Yet I can't help wondering how much of it is really just people who resist change because they don't want to learn something new. The init/upstart process was easy enough to understand but clinky and as full of problems as systemd really. Except, of course of the most common use cases where it had been worked out.
Gonna call citation needed on that, especially if you're combining them as "init/upstart".
upstart, when primarily running as a traditional SysV init (meaning handle initial setup procedureally, then execute an rc script which executes a series of rc#.d/ scripts, which is how upstart was used in RHEL6, for example, was neither "clinky" nor "as full of problems as systemd".
A primary reason so many people have problems with systemd is that it intermingles the complexity along its entire axis of execution instead of isolating it in a discrete manner. Any time you have event-based management you have the potential for intermittent problems, race condition security issues, memory bugs, etc.
In previous init systems, persistent management or event mechanisms hung *OFF* the init path and only affected their own children or the services under their control if something went wrong. (This goes for all service managers: inet, xinetd, supervise, whatever.) Meanwhile, the init path is controlled by one-time scripts and as minimal an event mechanism in PID1 as possible.
Now, all that complexity happens as PID1, or communicates back to PID1, or relies on IPC between the two that is not particularly tight and isolated. Waaaaay more potential for chaos results here, which is why these types of holes are more and more likely to occur.
Except it's not California's land. The National Parks belong to all Americans.
Well, ish. It's a bit more complicated than that, and the political split probably depends on if you live in the Eastern or Western US, and whether you're a "traditional" Western resident (ie, fiercely protective of land rights and local control) or a progressive one (ie, "yay centralization and control!")
Biking in San Diego is generally done "by choice", either for recreation or sport. The beach communities, downtown, and the few other flat neighborhood regions that exist are really the only locations where it's a reasonable option for anything else (i.e., short term commuting).
Sadly, my concern there is that I probably can't trust the app. Especially if it's Chinese.
There's a "non-cloud" 2-way pet camera I picked up on the cheap, but the phone app it connects to requests every permission under the sun. No thanks. I'd actually prefer it to run a small embedded web server since at least then I could FW it off and be aware of what on net might be able to reach it. With an app on my phone, the risk gets just that much bigger.
Technically you can take the Coaster in San Diego up to Oceanside, where you can link up with some other service (Metrolink?), but I can't imagine any normal person doing that for work.
Southern California just doesn't have the density for that kind of regional rail, and in order to make it work financially you'd need to convert the relevant parts to something approaching that. No way that happens any time soon, and probably not ever here in San Diego.
divert a large proportion of its tax revenue away from services that help poor citizens (like the police department and forest management)
Isn't San Diego the city where the police stopped responding unless someone was shot? Story seems to confirm that was the case in 2011, and still mostly the case now. As for Fire Management, I think last month speaks for itself.
So where do they cut to make the payments? Your suggestions have already been done.
VOSD is a bit slanted when it comes to that. I'd take a look at the average POV of all the various local media to get a better view on things. Basically, no that's not the case.
Back on topic, San Diego is one of the few West Coast cities that's made its light rail system work and not sink into the red by focusing on commuter corridors, gradual expansion, and using existing right-of-ways. That said, like all CA cities it was not laid out with transit in mind and San Diegans as a whole are not in favor of converting to the types of density that would be necessary to make more transit financially viable. San Diego has a 30-block downtown core, and from there out it's mostly single family detached homes for the entire rest of the urbanized county. I grew up riding public transit because I used it to get to school, but no one who lives here uses it unless they have to or they live directly on the commuter corridor.
Sadly, no one has quite told the Progressives this. San Diego has been trending from center-right to center/slightly-left; Dems finally have control of the SD City Council, and have forced SANDAG changes that gives the urban areas more say on regional transportation. What have they done? Diverted resources from road maintenance to transit programs, and replaced lanes on the streets with bike lanes in some bizarre belief that ANYONE will commute via bike to work.
The only reason there hasn't already been a pushback against the effects of this has been Trump's general depressive effect on R turnout and Independents voting for R's. When/if that goes away, the Dems need to get their local planning back inline with reality or there'll be quite the pendulum shift back.
