For the record, yes you need a pilot’s license to fly a hot air balloon.
And yes the “balloon police” (aka the FAA in the United States) or their equivalent governing body in other countries will stop you, and fine you.
For the record, yes you need a pilot’s license to fly a hot air balloon.
And yes the “balloon police” (aka the FAA in the United States) or their equivalent governing body in other countries will stop you, and fine you.
It’s ridiculously unusual for a board to actually fire a CEO. Usually if the board thinks a new CEO is needed, even if the CEO doesn’t agree with the decision, there’s a transition plan announced the CEO “stepping down”, or “steps aside”, of the “next phase of growth” or whatever. It has a massive positive spin on it and the departing CEO is paid a ridiculous severance to go along with the plan publicly.
It’s very negative press to have to outright fire a CEO. Especially in a case like this when the CEO saw the company through the kind of growth that every startup has wet dreams about.
Something huge happened, and the world is speculating rampantly about what that was.
So for this attack to work, the attacker needs to be able to run a malicious DHCP server on the target machine’s network.
Meaning they need to have already compromised your local network either physically in person or by compromising a device on that network. If you’ve gotten that far you can already do a lot of damage without this attack.
For the average person this is yet another non-issue. But if you regularly use a VPN over untrusted networks like a hotel or coffee shop wifi then, in theory, an attacker could get your traffic to route outside the VPN tunnel.
One IT security team insisted we have separate source code repositories for production and development environments.
I’m honestly not sure how they thought that would work.
Sometimes ChatGPT/copilot’s code predictions are scary good. Sometimes they’re batshit crazy. If you have the experience to be able to tell the difference, it’s a great help.
You’re trying to take a prescriptivist position on the meaning of the word “homophobia”, defining it as meaning “fear of homosexuality or homosexuals”.
But English doesn’t work that way. English words are defined descriptively not prescriptively. The definition of a word is changed to match how people use the word. When a word is commonly used with a new meaning the people who make dictionaries will change the definition to match how the word is used.
Homophobia can describe a fear or homosexuality, but it’s more commonly used to describe hostility or discrimination against homosexuals.
And as a result the Oxford English Dictionary now defines homophobia as “Hostility towards, prejudice against, or (less commonly) fear of homosexual people or homosexuality.”
Most words that end in -phobia do generally just describe a fear. But when we’re talking about a class of people, words ending in -phobia (e.g transphobia, Islamophobia, etc) we tend to use the hate, prejudice, and hostility meaning instead.
It doesn’t matter that “phobias” were at one time exclusively just irrational fears. If the majority of English speakers use the word to describe hate, that’s its meaning.
If anything, we now need a new word to describe “fear of homosexuality without prejudice towards homosexuals”. Because homophobia already means, to use your words, “a hatred of gay people”.
I find it humorous that y’all think it’s only the company you worked at that had a fragile tech solution held together (sometimes literally) with duct tape and coat hangers, as part of a mission critical business process.
Pretty much every company big or tiny has at least one permanent “temporary” solution in place.
Climate change isn’t caused by just using fossil fuels to make a product, it’s caused by burning fossil fuels releasing greenhouse gasses, (primarily carbon dioxide and methane), into the environment.
Asphalt is a problematic material, but not so much because it’s made from oil. It’s problematic because we burn fossil fuels to harvest the raw crude and to generate the energy needed to refine crude into asphalt. The carbon in the asphalt itself remains sequestered there and doesn’t contribute to the greenhouse effect as long as it isn’t burned later.
If we figured out how to extract crude and generate the vast amount of energy needed to manufacture asphalt without actually burning fossil fuels we’d eliminate the vast majority of asphalt’s impact on climate change.
In fact it’s been shown in a lab that it’s possible to make asphalt from CO2. It’s currently cost prohibitive to do so, but in theory asphalt could be part of the solution to climate change.
Now Asphalt does have other environmental issues, like leaching toxic chemicals into the soil and water table and the fact that it’s usually black which absorbs more the sun’s radiation than almost anything else which would reflect more of the sun’s energy back out into space. But those problems aren’t necessarily solved by using non-petroleum based bioasphault, nor are they unsolvable with bitumen based asphalt.
About 20% of a barrel of oil gets made into products like plastics or foam, that’s not what’s causing climate change. What causing climate change is the 80% that gets refined and burned for cheep energy. So it’s less “Just stop oil” and more “Just stop burning oil”
The economics of Bitcoin mining are a bit weird in that it impossible to make it more energy efficient.
