment is in response to the original post, which talks about people on both sides having the "extreme mindset", i.e.:

It's amazing. My friends on the left think the only reason for voting trump is racism, and friends on the right think the only reason for voting biden is socialism.

Indeed, maybe I was wrong in suggesting that the poor education system is what caused this issue. But regardless, the ability to think critically is an important attribute, and I do believe extremisms are caused, in part, by the lack of it.

Where did all the intellect go?

I think that's the key point. Decades of undermining the education system, plus many other problems such as "big money lobbying" is likely what led to such extremisms.

You know... the key metric of "education" used to be "what percentage of your population can read and write". By that measure, the US is fairly "educated". However, just like the value of each dollar goes down as the economy grows (i.e. inflation), I think it's important to apply a similar idea to education; just as the access to information increases, the value of _only_ being able to read and write is no longer enough to be considered as "educated".

As the saying goes, code is typically written once and read thousands of times. It takes you less than a second to write the full flag name (add a few seconds if you need to look it up), but it will likely save at least a few hundred readings the time to look up the flag if they do not already know it. In addition, full flag names contributes "self-documentation" in many cases, and also potentially makes searching easier in certain cases.

That is precisely why it is tragic.

At that point, wouldn't the approach be to defend from the client side? Namely, we can instruct the client to not trust any content sign by such-and-such keys. This can be done by pushing out a certificate revocation, etc.

An object pipeline is certainly interesting, and I do use PowerShell from time to time. However, there is a reason extremely simple concepts such as "everything is a file" or "input/output/error are all text" survived for this long. I will quote an answer provided in a vaguely related question [0]:

There is no spoon^H^H^Hstructured data. There is only text.

[0] https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/400

Perhaps so, given that for most DNS provider, the ability to modify DNS records automatically gives you the ability to sign those record. This shows the importance of having a dedicated system for signing information, completely separate (and potentially offline) from the deployment system.

I guess even some sort of "signed device protocol" will not work. An attacker can just create a device that guesses the device identifier (or whatever is used to create the signature). Then, the attacker device can just keep guessing until it gets it right. Chances are, some serial number or similar will be used for this, so continuous guessing is feasible.

Will the solution to this, then, be to have some sort of "smart card enabled device"? For example, assuming TOFU, you manually accept all device's public keys (and all devices, including cables and stuff will have one of these). Then, the computer will have to verify all actions done by those devices by sending a challenge for each action. But this seems impractical and inefficient...

Perhaps physical security is the only way for this...