Per one of the better Reddit threads on this, the internal issue was pretty much the worst-case scenario for losing access to everything everywhere at once, and without alternate mechanisms for getting into places:
As of 2021 GMT
Tier IV Equipment Vendor Technical Support continues to work with CenturyLink Field Operations and Engineering to restore visibility and apply the filter to devices in Atlanta, GA and Chicago, IL. While those efforts are ongoing additional logs have been pulled from the devices in Kansas City, MO and New Orleans, LA following the restoral of visibility and the necessary filter application to obtain additional pertinent information now that the device is remotely accessible.
As of 1916 GMT
Efforts to regain visibility to sites in Atlanta, GA and Chicago, IL remain ongoing. Once visibility has been restored the filter will be applied to limit communication traffic between sites which was causing CPU spikes that in turn prevented the devices from functioning properly.
As of 1828 GMT
On December 27, 2018 at 02:40 GMT, CenturyLink identified a service impact in New Orleans, LA. The NOC is engaged and investigating in order to isolate the cause. Field Operations were engaged and dispatched for additional investigations. Tier IV Equipment Vendor Support was later engaged. During cooperative troubleshooting a device in San Antonio, TX was isolated from the network as it was seeming to broadcast traffic consuming capacity, which seemed to alleviate some impact. Investigations remained ongoing. Following the isolation of the San Antonio, TX device troubleshooting efforts focused on additional sites that teams were remotely unable to troubleshoot. Field Operations were dispatched to sites in Kansas City, MO, Atlanta, GA, New Orleans, LA and Chicago, IL. Tier IV Equipment Vendor Support continued to investigate the equipment logs to further assist with isolation. Once visibility was restored to the site in Kansas City, MO a filter was applied to the equipment to further alleviate the impact observed. All of the necessary troubleshooting teams in cooperation with Tier IV Equipment Vendor Support are working to restore remote visibility to the remaining sites at this time. We understand how important these services are to our clients and the issue has been escalated to the highest levels within CenturyLink Service Assurance Leadership.
So what is your solution to increase the address space for law abiding people but avoid the problems you highlight?
This isn't IPv4. We're not running out of space in traditional gTLDs, country codes, or the secondary and tertiary level domains in the countries that have them.
If you want to sell shoes online and shoes.com is taken, "shoes.shop" is not a solution to your trademark, branding, or advertising problem. You can pick a broader "domain name" within the existing TLD that more uniquely identifies yourself, *OR* you can use delegated subdomains for your small local shop. The bigger issue is that the giant influx of new gTLD is completely ontologically offensive. That's where the anger comes -- this was an absurd cash grab that ICANN should remain forever ashamed of.
Also keep in mind that "shoes.shop" does nothing that "shoes.shop.com" couldn't do. We're not running out of space in any meaningful manner.
Archive.org admits that their IP range was explicitly blocked.
This is like saying "Hey, I noticed there was a lock on the front door, so I went in the back. Clearly, this was the proper thing. There was never a lock there before!"
Nevermind that the very presence of the lock, indicates that the building's owner wishes to restrict entry.
That seems fuzzy though. Explicitly blocked *because they're Archive.org*? Or explicitly blocked because they're making 100's of thousands of connections while they try to download 85% of the entire website in a few hours?
Google famously said it wanted to index "all the world's information", but we all know that information is power... That's all the world's power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
This wasn't new, but the warnings about it in the mid-2000's were out-shined by the distractions of the new technical advances Google was bringing (AJAX, Web 2.0, etc...), followed by the "data fetishists" that came into cultural and philosophical power around the time of the Obama Administration.
Google has been rightly called to task for its disingenuous “do no evil” formula. As we embark on this changing of the seasons perhaps it is also time to change our tune on Google’s celebrated mission to make “universally accessible and useful" the world’s information they have “organized.”
As I put forth in “Google to Microsoft: Wolf in sheep’s clothing,” Google has an uncanny ability to make even its most calculated of competitive moves appear to be generous, friendly endeavors:
Google has a knack for launching (hoped for) category killer applications directly aimed at usurping existing market leaders’ positions with its reassuring “we’re not a competitive threat, we complement each other” mantra.
