Well its primarily because the security vendors for say WAFs and other tools list these IPs in the "Anonymizers" or "VPN" category and most typically these are blocked as seldom do you see legitimate traffic originating to your store front or accounts pages from these.
Another vendor we use lists these under "hacking tools" So your option as a security professional is to express to your risk management team we allow "hacking tools" or lose iCloud Relay customers. Which way do you think they steer?
In alternative cases a site may use a vendor for their cart/checkout page and don't even have control over these blocks as they are also blocking "hacking tools" or "anonymizers" from hitting their checkout pages.
> So your option as a security professional is to express to your risk management team we allow "hacking tools" or lose iCloud Relay customers
a professional would explain how the vendor is being lazy and making a mistake there because they don't understand your business.
depending on the flavor of security professional (hacker) they might also subtly suggest that this vendor is dumb and should be embarrassed they've made this mistake, thus creating the implication that if you still want to block these users you would also have to be an idiot
under so circumstance is what I ever allow anyone to get the mistaken impression that some vendor understands my job better than I do. As a "security professional" it's literally your job to identify hostile traffic, better than a vendor could.
Oh I think we all know that the Endgame is only allowing the approved webbrowser from the approved hardware.
And getting on those lists will be made very expensive indeed...
DEI is just a loose label for having less discrimination in the workforce. There's nothing that implies exclusion unless you are intentionally bad faithing the meaning.
Imagine the FAA was only attending job fairs in white parts of the country. Then they decide to attend job fairs in more diverse parts of the country. No one would suddenly decide they were prejudiced against white people!
There's a difference between forcing a white person to give up a seat, and letting a black person sit anywhere on the bus. But both of these are being labelled "DEI" in this thread.
Again, nobody is arguing that the FAA didn't shoot themselves in the foot by introducing a dumb assessment that threw out good candidates. But I think there should be nothing scandalous or wrong with the FAA trying to be available to more candidates.
The DEI label has indeed been placed on overtly discriminatory practices. At 3 out of the 4 companies I've worked at carried out explicit discirmination under the banner of DEI. One such DEI policy was reserving a segment engineering headcount for "diverse" candidates. Quite literally forcing white and Asian men to give up their seat.
You're not in the position to unilaterally declare what DEI is and is not. I don't deny that there are plenty of non-discriminatory DEI programs that genuinely do aim to reduce discrimination. I don't think it's a good move to try and deny that DEI encompasses exclusionary and discriminatory practices, when so many people have witnessed exclusionary and discriminatory DEI programs firsthand.
That isn’t what happened though. What happened was they intentionally turned down highly qualified white applicants. It wasn’t like they found new “diverse” applicants — they actively didn’t hire people that were qualified and happened to be white. They weren’t being “available” to more applicants, they became outwardly hostile to white applicants. They didn’t grow the pie, they moved the pie.
It wasn't just white, it was minority groups excluded too to make room for other minority groups. I believe a Native American that scored 100% on the entrance exam, with significant experience is one of the major plaintiffs.
The problem here is that the notion that "DEI is just a loose label for having less discrimination in the workforce" is always hidden behind by people who want to use it for more forceful discrimination.
It would serve those who truly just want to make sure our society all starts from the same starting line to come up with a new term, one that encompasses meritocracy as the goal along with generous helping hands along the way (training programs, tutoring programs, outside-the-class mentorship opportunities). And to focus on helping lower _class and income_ folks get a leg up, not on including or excluding people by characteristics that are a circumstance of birth (skin color).
> The problem here is that the notion that "DEI is just a loose label for having less discrimination in the workforce" is always hidden behind by people who want to use it for more forceful discrimination.
Nah. The problem is dishonest hucksters who want to broadly label everything, regardless of applicability, as bad in an effort to provide their supporters with an easy “anti-X” bumper sticker.
DEI advocates came up with DEI to do precisely what you suggest - the right wing rebranded it as “everyone hates white men” and “be afraid of black pilots”. Almost like they just did the same thing with “woke” and “CRT” before it.
