Certificate transparency and the fact that Chrome only trusts leaf certificates that are in multiple log servers stop governments or rouge CA’s from doing a ssl mitm(or at least doing so quietly).
Well I would love to trust that, but if you go to the main police station in Stockholm Sweden and use their WiFi they proudly show you how they can read and modify your HTTPS traffic without your device so much flinching with their root cert.
Upvoted simply because this claim is so astonishing. If you can back this up I implore you to provide as much technical information and proof as possible, because the PKI managers for the major browser vendors would certainly revoke certificates for this.
This person has claimed that video games like starcraft won't be playable in the future due to power constraints and that 10 gigabit networking is impossible due to using too much power (no explanation for why it already exists). They have also claimed that 2012 atom CPUs are the pinnacle of CPU design so I wouldn't invest much into thinking you will get a real explanation.
I already told you to have power backup for 24+ hours for what can saturate 10Gb/s you need more than ~8x 15kg lead-acid batteries = Not practical.
25W Atom 14nm CPU is the best middle ground between 80W Xeon and 15W Jetson Nano. It is what you need to load balance saturation of 1Gb/s = Final decentralized node.
StarCraft might be playable, StarCraft 2 however will be a privilege.
Nothing you said here makes any sense at all. People are out there using 10 gigabit networking. There are benchmarks that show how slow the atom cpus are. There no power shortage. Why do you believe these ideas?
To be clear here, you are predicting the future and in that future there is for some reason not enough power to play a game from 12 years ago, even though it can be played on a 65W AMD chip. You realize that refrigerators, space heaters and air conditioners take about 10x-30x the amount of power you are saying won't be available in the future right?
The burden of proof is on the people who make the (ridiculous) claims.
With that price you are paying almost $1 per day of running your 65W computer.
That's $30 per month just to keep the computer gaming during daytime.
There is no roof for how high prices or inflation can go.
Other gear are more important than entertainment, people will not consume games when they are hungry or cold (though computers help with that somewhat).
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that nuclear is heating the planet more than CO2, the efficiency of nuclear is 35% so for every KWh of electricity you heat the planet with 3 KWh.
3KWh that the planet has to radiate into space that did not get added during any time before.
We are slowly boiling the planet, like frogs in a casserole.
Eventually you wont have the energy, money or time to play anything.
That's $30 per month just to keep the computer gaming during daytime.
No it is not. 65W is the max amount of power. 10 hours a day every day at max is still a little over $4 per month. TVs, refrigerators electric heating and air conditioning are all 20x the impact of an average computer.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that nuclear is heating the planet more than CO2
You should not go out on a limb for anything. You should read and stop guessing.
Where are you getting your ideas? Source something, link anything that supports what you are saying.
“…(we can't create machine learning models from your data to improve the experience for other customers, for example, without your prior consent..”
Which if added as a new privacy setting to workspaces later on would seem to imply that this change of removing the org wide opt-out is really how Google could build the right conditions necessary to get users to “opt-in” when they really have not expressed any interest in doing so while making it a large enough task for admins to fail to achieve 100% enforcement of the organization’s actual desired configuration state… and hides the real intent of the change.
Sorry but “we are opting all your users into this and removing your ability to stop us” is an odd change that is being driven by something other than the feedback org admins. I have a hard time believing that normal users will see enough of an improvement to warrant even mentioning their email search to their boss but do find it probable that admins will mention being forcibly overruled by Google to others that help influence renewal… just seems like something else is the driver and the end goal.
imo believing that this change is being driven by good intent wouldn’t be so difficult if the change to make workplace privacy settings a user-only controlled setting if it inherited the current organization stance. Some users would enable it and if it really does improve the user experience so much then others will adopt it when they see it’s effects in action or get the “well I don’t have that problem” comment from a coworker(this is how Google search, Chrome and Gmail got to their levels of adoption after all). As of right now though it sounds like all the other messaging that we have to put up with which after awhile is to take as anything other than “you are trying to steal something from me”.
At least it’s not a setting that can only be saved in the browser’s local storage and not at the account level like so many other annoying things that get pushed(looking at you YouTube).
I don't think that argument really holds up when Robinhood is the subject. I mean they still don't even have phone support or same day guarantees covering them responding to your email.
They didn't two models ago and there was a special kernel hack/package installed specifically to keep the windows key from doing anything since there wasn't an accompanying license, it took less than a minute to remove but still annoying.
The last model didn't have that keyblock though so I guess they got over it.
Setting a Googlebot UA will work for any low tech filter, besides looking at the ASN of the source IP or the javascript engine behavior I'm not sure what else sites could really do to figure it out sans coordinating with Google to define the indexer source(browsing/click pattern maybe).
There's bound to be at least one googler in this thread and since the ASN check would be the hardest to fake and easiest to setup... someone go change their UA and go to nytimes or something from the office and see if it works(bonus points for any SRE who does it from a data center).
Users giving non-exclusive royalty free rights to the content and for the site to use it however they see fit being in the ToS is pretty standard(especially for comment based data)...
Not sure how you are expecting sites that are driven by the userbase to exist since your phrasing sounds like you believe providing all of the infrastructure, management and marketing for information isn't enough to morally receive payment for that information.
Because often the image that was indexed was in the related/other area of the page and is not on the page when you click on the link. Ever since Google removed the direct link to image feature from the search results page anything from pinterest.com is basically SEO spam.
> Because often the image that was indexed was in the related/other area of the page and is not on the page when you click on the link.
Every time I've been affected I could find the image in a couple of seconds of scrolling
> Ever since Google removed the direct link to image feature from the search results page
It's easy to add it back. Most of the people here (me included) use ad blockers, downloaders and stuff like probably violating the Google user agreement, they should not have any problem installing a small userscript/extension to forget about this problem as well.
No chance at this point, traders might have a non-zero risk of a fraud charge of some sort since they are purposefully misrepresenting the value of their account in order to get credit but RH is going to get stuck with the vast majority of the bill.