Google downplays its blatant incursions into competitors’ territories, while promoting its encroachment on the information and content of others.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt was beaming at the company’s Q2 2006 earnings conference call in July; his unbridled confidence in the power of Google to virtually master the world was palpable over the Internet. Schmidt started the conference call by extolling:
not just from an information perspective, but also from a monetization perspective We don't see any signs of approaching any limits to this vision. The opportunities before us really are unlimited at this point.
What is the unlimited opportunity Schmidt is targeting? Google believes it is in its power and in its right to be master of the world’s content and ruler of the world’s advertising. According to Schmidt:
we said we are in the search business, so we need all of the information. We want to partner with people to get information so our search end users can see it. We're also in the advertising business, and we'd like to provide advertising services to people who have their own proprietary content. So depending on where we are in that spectrum, we either do an advertising deal or a content deal or a hybrid deal. But ultimately our goal at Google is to have the strongest advertising network and all the world's information, that's part of our mission.
Google is not simply posturing, it is all too serious.
It's a great point. What's acceptable to show and what isn't is entirely a cultural construct, and cultures vary widely. They're basically declaring, "US cultural norms about nudity are the only valid ones" to an international audience of users.
Well, sorry. The US is still the dominant economic force that doesn't have an iron curtain around its internet. This should only be a surprise for Generation Z and the more SJW-y of the later Millennials -- that is, the folks not really living in reality.
Ignoring the obvious double standard issue....
Is this about male toplessness vs female toplessness? If so, that's a sign you don't live in the real world.
If this is about sex vs violence, just take the prevailing opinion in Europe regarding those two concepts and flip them in terms of acceptability.
The fact that this informative post is modded "-1" right now is a sign of how certain types of groupthink outside of distro yelling and anti-M$ posts have gotten to Slashdot as well.
I think his point #2 is probably the most "nutty", but that really does seem like an implementation detail:
2. The way that system calls work is very strange. Most syscalls on x32 enter through their *native* (i.e. not COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE) entry point, and this is intentional. For example, adjtimex() uses the native entry, not the compat entry, because x32's struct timex matches the x86_64 layout. But a handful of syscalls have separate entry points -- these are the syscalls starting at 512. These enter through the COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE entry points.
The x32 syscalls that are *not* in the 512 range violate all semblance of kernel syscall convention. In the syscall handlers, in_compat_syscall() returns true, but the COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE entry is not invoked. This is nutty and risks breaking things when people refactor their syscall implementations. And no one tests these things. Similarly, if someone calls any of the syscalls below 512 but sets bit 31 in RAX, then the native entry will be called with in_compat_set().
x32 support removal is the kind of thing that should be thought long and hard about, because it's the kind of thing that will be nearly impossible to put back in once it's removed. Abstraction layers and edge cases keep us (and the kernel devs) honest, and have some value even if the number of users is small. Additionally, this seems like a classic case of chicken-and-egg with a lesser-used arch variation. Perhaps actual *publicity* after it was put in 6 years ago would have helped; perhaps this story itself will prompt more use.
And although Google is apparently about to widen support and officially allow more devices onto Fi, those "Fi-friendly" phones will still offer the best overall user experience for subscribers, according to the report. It's not yet entirely clear what that means, but we should know more once Google makes a proper announcement.
It should be fairly obvious what that means: more direct (or mandated) integration with Google's caching services at the network, OS, and (probably) baseband layer.
To *some extent* this is actually not incredibly unwarranted, nor unprecedented. But the legacy mobile providers are still not, first and foremost, data collection companies... they're telecommunications providers. Google isn't that, and can no longer be trusted to be that without an abundance of caution.
The term in the industry is "native advertising", when you roll the ad directly into the program without demarcations (eg, vertical blanks before commercials). Usually they're host-read, although sometimes a secondary host will perform the duty. The latter has been very common for game shows in the past.
There's an obvious joke at Millennials' expense here, but for the podcasting community the question reaches a bit deeper. Game show hosts, interviewers, and other "company men" can give a native ad, and even an ostensibly bona-fide endorsement and for the most part the viewership is a) aware they're watching an ad, and b) cognizant that a personality endorsement is as valid as the host itself's reputation.
