It's not clear to me that I should care if my data was in the breach. For my data to have been in the breach the following must have happened.
1. I opted in to sharing my information with everyone that 23andMe identified as relatives. "Relatives" in this context means genetic 4th cousins or closer. For me that turned out to be 1500 people, all of whom are as far as I know complete strangers to me (I'm adopted).
2. One or more of those 1500 people used the same password on 23andMe that they used on some other site that suffered a breach that gave up plaintext passwords.
3. That password was included in a credential stuffing attack that let someone get into their 23andMe account, where that intruder downloaded the account owner's relatives list which included my information.
When I chose to share my data with 1500 strangers I was pretty much conceding that I didn't really care who got it.
Yeah, I agree this is pretty overblown. On GEDmatch, you basically give everyone the information in your SNP reads - you can compare arbitrary people there, not just yourself to "close" relatives. The only condition is that you give others the same access as you want for yourself. It's very useful for genetic genealogy.
Technically, you could probably get access to and scrape all that data by uploading fake data, or someone else's. It will do very little useful unless you're into genealogy.
For it to be entrapment typically the defendant has to show that law enforcement induced them to commit a crime they were not otherwise predisposed to commit.
Inducement generally means more than merely providing an opportunity. The officers have to try to persuade you to commit a crime.
Purposefully leaving valuables in an unlocked car and prosecuting anyone who took them would probably not be entrapment because normal law abiding people would not take those valuables. The police gave them an opportunity, but the criminal intent originated with the people who took the items.
In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46061943 danishSuri1994 said that if others like China and ESA did not also develop reusable rockets they would be priced out of orbit access entirely. I have a question about that, but their comment got killed faster than I could type and submit my question so I'll ask it a level up.
Why would not having reusable rockets price someone like China or ESA out of orbit access?
I can see how it could price them out of the business of selling orbit access to other parties, but I don't see how it would stop them from accessing orbit for their own purposes.
> European satellites can and do regularly launch on SpaceX though.
For now, that is. Until someone from Europe says something mean about the Bully in Chief, or threatens to side with the victim of an aggressive war… The EU can’t trust the USA anymore, so it’s high time to invest in sovereign orbit access.
If the cost of returning and refurbishing a rocket stage is less than the cost of building a new one then that gives a competitive advantage on price.
But space flight is a strategic competency for states so China, the EU, and even eventually Russia, will all develop reusable rockets. I suspect that launch capacity will far exceed demand and that none will make profits for a long time.
If a nation with RLVs can sustainably launch 10 anti-satellite interceptors per day but the nation without reusables can only launch 10 satellites per month, they're going to lose access to orbit.
Because if you can't sell launches on the open market, your own launches become exponentially more expensive. Cost sharing allows for the economies of scale that let governments piggyback.
A kludge would be to move to Tijuana in Mexico and buy and register a BYD there. You can drive it in the US when you visit from Mexico. There are various common US retailers not far from the border, and San Diego is only about 20 miles away.
The border crossing there is very busy so that could be a annoying.
What's the time limit for driving a foreign vehicle in the USA without registering it? I think it was 6 months in the UK -- I imported an RX-7 and drove it around with the original plates on it that whole time.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US lawyers can be jurors.
The main point of a jury from the "arrive at the legally correct solution to the issue before the court" point of view is to settle questions that are questions of fact rather than questions of law.
Generally in a legal dispute you have two parties who disagree over the underlying facts. For example I say your drone broke my window and I want you to pay for a new window. You say your drone was not flying at the time my window broke. Whether or not your drone broke my windows is a question of fact, not a question of law.
Once it is decided whether or not your drone broke me window, then applying the law is straightforward. The difficulty is determining whether or not your drone broke my window.
Once the jury has decided on all the questions of fact they have to apply the law tp them, but for that the court will have given them instructions. Generally that is in the form of a form they can fill out that's basically a decision tree. They just have to fill in what they decided are the facts, follow the branches, and they end up with the correct legal result for those facts.
Sure. But "fact" in a court of law means "facts subject to a legally-sanctioned epistemology". Every now and then you read about a judge instructing the jury to disregard some evidence, because it turns out to be inadmissible. Are random people really capable of doing this? And, likewise, leaving their biases at the courtroom doorstep? I have my doubts.
And yes, I believe trained lawyers are excluded from jury duty in the UK. But even if not, the average juror will not have had any training in discerning bias, weighing evidence, statistics etc.
What about powered SSDs that contain files that are rarely read?
My desktop computer is generally powered except when there is a power failure, but among the million+ files on its SSD there are certainly some that I do not read or write for years.
Does the SSD controller automatically look for used blocks that need to have their charge refreshed and do so, or do I need to periodically do something like "find / -type f -print0 | xargs -0 cat > /dev/null" to make sure every file gets read occasionally?
no, the firmware does any maintenance.
good firmware should do gradual scrub whenever it's idle.
unfortunately, there's no real way to know whether the firmware is good, or doing anything.
I wonder if there's some easy way to measure power consumed by a device - to detect whether it's doing housekeeping.
Honestly this is one of my favorite things about ZFS. I know that a disk scan is performed every week/month (whatever schedule). And I also know that it has verified the contents of each block. It is very reassuring in that way.
You've validated that the scrub is actually running, right? I know that the lack of a default schedule for ZFS scrubs caused Linus Media Group to lose a bunch of archived videos to bitrot.
In threads like this I keep hearing about ZFS. What would be the drawbacks of running ZFS as a home user? I keep my OS on the SSD and my files on spinning rust, if that's relevant.
2) even if your OS supports it, you may have difficulty using it for your root volume, so partitioning is probably required.
2a) in your case you may not want to use it on your boot volume which would negate the SSD benefit for you.