It’s extremely tiring to have people like you waltz into conversations to complain about terms you’re busily redefining, being used in their original context, because you don’t like what your own redefinitions imply.
> _class and income_
Yes, part of my company’s DEI effort was to ensure that a JD didn’t, for instance, specify a college degree if it wasn’t really needed. Thank you, again, for restating things that are already occurring because you’re not a part of those conversations or are unaware of those conversations.
> DEI advocates came up with DEI to do precisely what you suggest - the right wing rebranded it as “everyone hates white men”
Ironic that you're posting this on a story that shows DEI was applied in exactly the opposite way you're claiming, because certain people passed the AT-SAT at higher rates so they had to be eliminated from consideration before they could even take it.
if this question is in good faith, you can read about this ideology by looking up Robin DiAngelo or Ibram X Kendi, who are experts on the pro-DEI academic theory that answers your question.
It seems that the American voter disagrees with Kendi et al
> The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. As President Lyndon B. Johnson said in 1965, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in 1978, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.
This is not a serious answer. IMO the fairest but not necessarily most accurate characterization for Ibram X. Kendi would be charlatan (others could say he's deliberately inducing racial hatred and stoking division). Additionally, according to recent news Boston University fired him and closed down his "antiracist research" center.
He's an academic with multiple publications in the field. How am I, a lay person, supposed to tell if he's a charlatan? He certainly takes himself seriously and has a successful academic career.
Any example could be a false Scotsman. If my example is bad, please provide some that are better. I tried to educate myself on this five years ago and I looked up the people who were recommended to me by DEI practitioners. At the time, Kendi and DiAngelo were held up as icons of the movement.
In American public school twenty years ago we also read Why Do All The Black Kids Sit Together In The Cafeteria. That would also be a good place to start learning about this ideology. Or is that book written by a charlatan, too?
This kind of goalpost moving is as predictable as it is disappointing. You cannot argue with an ideology if it can't be defined, so the practitioners of this one -- descended from Deconstructionism so no wonder they are happy to play word games -- won't allow opponents to define the ideology in the first place!
Well good job, folks, because the reaction to this movement is MAGA.
How do you know the exact figure of fentanyl smuggled into the US from CAN?
I doubt even the cartels could give you an exact figure as they aren't the only ones smuggling the drugs or the precursors.
Are you saying we only intercepted 19kg? How wouldn't that make sense to you considering the disparity of population density at the borders, as well as the infrastructure and staffing at each border??
Canada already Tariffs many products coming from the USA, many even exceeding 200%. The political theater and kindergarten understanding of geo-politics would explain your take on "100 years of friendship flushed down the toilet" lol.
unfortunately the entire global system is designed so that more has to be sold than last year. in the US as a publicly traded corporation you are legally liable to make more than the year before... we're lucky cars even last as long as they do now...
all car companies do this since around 2011.(in the us) they also immediately sell all this data to car insurance companies.
many apps on your phone that use location data for anything are mostly using an APK that includes a couple car insurance companies code that also just directly shares that with them. (they made the location APK for app makers to have an easy to use location data tool)
>As of September 30, 2024, the U.S. Ukraine response funding totals nearly $183 billion
>Russia's official 2022 military budget is expected to be 4.7 trillion rubles ($75bn), or higher, and about $84bn for 2023
I'd argue its even less blatant today it just appears more blatant because you can see the happenings on the other side of the country in an instant on your personal cell phone. As can anyone else.
it's interesting you state "Studies show it just doesn't work."
While we are commenting on an article about a drug which makes you feel less hungry, there by "eating less". The drug doesn't make you use more calories, it simply "makes" you EAT LESS.
Eating less(calories) than your body uses consistently for duration is literally the only way you can lose weight. (outside of literally losing limbs, or surgery to remove mass)
Exercise only augments the process, it all comes back down to EATING LESS(calories).
There are a number of pathways these drugs hit - dopamine receptors, they slow processing of food, and in tirzepatide's case at least increase insulin response. They're not just small portions in a shot.
I take "Studies show it just doesn't work" to mean "Studies show telling people to eat less and exercise more definitely doesn't work," as opposed to "caloric deficits don't work".