For podcasters -- especially small-scale podcasters or YouTubers with a small team of 1 or 2 perhaps helping them -- there's more question about how it might affect objectivity in the regular content.
Any modern browser should easily protect you from that kind of attack. That said, any code that is clever enough to skip through your browser's protections is probably also going to be missed by your Anti-Virus software.
I really don't understand this mindset... "Don't run AV software, it's a scam! Just make sure you're on Google Chrome Nightly and ex-filtrate all your browsing data to Alphabet for every HTTP connection" is not a viable strategy.
If you're being spear-phished or hit by a 0-day attack, there's little that a heuristic AV approach will be able to do and you'll need to hope some other part of your defense catches it. But for any other type of threat, AV is a critical part of that security layering for *any* user, not just novice ones. There are plenty of attacks that my AV of choice has caught that native Windows Defender didn't, not to mention other types of unusual behavior it's been able to suppress.
Security isn't about being l33t and trying to prove how long you can last at pwn2own, it's about responsible interfacing with the outside world and with inside threats -- and AV is pretty critical for consumers and desktop enterprises.
You don't believe that global warming is a problem? But how exactly does switching to *economically competitive* wind or solar hurt things?
It might very well be a good idea, but the evaluation takes on a different tone when it's "this has many upsides and fewer downsides" rather than "do this or we'll kill you because we're all gonna die".
Many of the climate groups that have been the most effective are the ones that search for things that all parties can agree on rather than try to impose their (debatable) senses of conclusivity and morality upon the others.
Another great article with details on this was from earlier this year in the NY Times:
Kubrick, according to the transcript of the session in his archive at the University of the Arts London, gave Mr. Rain only a few notes of direction, including:
— “Sound a little more like it’s a peculiar request.”
— “A little more concerned.”
— “Just try it closer and more depressed.”
Though HAL has ice water in his digital veins, he exudes a dry wit and superciliousness that makes me wonder why someone would deliberately program a computer to talk this way. Maybe we should worry about A.I.
When HAL says, “I know I’ve made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal,” Mr. Rain somehow manages to sound both sincere and not reassuring. And his delivery of the line “I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do” has the sarcastic drip of a drawing-room melodrama and also carries the disinterested vibe of a polite sociopath.
Really the biggest problem I see, is how Gen X and Millennials are getting blocked out of their advancement tracks. When people in their 60+ are not retiring, that is creating a workforce where it is difficult to for the younger folks to advance in, because these promotion jobs are already covered by people with more experience.
I don't know that that's necessarily the case for Gen X'ers. Yes, there are Boomers still around, but as a late-Gen X/very early Gen Y, I can't say that I've noticed deserving folks in my age range *not* being promoted appropriately.
As for the Millennials -- yes, they're having problems. I think their issue wasn't (and isn't) so much the lack of room on the promotion path as it was a late start in the entry path. Plenty of later Millennials (Recession-era Digital Natives, not the Gen Y'ers) have a retarded (technical term) work ethic and working world expectations. It's not entirely their fault -- at about they time they should have been learning about the real world, everyone stopped hiring and companies looked at productivity increasing and capital expenditure investments, followed by increases in labor costs (minimum wage, ACA, etc.... #ThanksObama) further causing issues with on ramps.
So they decided to continue in graduate school or volunteer causes or whatever, which probably further didn't help them prepare for the working world. If you come out of your Masters program at age 24 with no work experience at all (not even at McDonalds) and a lot of debt, it's hard to start.
Gen Xers, though? I think we're doing okay. We just get forgotten about while the Millennials and Boomers take pot-shots at each other.
One of the best guides I ever read was the Prima one for Uru: Ages Beyond Myst. Since Uru was a meta, alternative reality game taking place in the real world -- in which the original Myst games were put out by Cyna to help spread the word about the "real" D'ni civilization discovered underground in New Mexico -- the Prima guide was written as a completely first person account, leading others through the journey that the writer (a "former games guide writer") had taken.
