9·
4 months agoAnyone who has any idea about the german bureaucracy hellscape knows this is far from sufficient to deal with any issue whatsoever.
Maybe that’s contractable.
- 2 Posts
- 21 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: October 4th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
2·4 months agoIf it’s viable to run someone else, I’m pretty sure that it has to happen almost immediately, if it’s going to happen. The primaries have already happened, so if someone gets run, it’d have to be the party picking them already, and there’s very limited time to campaign.
The general election is November 5. It’s currently July 17. That’s three-and-a-half months in which someone would have to sell themselves to the public.
goes back to look at presidents who didn’t run again
https://www.britannica.com/story/have-any-us-presidents-decided-not-to-run-for-a-second-term
Johnson is not the only U.S. president who decided not to seek a second elected term. The others are James K. Polk, James Buchanan, Rutherford B. Hayes, Calvin Coolidge, and Harry S. Truman. (Theodore Roosevelt declined to run in 1908, after being elected president in 1904 and serving one term, but he again sought the office—and lost—as a third-party candidate in 1912.)
-
LBJ did it prior to the primaries, at the end of March of the election year.
-
Polk apparently promised in his initial campaign that he would only serve one term, so it was known long in advance.
-
Buchanan promised in his inaugural speech that he would serve only one term, so it was known almost as far in advance.
-
Hayes apparently also pledged not to run for re-election.
-
Coolidge apparently announced the summer prior to the election year, so over a year prior to the general election.
-
Truman did it at the end of March of the election year. So relatively-close, but still with seven months to go.
-
Teddy Roosevelt apparently announced after being elected the first time that he would not seek a second term.
So looks like the closest equivalent would be LBJ and Truman, and they still did so at the end of March in the election year, with twice the amount of time remaining that’s still left for 2024, and before the primaries.
Like, I don’t think that it’d be realistic to wait and see what happens in the polls and then have someone run with even less time.
-
Maybe Biden actually does plan to announce that he’s not running in the 2024 general election. That way, this scores some political points with Democratic voters, but doesn’t impact the election much.
Other than that, I don’t really see how this makes sense politically. I dunno. Maybe his team has done some kind of analysis and is convinced that a particular demographic in the swing states that they’re trying to win will like this or something, so it might be disadvantageous nationwide but a win locally.
Yeah, I gotta say that making the election a referendum on Trump personally seems a whole lot more likely to be successful than making it a referendum on the federal AWB. That wasn’t a political success story for the Democrats.
But, I dunno. Maybe his team has some kind of angle, like they’re trying to move some critical demographic that they think that they can influence.
EDIT: I gotta say that aside from the question of whether it’s a good policy or whether it’s a good move politically, every time it sounds like a ban is proposed, it sets off a massive wave of firearms sales, so I’d guess that firearms vendors are going to have a good time.
kagis
It looks like there are enough people now who explicitly don’t want those that some retailers do have a category for them.
I know how Microsoft can increase battery life by between roughly 50%-100%, depending on model.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/devices/surface-laptop-7th-edition
Battery capacities34
Surface Laptop 13.8”: Battery Capacity Nominal (Wh) 54 Battery Capacity Min (Wh) 52
Surface Laptop 15”: Battery Capacity Nominal (Wh) 66 Battery Capacity Min (Wh) 64
Offer a 100 Wh battery.
Not an area I’m familiar with, but this user says no:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40918052
lashkari 5 hours ago | prev | next [–]
If it’s really accessible from *.google.com, wouldn’t this be simple to verify/exploit by using Google Sites (they publish your site to sites.google.com/view/<sitename>)?
DownrightNifty 5 hours ago | parent | next [–]
JS on Google Sites, Apps Script, etc. runs on *.googleusercontent.com, otherwise cookie-stealing XSS >happens.
Nvidia is worth about $3 trillion at this point. France’s GDP is about that each year.
Video of the accidental ascent
https://www.verizon.com/coverage-map/
This shows that Verizon has good coverage in part of Wanaque, moderate coverage in part, and no coverage in part.
The planning board’s decision was based on health concerns due to the possible negative environmental impact of telecommunication on the residents, especially the children studying at the school who could potentially be exposed to electromagnetic radiation. The town felt the residents would be ‘unsafe’ due to radio frequencies and rejected the company’s notion of building the tower on the land.
I mean, I think that the planning board is idiotic, but I don’t see why T-Mobile cares enough to fight it. If they don’t build it, okay. It looks like the school in question is right in the middle of town. Then Wanaque is going to have crummy cell coverage. Let them have bad cell coverage and build a tower somewhere else. It’s not like this is the world’s only place that could use better cell coverage. The main people who benefit from the coverage are Wanaque residents. Sure, okay, there’s some secondary benefit to travelers, but if we get to the point that all the dead zones that travelers pass through out there are covered, then cell providers can go worry about places that are determined not to have have cell coverage.
If I were cell companies, I’d just get together with the rest of the industry and start publishing a coverage score for cities for cell coverage. Put it online in some accessible database format, so that when places like city-data.com put up data on a city, they also show that the city has poor cell coverage and that would-be residents are aware of the fact.
