I'm always surprised that Lenovo use in the enterprise space didn't take a hit after all this came to light. I would have thought competitors like Dell and HPE would have used that opportunity to disparage Lenovo.
No enterprise is using the base windows image that came from Lenovo with the superfish malware. They all build their own standard operating environment image that would not include the Lenovo bloatware. I would be surprised if Lenovo enterprises even realized they were shipping this way and have no reason to react negatively. Their competitors also live in glass houses and so cannot throw stones.
So yes, in a normal case, one would expect to be safe because they are using their own built image. But Lenovo went much further than simply installing crapware, they added a firmware that updates files on startup in the OS to ensure that they had a way to install whatever they wanted onto your system [1].
To add to this, while the Superfish issue only affected their consumer laptop lines (e.g. IdeaPad), the LSE issue was found on their enterprise lineup (e.g. ThinkPad).
Wasn't aware of the LSE issue on enterprise models! This is a feature that would get enterprises angry if it messes with the OS by injecting bins full of vulnerabilities from BIOS. Gross!
No enterprise would use the factory image, but a lot of small businesses would and they were put at risk as a result.
We can of course say they shouldn't have trusted it, but honestly, should it be normal to expect the manufacturer of the machine to be malicious?
Not to mention the other commenters pointed out that they used the firmware to reinstall the malware even on otherwise clean images, so even enterprises could've been at risk.
Lenovo is behaving as an attacker against its customers. That sophisticated customers had defenses for this particular attack is irrelevant. Imagine if iPhones started trying dictionary attacks against their peers on WiFi networks. Would you shrug it off and continue buying Apple products because you trust your password complexity rules?
It’s great that the countermeasures worked this time, but Lenovo is still your adversary. They deserve the same response as any other insider who tries to MITM your traffic: immediate termination, a thorough search for any remaining implants, and an FBI battering ram through their door.
No one takes a company public for fun. They do it for funds. Especially for something like a car company that requires a lot of initial investment to get going. They can't start making money right away like a SaaS company might.
I've always been very curious, that given that the American health insurance lobby is as powerful as it is, why it hasn't successfully lobbied for more accessible abortions. It seems that they stand to gain a lot if women who didn't want children didn't have them as the added stresses of having an unwanted child probably reduce long term health.
Because there's a large subset of people that believe God wants all children to live, and simultaneously believe once they're out, they're someone else's problem. They never seem to connect the two.
Did you read what you just said? You're saying there are those who want children to die..How do you justify this to yourself? Also, 'simultaneously believe once they're out, they're someone else's problem. They never seem to connect the two'. Do you have any proof of this? This simply isn't true. Not true at all. Many pro-life agencies work hand in hand with adoption providers to connect saved pregnancies with those who wish to adopt. Can you name even one abortion provider that does this? There are tens of thousands of couples wanting to adopt but can't due to the corruption of the adoption industry trying to make money. I've seen this first hand.
Before making a 'qualified' statement, get your facts straight first.
Uhh, given that anti-abortion politics goes hand-in-hand with opposition to any sort of public benefits for healthcare, its hard to take seriously the notion that pro-life is anything more than pro-birth
For anyone with a stoic, scientific understanding there is a point where both beings become equal during gestation. This probably occurs somewhere around 20 weeks. However, <2% of abortions are had after this time. It is a necessary evil that nobody should feel responsible for unless they are directly involved (even then, the best choice out of two bad options).
No, it's pro-personal responsibility and pro not killing children.
The same thing goes for benefits programs -- nobody wants kids to be starving in the streets, but we would rather that people exercise personal responsibility in taking care of their own kids rather than expecting the rest of us to pay for their care.
Those positions are not opposed, and there's a lot of nuance in the whole welfare debate, it's not all or nothing.
If kids are known for one thing, it's their ability to watch and re-watch the same piece of content over and over. We have decades of good, high quality, children's media. Why do they need the latest and untested greatest?
I credit some of my unpopularity in elementary school with growing up without cable television. All of the other children would watch Nickelodeon after school and the prizes on Legend Of The Hidden Temple would instruct them to ask their moms to buy them Jansport backpacks and AirWalk sneakers. I wasn't able to discuss yesterday's episode and didn't know how to dress to fit in.
As I discovered watching our kids go through school, if you had cable and the "in backpack", kids at school would almost certainly have found something else to dig at.
Those that react get picked on. If they can't single out lack of clothes, or knowing current music, they dig at too fat, too thin, wears glasses, wrong hair colour, wrong accent, you name it. In short if you react you lose.
I am much less open to the having all the same things to fit in argument than I was when I started on the parenting journey.
Parent wasn't concerned about being picked on but not being able to participate in the culture of the other children without cable TV.
There's a big personal preference there about whether or not you want your kids (or you yourself regret being or not being) involved heavily in the mainstream pop culture of your peers as children.