It was really rather imaginative and very well done... And remember, this was 2003, before some of these other meta-tricks became more common place. RIP Prima:/ https://www.amazon.com/URU-Beyond-Primas-Official-Strategy/dp/0761544704/
Cash cards are a thing. Just line up at the local speedy mart with the other homeless people and you are good to go.
DCB requires nothing more than the billing method you're already using. For whatever the service is, they have no billing data other than the info they already have (the phone number).
2. Credit cards are LESS secure than DCB (direct carrier billing).
Credit cards are VERY secure. I have a federally mandated right to dispute charges. Cash (debit) cards, less so. But there are regulations covering these as well. I am comfortable with them.
The only thing more secure than payment method X is payment method N/A. And if you're being super paranoid, you don't have to head into your local speedy mart, use a throw-away account, whatever. Deal directly with the phone company. This is, after all, why services like Paypal remain popular -- I don't have to provide more billing data, just authorization and they vendor and billing provider handle it back and forth with a token of some type.
As far as challenging billing, I suspect that depends more on your provider than anything else (subject to regulation). Yes, in the pre-Internet world there were lots of horror stories about this, but the relatively few times I've done DCB (for example, on a second line) I've had no issues with and never been overcharged for. YMMV.
The problem is, there is IT as in -- a person working at a hotel that handles "making shit work" with no coding or internal dev involved.
And then there is IT, in a firm which does development work... along with pushing that work to clients/for themselves/to live.
The second IT example? Needs to be a coder, or at least very much understand the technical issues coders will have. The first doesn't even need to be all that comprehensively trained.
I've worked in IT for decades, but as someone that *enables* coders to get their job done. I've also acted as the gateway for coders, ensuring that idiocy doesn't cause explosions.
I think this really hits the nail on the head... But it also highlights an important part: IT is not your product, and once IT is going beyond "allow the devs to get laptops working and their local apps to function", you're really in a separate area. At a previous location I worked at, there was a giant line between Corporate IT and, what we called for lack of a better term, Cloud Infrastructure (even though it wasn't a cloud, it was just our server farm).
If you're administering a server that sends data out to customers, you're not IMHO doing "IT" any more.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet I can't help wondering how much of it is really just people who resist change because they don't want to learn something new. The init/upstart process was easy enough to understand but clinky and as full of problems as systemd really. Except, of course of the most common use cases where it had been worked out.
Gonna call citation needed on that, especially if you're combining them as "init/upstart".
upstart, when primarily running as a traditional SysV init (meaning handle initial setup procedureally, then execute an rc script which executes a series of rc#.d/ scripts, which is how upstart was used in RHEL6, for example, was neither "clinky" nor "as full of problems as systemd".
A primary reason so many people have problems with systemd is that it intermingles the complexity along its entire axis of execution instead of isolating it in a discrete manner. Any time you have event-based management you have the potential for intermittent problems, race condition security issues, memory bugs, etc.
In previous init systems, persistent management or event mechanisms hung *OFF* the init path and only affected their own children or the services under their control if something went wrong. (This goes for all service managers: inet, xinetd, supervise, whatever.) Meanwhile, the init path is controlled by one-time scripts and as minimal an event mechanism in PID1 as possible.
Now, all that complexity happens as PID1, or communicates back to PID1, or relies on IPC between the two that is not particularly tight and isolated. Waaaaay more potential for chaos results here, which is why these types of holes are more and more likely to occur.
Except it's not California's land. The National Parks belong to all Americans.
Well, ish. It's a bit more complicated than that, and the political split probably depends on if you live in the Eastern or Western US, and whether you're a "traditional" Western resident (ie, fiercely protective of land rights and local control) or a progressive one (ie, "yay centralization and control!")
For a nice overview, take a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LruaD7XhQ50
"Yes. Number of players: zero"
Suspenseful music begins
Biking in San Diego is generally done "by choice", either for recreation or sport. The beach communities, downtown, and the few other flat neighborhood regions that exist are really the only locations where it's a reasonable option for anything else (i.e., short term commuting).
Sadly, my concern there is that I probably can't trust the app. Especially if it's Chinese.