The system auto adjusts the computational complexity of mining bitcoin so that it always costs a little less than one bitcoin to mine a bitcoin, and at scale the only variable expense is electricity so as the price of bitcoin goes up, so does the amount of money that must be spent on electricity.
Current 6.25 Bitcoin are mined every 10 minutes. So globally about $2 million must be spent on electricity every hour.
In a little over 2 months the block reward cuts in half to only 3.125 bitcoin every 10 minutes. That will have the side effect of reducing the money spent on electricity for mining bitcoin so long as the price of bitcoin remains the same.
This is great to see.
80% of carbon offsets are creative accounting at best and bold-faced lies at worst.
If you don’t agree I’ve got a ~a bridge~ I mean some Carbon Offsets for sale.
The pro-lifers that think there should just be an exceptions when mother’s life is at risk need to also hear that the Texas law already has an exemption for when a doctor uses their "reasonable medical judgment" that the life of the mother is at risk or the pregnancy poses "a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function."
All pregnancies are a risk to the mother’s life, anytime a doctor performs an abortion in Texas they risk losing their license, and possibly even prison time. Which is why we have these case of mothers with unviable pregnancies that aren’t terminated until they’re almost dead.
If you care about life, why on earth would you support a law that takes informed medical decisions away from doctors and their patients to put it in the hands of lawyers and lawmakers?
And you get CAIP now, which, for most Canadians, especially lower income Canadians, CAIP is greater than the additional cost you pay for goods and services due to the carbon tax.
The carbon tax is quite literally a tax on the rich that gets given to the poor, while at the same time making high carbon intensity products more expensive incentivizing choices that lower carbon emissions.
Only the very rich lose.
The people who speak out against it, are either rich, or they are useful idiots, people who are ignorantly shilling to scrap the tax to their own detriment because they were told by their rich tribe leader it’s bad.
Which one are you?
Where’s the option for: “I don’t want to use edge because it shoves polls in my face”
LOL, I work in climate science.
Specifically in consequential carbon accounting analysis. Which is the branch that specializes in quantifying how much impact decisions and policies will have on greenhouse gas levels.
We are fucked. We are so incredibly fucked.
I comment regularly on social media about what actually needs to happen if we’re to limit the damage from WW3 to just seriously fucked. You can imagine how that goes.
People advocate for things on Reddit or Lemmy about what we should be doing to avoid the disaster. Most of the time these things will have little benefit, and often will make things worse. I try to educate people but everybody has their pet issues usually based on whatever article they read last and they don’t actually want to seek the truth, just defend their opinion.
It’s tough because they are all very nuanced issues, every decision has trade offs, makes things better in one way worse than another. People aren’t wrong about the small part they’re looking at, just its impact on the bigger picture.
Everyone is pulling in different directions on this issue because the waters have been so incredibly muddied by the people who stand to lose from real climate action.
This.
We need and organized campaign to turn this into a giant advert for Reddit alternatives.
Reddit doesn’t care that people are writing fuck spez, they care that traffic is up.
We need to make this back fire and drive traffic away from Reddit.
Not all VPN traffic. Only traffic that would be routable without a VPN.
This works by tricking the computer into routing traffic to the attacker’s gateway instead of the VPN’s gateway. It doesn’t give the attacker access to the VPN gateway.
So traffic intended for a private network that is only accessible via VPN (like if you were connecting to a corporate network for example) wouldn’t be compromised. You simply wouldn’t be able to connect through the attacker’s gateway to the private network, and there wouldn’t be traffic to intercept.
This attack doesn’t break TLS encryption either. Anything you access over https (which is the vast majority of the internet these days) would still be just as encrypted as if you weren’t using a VPN.
For most people, in most scenarios, this amount to a small invasion of privacy. Our hypothetical malicious coffee shop could tell the ip addresses of websites you’re visiting, but probably not what you’re doing on those websites, unless it was an insecure website to begin with. Which is the case with or with VPN.
For some people or some situations that is a MASSIVE concern. People who use VPNs to hide what they’re doing from state level actors come to mind.
But for the average person who’s just using a VPN because they’re privacy conscious, or because they’re location spoofing. This is not going to represent a significant risk.
Job seekers next ChatGPT prompt:
Here’s a job posting and my resume, can you tell me what to change to make me sound like a perfect fit for the role?