Experiencing more than just whatever is popular is important, but being very isolated can have effects as well. Whatever choices you make will have a strong impact, and there are very often not clear rights and wrongs.
Picked on or not able to participate is part of the same grouping that goes on in schools. For the most part is little to do with how much they are enabled or not to fit in.
Before being a parent I'd have inclined to agree with GP. The experience of seeing my kids progress, and their differing experience, through school leaves me believing it's nearly all down to personality. That of course is far harder for parents to influence. Course a kid with a sensitive disposition might well blame the lack of the right things as the reason to feel an outsider.
So true. I will do the same for my kid when time comes, he's only 0.7yo. How about screen time, do they watch them on tablets/devices or on a media player on a TV?
I do not restrict screen time in any way. If they want to watch videos (from our scraped collection on the NAS), they can. If they want to play with the carefully chosen educational apps/games on our phones, they can. We've never restricted them since they first became interested, and it has worked out fine for us.
They barely ever watch shows or play with the phones, and most the time just want to colour in, play with Lego, or play with toys. They use the phones maybe for an hour every 3 days or so (or if we're waiting at the Doctors office or on a road trip), and watch shows maybe half an hour to an hour each day (usually in evening when they're too tired to physically play and we're preparing dinner). YMMV of course.
We regularly make sure they get experience doing nothing too. My wife and I are big believers in the importance of doing nothing, for imagination/creativity and also just because it's an important skill to have in life, to be able to sit and wait.
They're very imaginative, and we regularly find the eldest just sitting in a sunny spot in the room and "dreaming in the warm" as she calls it.
The only problem we struggle with as far as technology is that a lot of her friends already have unlimited access to TV and talk about shows she's never heard of because we don't watch (or have) TV. We purely do Netflix/Stan and YouTube, so she gets a bit upset not knowing what they're going on about, but she's starting to understand that everyone has different things they do.
>How about screen time, do they watch them on tablets/devices or on a media player on a TV?
Sorry if my comment implied I had kids, I do not. But in terms of access I see a lot of other comments further below talking about downloading everything locally and serving it through plex, which seems like a solid idea.
I feel this is a bit sensationalized. If one didn't want to put up with Toronto housing prices, there are many other affordable choices within 1-2h drive from Toronto. No need to pack up and move to Winnipeg which, btw, is the murder capital of the country [1]. And this is in a year that Toronto is seeing some of its worst gun violence since the mid 2000s.
I would not consider that acceptable. I guess the assumption is that you would commute into Toronto for work. But that is not what I was talking about. I meant that there were places close by that one could have a life. For example, Kitchener-Waterloo, London, Hamilton. All these places have way more affordable housing and job opportunities.
London is approximately 2 hours driving from Toronto. Kitchener-Waterloo is similar. Only Hamilton is close to the 1 hour mark, and housing prices have been rising there as well.
It's not, but it's better than moving a couple thousand kilometers away from your friends and family, denying your kids to their grandparents if you're married etc.
Less glibly, you commute every day, even those that live close-ish to their parents will typically see them less than once a week. Obviously this is range dependent, but there are plenty of moves that would result in increased quality of life without complete elimination (or even reduction) of family time.
Personally I'd argue that giving children more time with their parents is more important than "denying" the grandparents access, but I also don't have kids, so what do I know?
I like fastmail personally because aside from being a fast experience, I like their well written guides and articles. It helps me set stuff up without feeling like I'm just following instructions and helps me understand what I'm doing and why I'm doing it.
I can't recommend them because they recycle email addresses when you stop paying for them. Not really something I can take seriously. They should just hold your email hostage until you start paying them again. Instead, they leave money on the table and create an amateur security failure.
We do have plans to stop recycling email addresses quite so quickly. Having said that, if you have your own domain (recommended by most people so you can move providers) you also don't get the namespace reserved forever if you stop paying. Domains get recycled too.
On this matter, Runbox is clear that it will not release/recycle the email address ever. Posteo, which I like and use, has a policy of recycling addresses after six months, which is quite harmful.
Could you please expand on this? My understanding was that hydrogen was produced through electrolosys. What process does one use to go from a hydrocarbon to H2? And does that process produce CO2?
The first link says that the efficiency is 80%. Seems like that’s enough to scale, especially if electricy prices go negative during peak hours of renewable energy production. So I’m still trying to understand what the roadblocks to this are.
Historically it was the most expensive approach thanks to the high cost of electricity and higher initial capital. Here is a pretty easy to skim paper on the cost breakdown from 1980: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/bk-1980-0116.ch001
The approach is quite competitive technologically and the efficiency is there but the problem is electric cost. Thankfully renewables are bringing that cost down so some areas with very cheap electric could support such manufacturing.