There's a "non-cloud" 2-way pet camera I picked up on the cheap, but the phone app it connects to requests every permission under the sun. No thanks. I'd actually prefer it to run a small embedded web server since at least then I could FW it off and be aware of what on net might be able to reach it. With an app on my phone, the risk gets just that much bigger.
Technically you can take the Coaster in San Diego up to Oceanside, where you can link up with some other service (Metrolink?), but I can't imagine any normal person doing that for work.
Southern California just doesn't have the density for that kind of regional rail, and in order to make it work financially you'd need to convert the relevant parts to something approaching that. No way that happens any time soon, and probably not ever here in San Diego.
divert a large proportion of its tax revenue away from services that help poor citizens (like the police department and forest management)
Isn't San Diego the city where the police stopped responding unless someone was shot? Story seems to confirm that was the case in 2011, and still mostly the case now.
As for Fire Management, I think last month speaks for itself.
So where do they cut to make the payments? Your suggestions have already been done.
VOSD is a bit slanted when it comes to that. I'd take a look at the average POV of all the various local media to get a better view on things. Basically, no that's not the case.
Back on topic, San Diego is one of the few West Coast cities that's made its light rail system work and not sink into the red by focusing on commuter corridors, gradual expansion, and using existing right-of-ways. That said, like all CA cities it was not laid out with transit in mind and San Diegans as a whole are not in favor of converting to the types of density that would be necessary to make more transit financially viable. San Diego has a 30-block downtown core, and from there out it's mostly single family detached homes for the entire rest of the urbanized county. I grew up riding public transit because I used it to get to school, but no one who lives here uses it unless they have to or they live directly on the commuter corridor.
Sadly, no one has quite told the Progressives this. San Diego has been trending from center-right to center/slightly-left; Dems finally have control of the SD City Council, and have forced SANDAG changes that gives the urban areas more say on regional transportation. What have they done? Diverted resources from road maintenance to transit programs, and replaced lanes on the streets with bike lanes in some bizarre belief that ANYONE will commute via bike to work.
The only reason there hasn't already been a pushback against the effects of this has been Trump's general depressive effect on R turnout and Independents voting for R's. When/if that goes away, the Dems need to get their local planning back inline with reality or there'll be quite the pendulum shift back.
Per one of the better Reddit threads on this, the internal issue was pretty much the worst-case scenario for losing access to everything everywhere at once, and without alternate mechanisms for getting into places:
So what is your solution to increase the address space for law abiding people but avoid the problems you highlight?
This isn't IPv4. We're not running out of space in traditional gTLDs, country codes, or the secondary and tertiary level domains in the countries that have them.
If you want to sell shoes online and shoes.com is taken, "shoes.shop" is not a solution to your trademark, branding, or advertising problem. You can pick a broader "domain name" within the existing TLD that more uniquely identifies yourself, *OR* you can use delegated subdomains for your small local shop. The bigger issue is that the giant influx of new gTLD is completely ontologically offensive . That's where the anger comes -- this was an absurd cash grab that ICANN should remain forever ashamed of.
Also keep in mind that "shoes.shop" does nothing that "shoes.shop.com" couldn't do. We're not running out of space in any meaningful manner.
Archive.org admits that their IP range was explicitly blocked.
This is like saying "Hey, I noticed there was a lock on the front door, so I went in the back. Clearly, this was the proper thing. There was never a lock there before!"
Nevermind that the very presence of the lock, indicates that the building's owner wishes to restrict entry.
That seems fuzzy though. Explicitly blocked *because they're Archive.org*? Or explicitly blocked because they're making 100's of thousands of connections while they try to download 85% of the entire website in a few hours?
Google famously said it wanted to index "all the world's information", but we all know that information is power... That's all the world's power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
This wasn't new, but the warnings about it in the mid-2000's were out-shined by the distractions of the new technical advances Google was bringing (AJAX, Web 2.0, etc...), followed by the "data fetishists" that came into cultural and philosophical power around the time of the Obama Administration.
