herghost

This is a horrible straw-man of the situation which somewhat conveniently manages to sidestep any real acknowledgement of the genuine harm and its scale.

Terrible article.

I might be missing something obvious but there only appears to be the option to draw something in predefined places - where the bubbles appear on the map.

I'm trying to mark up somewhere new that doesn't have a bubble and I can't see how I'm supposed to do that.

Ok, I give up.

How am I supposed to draw something?

hmmmmm...

2006, sat in a job interview. Interviewer says he'll Bluetooth over a file to me - what's by phone's name?

2006, the year that Tool's 10,000 Days had been released, which I was enjoying and, being a bit of an Edge Lord, I'd named my device after a lyric from Vicarious - which, IIRC fit perfectly into the name space and made me very happy:

ILikeToWatchThingsDie

Excellent. Still got the job though!

the linked Github repo shares the name

As the default simulation played out beautifully on-load, I immediately started to question: "hang on, I thought there wasn't a solution for 3 bodies, but this looks stable".

Before I could complete the thought, it fell apart magnificently :)

We've recently come to this conclusion with our Cockapoo. His mother was a working Cocker Spaniel.

When the weather is poor we have often tried to get shorter walks in dry spells but augment it with as much ball time as possible to make sure he's getting enough exercise (since he generally dislikes bad weather).

It's become apparent that there's no possibility of satiety through chasing the ball though. He will simply go forever, however tired he looks.

I joked that as a Labrador will seemingly eat itself sick, a Spaniel will run itself lame.

Isn't a better question: why would it matter?

Whichever is true, we all benefit, so why agitate over it? Conflating the two issues will not generate a single iota of good so drop it.

Mr Jenkinson will be here any minute now, chasing ambulances.

100% bullying.

Something that isn't seemingly being commented widely on either is that Vance started hitting Zelenskyy with bursts of multiple questions and as soon as he started answering the first there were immediate challenges and redirections.

English isn't Zelenskyy's first language. Imagine how tough this must have been.

At that point the questions weren't questions anymore - they were statements that were left unchallenged.

Europe's defence should not be entirely on the American tax payer

True. However.

The US has wanted to play a major role in Europe for 80 years because it meant they controlled the narrative. This, co-incidentally was favourable to European countries because they could spend their money elsewhere.

Over the past few years the US has decided that it would prefer to play in the Pacific rather than Europe and so has been edging away.

It's true that Western Europe has been slow to respond, but it's also important to acknowledge that Trump just changed the pace of this redirection and so it's not entirely on one or the other side.

Speaking as a worker this seems like a positive move.

Stepping outside that though - how is this going to impact the wider economy? The UK is in a tough spot. Partially self-inflicted, partially political, partially just the way things are now.

Will this improve things? Will it help or hinder?

Cookie Clicker taught me this about Destiny and Destiny 2 as well.

I got a lot of enjoyment out of those games - and they were partly the backdrop to socialising online with IRL friends who didn't live close to me - but at some point the absurdity of them became too obvious and we stopped.

"moved on" - to Call of Duty.

I remember the first time I picked up a Wired magazine and couldn’t tolerate the insane lack of continuity.

I've never been able to articulate why I couldn't stand Wired so succinctly! Thankyou

The problem is you’re simultaneously arguing two points and relying on whichever point gives you the most leverage at each juncture.

If .gov == bad guy then you’re screwed whether or not you leave a digital trail on social media because you’re already leaving one anyway (unless you’re a marginal outlier that isn’t worth considering for this “problem”). If that’s your threat model then you’re either super-important or I worry you’ve been sold a scary story by social media algorithms.

On the other hand, the idea that this is an impossible tech problem to solve is also disingenuous. My point is that it could be solved. And quickly and easily too. If the incentive model were there. And whilst I’ve not given the solution a huge amount of thought (I’m not actually that interested in solving it) I’m certain that an authenticated assertion could be made that wasn’t directly attributable to an individual - i.e., a mechanism could be developed that would solve for both problems.

Which brings us back to the fundamental point here: the people who would need to implement the solution have no incentive model in place to motivate them to do so.

The card you might have paid with is though. I can’t remember any instances of a card hack revealing transactions of customers though (I might be wrong, just doesn’t ring a bell).

It’s not a given that digital record must lead to compromise.

Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's social media usage.

I guess we should stop checking age when buying alcohol in pubs (_Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's alcohol purchases_)

And stop checking age when buying cigarettes (_Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's tobacco purchases_)

etc.

It's illuminating that your post is both "tech can't solve it" and so brazenly pro-tech with manifestations of its laziest arguments each way.

Of course tech can solve the ID problem. It could solve it in a way that doesn't need to give ground to your slippery slope argument too. It just doesn't have the incentive model to do so. Any "control" in this space would reduce the marketable headcount and so it's not in tech's interests to solve - without government intervention.

Totally agree with this - when it popped up asking me if I wanted to use my fingerprint to do ..._something_... I felt like I was at risk and noped out.

Gong back about 20 years we had to introduce a "pre-screening" interview for infosec roles because of the calbire of candidates we were getting through.

They'd made it through the HR "sift" by having the right words on their CVs but we found that a huge majority of these candidates didn't know even entry-level basics.