I mean, you can probably create something akin to a god, but I don’t see as to whether it being open source or not would change that.
I don’t really have a problem with this – I think that it’s rarely in a consumer’s interest to choose a locked phone. Buying a locked phone basically means that you’re getting a loan to pay for hardware that you pay back with a higher service price. But I’d point out that:
-
You can get unlocked phones and service now. I do. There are some privacy benefits to doing so – my cell provider doesn’t know who I am (though they could maybe infer it from usage patterns of their network and statistical analysis). It’s not a lack of unlocked service that’s at issue. To do this, Congress is basically arguing that the American consumer is just making a bad decision to purchase a plan-combined-with-a-locked-phone and forcing them not to do so.
-
Consumers will pay more for cell phones up front. That’s not necessarily a bad thing – it maybe makes the carrier market more competitive to not have a large portion of consumers locked to one provider. But there are also some benefits to having the carrier selecting cell phones that they offer in that the provider is probably in a better position to evaluate what phone manufacturers have on offer in terms of things like failure rates than do consumers.
-
I don’t see why they wouldn’t, or couldn’t do this
There are only 52 organizations that Firefox trusts to act as CAs. An ISP isn’t normally going to be on there.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA/Included_Certificates
https://ccadb.my.salesforce-sites.com/mozilla/CACertificatesInFirefoxReport
If whatever cert is presented by a remote website doesn’t have a certificate signed by one of those 52 organizations, your browser is going to throw up a warning page instead of showing content. KT Corporation, the ISP in question, isn’t one of those organizations.
They can go create a CA if they want, but it doesn’t do them any good unless it’s trusted by Firefox (or whatever browser people use, but I’m using Firefox, and I expect that basically the same CAs will be trusted by any browser, so…)
If ISP routers are anything like the west that means they control the DNS servers and the ones on router cannot be changed, and likely it blocks 1.1.1.1 and 8.8.8.8 and so on, as Virgin Media does (along with blocking secure DNS) in the UK for example, which definitely opens up a massive attack vector for an ISP to spin up its own website with a verified cert and malware and have the DNS resolve to that when users try to access it to either download the software needed to access this Grid System or if it’s a web portal - the portal itself.
Browser page integrity – if you’re using https – doesn’t rely on DNS responses.
If I go to “foobar.com”, there has to be a valid cert for “foobar.com”. My ISP can’t get a valid cert for foobar.com unless it has a way to insert its own CA into my browser’s list of trusted CAs (which is what some business IT departments do so that they cans snoop on traffic, but an ISP probably won’t be able to do, since they don’t have access to your computer) or has access to a trusted CA’s key, as per above.
They can make your browser go to the wrong IP address, but they can’t make that IP address present information over https that your browser believes to belong to a valid site.
I’d also add, on an unrelated note, that if the concern is bandwidth usage, which is what the article says, I don’t see why the ISP doesn’t just throttle users, based entirely on bandwidth usage. Like, sure, there are BitTorrent users that use colossal amounts of bandwidth, will cause problems for pricing based on overselling bandwidth, which is the norm for consumer broadband.
But you don’t need to do some kind of expensive, risky, fragile, and probably liability-issue-inducing attack on BitTorrent if your concern is bandwidth usage. Just start throttling down bandwidth as usage rises, regardless of protocol. Nobody ever gets cut off, but if they’re using way above their share of bandwidth, they’re gonna have a slower connection. Hell, go offer to sell them a higher-bandwidth package. You don’t lose money, nobody is installing malware, you don’t have the problem come right back as soon as some new bandwidth-munching program shows up (YouTube?), etc.
I don’t really understand the attack vector the ISP is using, unless it’s exploiting some kind of flaw in higher-level software than BitTorrent itself.
A torrent should be identified uniquely by a hash in a magnet URL.
When a BitTorrent user obtains a hash, as long as it’s from an https webpage, the ISP shouldn’t be able to spoof the hash. You’d have to either get your own key added to a browser’s keystore or have access to one of the trusted CA’s keys for that.
Once you have the hash, you should be able to find and validate the Merkle hash tree from the DHT. Unless you’ve broken SHA and can generate collisions – which an ISP isn’t going to – you shouldn’t be able to feed a user a bogus hash tree from the DHT.
Once you have the hash tree, you shouldn’t be able to feed a user any complete chunks that are bogus unless you’ve broken the hash function in BitTorrent’s tree (which I think is also SHA). You can feed them up to one byte short of a chunk, try and sandbag a download, but once they get all the data, they should be able to reject a chunk that doesn’t hash to the expected value in the tree.
I don’t see how you can reasonably attack the BitTorrent protocol, ISP or no, to try and inject malware. Maybe some higher level protocol or software package.
Five Guys does milkshakes with bacon. I’d think that bacon ice cream would work.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
“Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo” is a grammatically correct sentence in English that is often presented as an example of how homonyms and homophones can be used to create complicated linguistic constructs through lexical ambiguity.
Ah, you’re right, news just coming out about it today.