Perhaps if we'd taken better heed of the warnings signs, we'd be in a different place now. Here's ZDnet back in the day: https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-targeting-all-the-worlds-content-and-all-your-information/
It's a great point. What's acceptable to show and what isn't is entirely a cultural construct, and cultures vary widely. They're basically declaring, "US cultural norms about nudity are the only valid ones" to an international audience of users.
Well, sorry. The US is still the dominant economic force that doesn't have an iron curtain around its internet. This should only be a surprise for Generation Z and the more SJW-y of the later Millennials -- that is, the folks not really living in reality.
Ignoring the obvious double standard issue....
Is this about male toplessness vs female toplessness? If so, that's a sign you don't live in the real world.
If this is about sex vs violence, just take the prevailing opinion in Europe regarding those two concepts and flip them in terms of acceptability.
That's not the point... Just because OSS is involved doesn't mean Google isn't asserting dominating control over the Internet.
This is not something to cheer on no matter how much irony there may be in Microsoft being the victim this time.
The fact that this informative post is modded "-1" right now is a sign of how certain types of groupthink outside of distro yelling and anti-M$ posts have gotten to Slashdot as well.
Here's the LKML post that kicked it off, if you don't want to click through: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/10/1145
I think his point #2 is probably the most "nutty", but that really does seem like an implementation detail:
x32 support removal is the kind of thing that should be thought long and hard about, because it's the kind of thing that will be nearly impossible to put back in once it's removed. Abstraction layers and edge cases keep us (and the kernel devs) honest, and have some value even if the number of users is small. Additionally, this seems like a classic case of chicken-and-egg with a lesser-used arch variation. Perhaps actual *publicity* after it was put in 6 years ago would have helped; perhaps this story itself will prompt more use.
It should be fairly obvious what that means: more direct (or mandated) integration with Google's caching services at the network, OS, and (probably) baseband layer.
To *some extent* this is actually not incredibly unwarranted, nor unprecedented. But the legacy mobile providers are still not, first and foremost, data collection companies... they're telecommunications providers. Google isn't that, and can no longer be trusted to be that without an abundance of caution.
The term in the industry is "native advertising", when you roll the ad directly into the program without demarcations (eg, vertical blanks before commercials). Usually they're host-read, although sometimes a secondary host will perform the duty. The latter has been very common for game shows in the past.
There's an obvious joke at Millennials' expense here, but for the podcasting community the question reaches a bit deeper. Game show hosts, interviewers, and other "company men" can give a native ad, and even an ostensibly bona-fide endorsement and for the most part the viewership is a) aware they're watching an ad, and b) cognizant that a personality endorsement is as valid as the host itself's reputation.
For podcasters -- especially small-scale podcasters or YouTubers with a small team of 1 or 2 perhaps helping them -- there's more question about how it might affect objectivity in the regular content.
Any modern browser should easily protect you from that kind of attack. That said, any code that is clever enough to skip through your browser's protections is probably also going to be missed by your Anti-Virus software.
I really don't understand this mindset... "Don't run AV software, it's a scam! Just make sure you're on Google Chrome Nightly and ex-filtrate all your browsing data to Alphabet for every HTTP connection" is not a viable strategy.
If you're being spear-phished or hit by a 0-day attack, there's little that a heuristic AV approach will be able to do and you'll need to hope some other part of your defense catches it. But for any other type of threat, AV is a critical part of that security layering for *any* user, not just novice ones. There are plenty of attacks that my AV of choice has caught that native Windows Defender didn't, not to mention other types of unusual behavior it's been able to suppress.
Security isn't about being l33t and trying to prove how long you can last at pwn2own, it's about responsible interfacing with the outside world and with inside threats -- and AV is pretty critical for consumers and desktop enterprises.
You don't believe that global warming is a problem? But how exactly does switching to *economically competitive* wind or solar hurt things?
It might very well be a good idea, but the evaluation takes on a different tone when it's "this has many upsides and fewer downsides" rather than "do this or we'll kill you because we're all gonna die".
Many of the climate groups that have been the most effective are the ones that search for things that all parties can agree on rather than try to impose their (debatable) senses of conclusivity and morality upon the others.
