I think that makes sense too. Sure a drunk cyclist is less of a problem than a drunk motor vehicle operator.

But as the third party you still don’t want 100 kg (200 pounds) of dude and aluminium frame running into you at 20 km/h (12.4 mph), especially if you are a pedestrian, a second cyclist, or a biker.

Yikes. Did he make through?

The argument is utterly stupid.

Ignoring that it is building on a fantasy reality for the moment. Even if you had free healthcare, and if only the financial costs of survival motivated people to get jobs, then the other costs of living, like for food and shelter, would still provide that motivation.

I wonder how betrayed the people in the Appalachian feel when their supposed “own” Vance stood for this.

They are hardly even in the US market. Only via Murena with their e/OS/.

Those are both way more useful than exploiting a lazy coder’s fuckup

I never said social engineering, physical breaching, exerting force on people, and other ways of compromising systems weren’t useful. They just aren’t hacking to me, otherwise the term is too broad to be very useful.

You’re free to come up with your own definition, I was asked to define it and that’s my best shot for now.

You know my first instinct wast to reply with: “No.”

Maybe I should have stuck with that. I had a feeling this would lead nowhere.

I’d start with the following, and refine if necessary:

“Gaining unauthorized access to a protected computer resource by technical means.”

• Port scanning --> Not hacking because there isn’t any access to resources gained*
• Using default passwords that weren’t changed --> Not hacking because the resource wasn’t protected*
• Sending spam --> Not hacking because there isn’t any access to resources gained
• Beating the admin with a wrench until he tells you the key --> Not hacking because it’s not by technical means.
• Accessing teacher SSN’s published on the state website in the HTML --> Not hacking because the resource wasn’t protected, and on the contrary was actively published**
• Distributed denial of service attack --> Not hacking because there isn’t any access to resources gained

* Those first two actually happened in 2001 here in Switzerland when the WEF visitors list was on a database server with default password, they had to let a guy (David S.) go free
** The governor and his idiot troupe eventually stopped their grandstanding and didn’t file charges against Josh Renaud of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter, luckily

I haven’t heard of a firewall failing open when overwhelmed yet. Usually quite the opposite, a flood disables access to more than just the targeted device, when the state table overflows.

But maybe there is a different mechanism I’m not aware of. How would the DDoS change the properties of ingress?

DDoS is not hacking

Ist das beim TÜV auch gestaffelt, dass Neuwagen noch nicht so oft müssen?

Bei uns in der Schweiz ist es typischerweise so 5, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2 Jahre. Aber wie immer sind wir zu föderalistisch, als dass es einheitlich wäre

They do actually burn gas locally, I wasn’t trying to dispute that part. It has become a political discussion in Memphis. Apparently they wanted to start operations on turbines before the grid access was ready.

it should automatically shut down after applying the updates

Okay, that part it does for me though. That’s extra annoying for you then.

apply everything that is possible, then restart and apply the remainder

Yeah on one hand I get the concept, on the other macOS and Linux manage without, and I don’t really remember older Windows doing this either, so I wonder if there is a real reason why it’s needed, or they just engineered themselves into a bad corner…

The linked video is a bit unclear to me. The don’t explain the modes well. Mostly it seems to just show heat. According to the description it’s a Teledyne FLIR G620, which should be able to detect Methane and other VOCs. But it’s not clear to me how we are supposed to distinguish hot rising CO2 and H2O from any potentially leaking Methane, in those pictures.

Video in question https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4prazMVylRs

That’s always so annoying, because Windows isn’t my default boot entry, so I need to babysit its “totally not a reboot” update.

6 arc seconds, not a very well rounded individual

Pre-UEFI they were fighting over the boot sector, sure, but now that everything is more well defined, and every OS can read the FAT32 ESP? Never seen it…

At worst the UEFI boot entry is replaced. There are some really shitty UEFI implementations out there which only want to load \efi\microsoft\boot\bootx64.efi or \efi\boot\bootx64.efi, or keep resetting you back to those.

Assuming you were dumped into Windows suddenly, you can check if you have the necessary boot entries still with bcdedit and its firmware option

bcdedit /enum firmware

If you just have a broken order you can fix it with

bcdedit /set {fwbootmgr} displayorder {<GUID>} /addfirst

If you actually need a new entry for Linux it’s a bit more annyoing, you need to copy one of the windows entries, and then modify it.

bcdedit /copy {<GUID1>} /d "Fedora"
bcdedit /set {<GUID2>} path \EFI\FEDORA\SHIM.EFI
bcdedit /set {fwbootmgr} displayorder {<GUID2>} /addfirst

Where GUID1 is a suitable entry from windows, and GUID2 is the one you get back from the copy command as the identifier of the new entry. Of course you will have to adjust the description and the path according to your distro and where it puts its shim, or the grub efi, depending on which you’d like to start.

Edit: Using DiskGenius might be a little more comfortable.

it’s much easier to just substract 2 from 2000, “IIMM” duh!

For anyone wondering why this is wrong, there are two reasons:

1. The roman numeral system only traditionally contains subtractions from the next higher five- and tenfold symbol. So you can subtract I from V and X, X from L and C, C from D and M

2. The subtractions only generally allowed one symbol to be subtracted, with a few notable exceptions like XIIX for 18 and XXIIX for 28

Given 4/6 x > 5/6 y therefore x > 5/4 y

Marty’s Pizza must have been more than a quarter larger than Luis’. The kid is exactly right.

And the teacher is not flexible enough to engage outside their expectations for how the question was supposed to be answered.

Clearly the expectation was for the kids to take the unstated assumption that the two pizzas were of the same size, and reject the premise as unreasonable (note the heading “Reasonableness”).

Okay good. I thought it would, just didn’t know any specifically. I wasn’t trying to suggest a public blockchain would be the only solution or even the best of multiple solutions, only that they needed to consider more angles beyond just making a hash.