There was initially a "quick fire" round where we did some real basic definitions - Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, risk, etc, etc.

Even back then candidates would hit us with the:

"Hmm, great question"

/tap tap tap tap

[Wikipedia definition of confidentiality]

I think this is probably correct on the balance of probabilities but I have 2 concerns with it.

Firstly the “it would be illegal to listen” argument feels absurdly naive. Whilst almost certainly true, it only “matters” if the penalty for the crime is meaningful in context. Jail time for Zuckerberg? Probably don’t do it. A fine? Probably do it because it will likely be immaterial to the upside.

Secondly the parody-like definition of what “listening” actually means. No one is thinking a warehouse full of humans with headsets transcribing conversations and picking matching ads. An AI is perfectly capable of transcribing at scale and near real-time and linking this to keyword matching and ad-serving.

There was also an application that took a screenshot of your current desktop and then gave you a bunch of weapons - bats, guns, bombs - and allowed you to smash it to pieces.

That was nice sometimes.

Compare with "Prosecco" recently starting an advertising campaign on the London Underground[0] telling people to stop calling whatever generic, non-region protected sparkling wine they're drinking "Prosecco" because Prosecco is DOC protected.

Seems to me (despite the almost certainly valid legal points in the comments here) that the Velcro one is a bit tongue-in-cheek whereas I was slightly taken aback at how direct and earnest the Prosecco one seemed.

Net result will be the same though, I suspect.

[0] https://euroweeklynews.com/2023/12/26/italy-warns-britons-to...

It's mixed.

On the plus side, if I book out the family holidays and school holidays and and some time at Christmas and a few days for gigs or whatever, then as soon as something unexpected comes up I need to start horse-trading my days off to "balance" if I have a hard limit. With unlimited, I can just take the time for the unexpected thing without worrying about really accounting for it.

On the down side, it's clearly not _umlimited_. Managers talk about it in an unwritten "code" of what's reasonable. 35 days max, basically. Most roles in my industry in the UK will give you about 28 by default. So on that basis it's an extra week off.

This is my first year with it. I expect I'll be somewhere between 35 and 40 days by the end of the holiday year. I'm interested to hear what comes back as a result of that.

My PiHole resolves off to Quad9 and Cloudflare.

Never had any problems with either - I have both selected in case one has issues so that I don't need to immediately deal with "Daaaad the internet's not working!"

Thank you. That’s a really interesting point.

This is crushingly pertinent for my career at the moment. I've come from an organisation that I might describe as "architecture-led" into an organisation that is perhaps more "engineering-led". I prefer to plan and solve problems before they become crises. I don't know whether my boss like reacting to crises or we're just working through a really tough 12 months but we seem to _always_ be in a crisis. Problems are almost always solved in the "simplest" way - which makes a lot of sense from an engineering point of view - why do more than you need to? - but this often, and openly, means not actually solving the problem and just solving enough of it to shave off the spiky bits that are causing the "crisis".

There's very much a firefighting culture. That is, after all, how people earn medals. And whilst I've heard the adage that rewarding firefighting results in arsonists, I don't think it's quite that.

It's more than rewarding firefighting results in people who spot small fires but tolerate them to the point that other people notice - and then they don their helmet and rush in to fix it.

No one is maliciously lighting things on fire - but they won't put out the fires they find unless someone is watching.

Sorry, but I have to disagree.

I'm happily married, children, dog, several distinct groups of friends, great job at a great company, lovely house in a nice village, etc, etc, etc.

I worked from home for about 4 years as a freelancer and found it incredibly isolating (but lucrative, so endured it) but finally had enough and get a permanent job back in an office. This was 5 weeks before what would be the first of several COVID lockdowns and roughly 3 years later there's still no realistic "office culture" where I work.

Last year was incredibly tough for me. Incredibly dark. Despite everything that I ostensibly had going for me I was suddenly crushingly lonely, anxious, probably depressed. 8-10 hours per day of constantly interacting on Zoom calls doesn't just cut it. It's not the same.

I don't think the answer is to necessarily "return to the office" as a 100% arrangement. I don't think that's possible in reality. But something has to change; undeniable dilemma.

We have devolved responsibility for secure code to the product owners.

Ultimately, meeting their compliance objectives and addressing the threats is their business.

We (infosec) can, and will help, but the outcome is their responsibility. We provide threat models, guidelines, patterns, and consultancy to the tribes if they need it (as well as SecOps, etc).

Ensuring the incentive model makes security part of the problem they need to solve we manage to avoid the constant fights - infosec is a "pull" service at the design stage rather than an endless, fruitless "push".

I used to do a lot of work in VB6 back in the day (I'm no longer coding/developing) but it was nice to read about the "joy and excitement" of VB6. That really resonated with me.

Closest I've been since is the simplicity of python, but I always felt it was missing a RAD form maker with good usability considerations.

I think the new owner has certainly been the spark here but there are real benefits to moving too that people are starting to notice. Replies here already cover a bunch of them but I’d like to echo the “algorithm” point too: so far my experience has been substantially less toxic and I put that in large part down to not being fire-hosed with content designed to enrage me every time I log in.

So far my experience is reminding me of 1990’s style connecting and chatting with interesting random people from around the world who are friendly and quirky, and I find being there a “nice” experience.