ChatGPT:
Spez is such a lying sack of 💩
Third party apps weren’t some collateral damage from monetizing LLM usage. Reddit set the prices. There’s no reason why there couldn’t be one price for third party apps like Apollo and RIF that are largely used to add to the community and build Reddit’s value, and a separate price for throws just using it to mine the data.
It wasn’t about opportunity costs of lost ad revenue either. By all estimates, if they gave the third party apps a grace period to rework their business models to be able to pay the api fees. The average third party app user would generate several times more revenue for Reddit than the revenue they get from ads by forcing them to use Reddit’s shitty app
So why Reddit would force people to use their free shitty app if the revenue is less? Either Spez and the leadership at Reddit are idiots or the Reddit it’s giving them something else of value they can sell that they don’t get for the third party apps. Something besides just eyeballs on ads.
I’m pretty sure Reddit killed third party apps so they can harvest more of your data and sell you out.
That’s surprising accurate for many developers.
Reddit never expected the new api pricing to be a fountain or money. This was never about LLMs or the lack of ad revenue.
If it was just about LLMs they could have made one price for api users that were primarily harvesting data and a different price for api users that contributed significant content or moderation. Which would make good business sense to do so as content contributors are what bring the eyeballs (and therefore the value) to the platform.
It wasn’t about ad revenue either, by all estimates the revenue from a third-party app user would have been many times more than the opportunity cost from the ad revenue they were missing out on from 3rd party app users. If they wanted to profit from the api pricing, they only needed to give the community more time to transition business models. They didn’t even need to give everyone more time, just a dozen or so major third party apps.
This was always about killing off the third party apps. The ones they let survive had low user counts to begin with and went even lower.
I don’t know their real motivations here but so far there’s only two possibilities that i can think of.
A) Reddit’s leadership and board of directors are beyond incompetent
B) They collect significantly more data from the first party app than they were able to from the third party apps, and they’re selling that data for a significant sum of money beyond just their own ad ecosystem.
What is it about bioreactors that doesn’t scale?
Most large corporations’ tech leaders don’t actually have any idea how tech works. They are being told that if they don’t have an AI plan their company will be obsoleted by their competitors that do; often by AI “experts” that also don’t have the slightest understanding of how LLMs actually work. And without that understanding companies are rushing to use AI to solve problems that AI can’t solve.
AI is not smart, it’s not magic, it can’t “think”, it can’t “reason” (despite what Open AI marketing claims) it’s just math that measures how well something fits the pattern of the examples it was trained on. Generative AIs like ChatGPT work by simply considering every possible word that could come next and ranking them by which one best matches the pattern.
If the input doesn’t resemble a pattern it was trained on, the best ranked response might be complete nonsense. ChatGPT was trained on enough examples that for anything you ask it there was probably something similar in its training dataset so it seems smarter than it is, but at the end of the day, it’s still just pattern matching.
If a company’s AI strategy is based on the assumption that AI can do what its marketing claims. We’re going to keep seeing these kinds of humorous failures.
AI (for now at least) can’t replace a human in any role that requires any degree of cognitive thinking skills… Of course we might be surprised at how few jobs actually require cognitive thinking skills. Given the current AI hypewagon, apparently CTO is one of those jobs that doesn’t require cognitive thinking skills.
If you want to be sure about data privacy, you need to avoid anything cloud based, and go with something open source.
If you still want a commercial cloud product. Apple iCloud is probably the best choice. I doubt they as good at privacy as their marketing claims. But they at least attempt to be the most consumer privacy focused offering.
Whenever a spammer or spam bot is identified through reporting and gets banned, the spammer just makes a new account and continues. As a result spam accounts tend to be “young” accounts with low karma.
But limiting the posting and commenting powers of all young accounts and accounts with low karma, they limit how quickly someone can spam Reddit. There’s also less obvious limits to like limiting activities from the same ip addresses. (To prevent working around the limits by simply creating 100s of accounts at a time)
Not sure if this is what you were going for, but I had a high school teacher named Mr. Student.
Lemmy’s a lot better than Reddit for not being an echo chamber because the communities are less interest specific, and most of us are here because we’re the type to seek out a better discussion rather than stick with status quo.
But as it gets bigger and the communities become more niché it will become a bigger issue.
Don’t need to involve a blockchain to make cryptographically provable authenticity. Just a digital signature.