Another great article with details on this was from earlier this year in the NY Times:
Really the biggest problem I see, is how Gen X and Millennials are getting blocked out of their advancement tracks. When people in their 60+ are not retiring, that is creating a workforce where it is difficult to for the younger folks to advance in, because these promotion jobs are already covered by people with more experience.
I don't know that that's necessarily the case for Gen X'ers. Yes, there are Boomers still around, but as a late-Gen X/very early Gen Y, I can't say that I've noticed deserving folks in my age range *not* being promoted appropriately.
As for the Millennials -- yes, they're having problems. I think their issue wasn't (and isn't) so much the lack of room on the promotion path as it was a late start in the entry path. Plenty of later Millennials (Recession-era Digital Natives, not the Gen Y'ers) have a retarded (technical term) work ethic and working world expectations. It's not entirely their fault -- at about they time they should have been learning about the real world, everyone stopped hiring and companies looked at productivity increasing and capital expenditure investments, followed by increases in labor costs (minimum wage, ACA, etc.... #ThanksObama) further causing issues with on ramps.
So they decided to continue in graduate school or volunteer causes or whatever, which probably further didn't help them prepare for the working world. If you come out of your Masters program at age 24 with no work experience at all (not even at McDonalds) and a lot of debt, it's hard to start.
Gen Xers, though? I think we're doing okay. We just get forgotten about while the Millennials and Boomers take pot-shots at each other.
One of the best guides I ever read was the Prima one for Uru: Ages Beyond Myst. Since Uru was a meta, alternative reality game taking place in the real world -- in which the original Myst games were put out by Cyna to help spread the word about the "real" D'ni civilization discovered underground in New Mexico -- the Prima guide was written as a completely first person account, leading others through the journey that the writer (a "former games guide writer") had taken.
It was really rather imaginative and very well done... And remember, this was 2003, before some of these other meta-tricks became more common place. RIP Prima :/
https://www.amazon.com/URU-Beyond-Primas-Official-Strategy/dp/0761544704/
1. Not everyone has a credit card.
Cash cards are a thing. Just line up at the local speedy mart with the other homeless people and you are good to go.
DCB requires nothing more than the billing method you're already using. For whatever the service is, they have no billing data other than the info they already have (the phone number).
2. Credit cards are LESS secure than DCB (direct carrier billing).
Credit cards are VERY secure. I have a federally mandated right to dispute charges. Cash (debit) cards, less so. But there are regulations covering these as well. I am comfortable with them.
The only thing more secure than payment method X is payment method N/A. And if you're being super paranoid, you don't have to head into your local speedy mart, use a throw-away account, whatever. Deal directly with the phone company. This is, after all, why services like Paypal remain popular -- I don't have to provide more billing data, just authorization and they vendor and billing provider handle it back and forth with a token of some type.
As far as challenging billing, I suspect that depends more on your provider than anything else (subject to regulation). Yes, in the pre-Internet world there were lots of horror stories about this, but the relatively few times I've done DCB (for example, on a second line) I've had no issues with and never been overcharged for. YMMV.
I could see Nevada following suit to just to keep weekend gamblers from California.
Nevada does not give two whits about Californian time keeping, and casinos are proactively designed to mask what time it might be outside anyway.
If you're Californian and want to get to Vegas an hour earlier, speed.
The problem is, there is IT as in -- a person working at a hotel that handles "making shit work" with no coding or internal dev involved.
And then there is IT, in a firm which does development work... along with pushing that work to clients/for themselves/to live.
The second IT example? Needs to be a coder, or at least very much understand the technical issues coders will have. The first doesn't even need to be all that comprehensively trained.
I've worked in IT for decades, but as someone that *enables* coders to get their job done. I've also acted as the gateway for coders, ensuring that idiocy doesn't cause explosions.
I think this really hits the nail on the head... But it also highlights an important part: IT is not your product, and once IT is going beyond "allow the devs to get laptops working and their local apps to function", you're really in a separate area. At a previous location I worked at, there was a giant line between Corporate IT and, what we called for lack of a better term, Cloud Infrastructure (even though it wasn't a cloud, it was just our server farm).
If you're administering a server that sends data out to customers, you're not IMHO doing "IT" any more.