The only thing a hash in a blockchain would add is proof the video existed at the time the hash was added to the blockchain. I can think of cases where that would be beneficial too, but it wouldn’t make sense to put a hash of every video on a public blockchain.
I totally do. Have since I was a child.
As a kid I would sorta step into pants so they were on my feet, jump and then pull them all the way up in mid air.
Now I just sit on the edge of the bed, pull pants up far enough that my feet through then stand up and pull them over my butt.
Never really understood the expression about how we all put our pants on one leg at a time.
Not judging, just genuinely curious, why do you not want an EV as a daily driver?
That was the only difference for us as well. The CI/CD process built container images. Only difference between dev, test, and prod was the environment variables passed to the container.
At first I asked the clueless security analyst to explain how that improves security, which he couldn’t. Then I asked him how testing against one repository and deploying from another wouldn’t invalidate the results of the testing done by the QA team, but he kept insisting we needed it to check some box. I asked about the source of the policy and still no explanation, at least not one that made any sense.
Security analyst escalated it to his (thankfully not clueless) boss who promptly gave our process a pass and pointed out to Mr security analyst that literally nobody does that.
Genuinely curious where do you draw the line?
Like honest question: Do you think we should ban every activity that is as risky as consuming marijuana? If not, why not? Why marijuana and not everything else.
If we’re banning marijuana to save lives because it’s too risky we should be banning driving a car, and climbing a ladder, and hundred other common everyday activities that are more likely to kill you then smoking pot.
You’re not wrong, there are health risks to weed. But there’s risks with literally everything, and weed is really far down on the list of most risky activities.
Or… you could just… you know… stop using it.
I used to work with health inspectors, when talking about my work I would describe what they do as “ You know the guys who go into restaurants and say ‘I’m shutting you down there’re too many cockroaches in the soup’”
About 1 person in 10 notices I said too many cockroaches.
Restaurants are allowed to have a certain amount of bug parts in soup.
That looks more like a hippopotamus to me.
Who cares? Because I assure you, Microsoft doesn’t.
20-25% of those webservers are running on Microsoft Azure hardware. Microsoft is the #2 cloud provider and has been slowly but closing their gap behind AWS in recent years. All of that is in large part due to them embracing Linux and open source support on their platform.
Software isn’t the battleground, and hasn’t been for a decade. The people behind Apache and Nginx aren’t making bank on their web server dominance. Microsoft and AWS still rake in money hand over fist regardless of what software runs on their servers.
The author of this article’s apparent attitude that this is some kind of indicator of Microsoft’s market failure is one of the most ridiculous conclusions I’ve heard in a while.
Lived in a house that had a heat pump with resistive electric heat as a backup in Canada. Never noticed a significant difference between that and other houses I’ve lived in that had natural gas furnaces.
Aux heat would kick whenever it was below about -5°C. That house would be about 20 years old now and had decent insulation for the location and age. It never really felt like the furnace struggled to keep the house warm, or was running all the time.
Cost wise it didn’t seem significantly better or worse than natural gas. It was definitely using more juice in the winter when there was a cold snap, but it wasn’t crazy amounts. The electric bill was actually highest in the summer when the heat pump was cooling.
The economic drivers of Bitcoin mining make it so that the cost of the electricity needed to mine a Bitcoin will always be just a bit less than the value of a Bitcoin.
Every time speculators hype up the value of Bitcoin the amount of money wasted on electricity increases.
Bitcoins are mined at a preset rate of 6.25 bitcoins every 10 minutes. Which does at least get cut in half every few years. But this waste of energy is going to continue so long as there’s a market for Bitcoin.
I literally bailed while writing a comment on another post just to scroll down to this post next.
So yea… all the time.
What makes you think OP believes the earth is flat?
The exhaust from a typical ICE wouldn’t have enough pressure to inflate a tire, so you’d need a compressor. Of course if you had a compressor you’d just use clean air.
If for some reason you used a compressor to compress exhaust gases to fill a tire, it would mostly be the same as filling with air at first.
Exhaust gas is mostly a mix of carbon dioxide and and water vapour, with small amounts of oil residue, and other organic compounds. The water vapour will condense as it cools likely leaving some liquid water in the tire, which won’t cause immediate issues but will cause vibrations which will accelerate wear not just on the tire but possibly the entire suspension.
The organic compounds will cause the rubber to break down over time and the tire will wear out sooner.