3) it is recommended that you have ECC RAM due to the checksums. This isn’t a hard and fast requirement, but it does make you more resilient to bitflips.
4) it isn’t the absolute fastest file system. But it’s not super slow. There are caching options for read and write that benefit from SSDs, but you’re just adding costs here to get speed increases.
I only use it on servers or NASs. The extra hassles of using it on a workstation keep me from running it on a laptop. Unless you want to use FreeBSD that is… then you’d be fine (and FreeBSD is pretty usable as a daily driver). Realistically, I’m not sure how practical it is for most home users. But it is an example of what a filesystem can offer when it is well designed.
I'm always surprised how often ZFS is recommended when this comes up but not BTRFS which also has checksumming and scrubs and doesn't suffer some of ZFS's drawbacks of complexity and OS integration.
This is a fair point. I think that the instability of early releases of BTRFS and the (lack of) commitment of especially RedHat made me not spend too much time working with it. The lack of a RAID solution made it not feasible for my purposes for a long time, and I was already quite familiar with ZFS through working with Solaris and FreeBSD. Trust in filesystems is hard won and easily lost[0].
I also think the popularity of FreeNAS especially contributed to the popularity of ZFS.
[0] I still look at XFS skeptically after a crash I suffered nearly 20 years ago. It’s not a rational fear, but it’s still there.
I use Debian at home, with separate boot, /, and /home/ partitions. I have no idea what type of cheap memory is stuffed into the motherboard - it's certainly not homogeneous. I do prioritise resiliency over speed, or even space.
The servers I use ZFS on are Debian, so it’s well supported in that way. I’m pretty sure ZFS on Debian uses dkms, so if you want to try it on a data partition, it will work.
Still, unless you want to tinker with something new I can’t really recommend it. Would it work? Yes. Do you need it? No. You’re probably fine with whatever FS you currently have running. ZFS works on Debian, but it’s not first-party support (due to licensing). Do I think you’d have issues if you wanted to try it? Probably not. I’m just conservative in what I’d recommended for a daily use machine. I prioritize working over everything else, so I’d hate for you to try it and end up with a non working system.
Here’s what I’d recommend instead - try it in a VM first. See if you can get it to work in a system setup like yours. See if it’s something that you like. If you want to use it on your primary machine, then you’ll be able to make a more informed decision.
I use ZFS on both my desktop and laptop each with Linux (in addition to a server, also running ZFS, but on FreeBSD). It's actually really not terribly hard, but I might be biased since I've been doing since it 2011 :)
If you can/are willing to use UEFI, ZFSBootMenu is a Linux oriented solution that replicates the power of FreeBSD's bootloader, so you can manage snapshots and boot environments and rollback checkpoints all at boot without having to use recovery media (that used to be required when doing ZFS on Linux). Definitely worth looking into: https://zfsbootmenu.org/
Getting an old enough edition of Apostol's "Calculus" to not include linear algebra might be a bit challenging. Linear algebra was added to both volumes in their second editions, which came out in 1967 for volume 1 and 1969 for volume 2.
The second editions are still the current edition, so no worry that you might be missing out on something if you go with used copies. If you do want new copies (maybe you can't find used copies or they are in bad shape) take a look at international editions.
A new copy of the international edition for India from a seller in India on AbeBooks is around $15 per volume plus around $19 shipping to the US. Same contents as the US edition but paperback instead of hardback, smaller pages, and rougher paper. (International editions also often replace color with grayscale but that's not relevant in this case because Apostol does not use color)).
You can also find US sellers on AbeBooks that has imported an international edition. That will be around $34 but usually with free shipping.
Indian editions sometimes have different question sets to prevent students from using them in other countries' coursework.
They also have a hologram sticker alongside a printed warning that they are not for sale or export outside of India, Nepal and a couple of other countries.
i bought a compilers book that was an Indian edition. The paper and print quality was so bad (like smudgy) that I could not read it and I didn’t think I was particularly picky about this. Not sure if I just got unlucky or if this is generally true?
I've got several Matter smart plugs and a couple Matter smart bulbs.
They all were quick and easy to set up with their first Matter controller (an RPi4 running Home Assistant or an iPad with Apple Home), and quick and easy to add to whichever controller I didn't use as the first controller.
They all worked then without requiring me to get their manufacturer's proprietary app or make an account or anything like that.
Some needed a firmware update to support Matter 1.3, and so I had to use the manufacturer's app for that. Some also have proprietary functions and options (for example one of bulbs supports some kind of presence detection if you have at least two of those bulbs in the same room) so I might get the manufacturers app if I decide I want to use those functions.
Adding them to the manufacturer's app does not interfere with their use as Matter devices so if I do decide I want to use some of the proprietary stuff it doesn't break things.
1) If you have to use a manufacturers app for updates that's already falling into my point. 2) There are plenty of threads out there discussing manufacturers that leverage Matter but they force their own controller to be able to be used. A lot of these are together at builders as another revenue stream for them.
Finally... This [0] does a better job of explaining the issues with Matter. But, Matter is ultimately a joke. It was promoted as a standard by vendors nobody should trust for interoperability at this point.
> An example - how long has Matter existed? Yet, it hasn't had a profile for smart plugs with energy monitoring (eg the 12$ IKEA one). Such a basic use case...
That was added with version 1.3 of Matter, released in the middle of this year. You just need to wait for your smart home ecosystem to support it and for IKEA to release a firmware update.
As far as ecosystems go, Home Assistant (HA) fully supports it, as does Samsung SmartThings. Google has a public beta, from what I've read. Amazon and Apple are in the on the way stage.
As far as device goes, all my energy monitoring smart plugs are Tp-link Tapo, and they have been quick to update firmware. I'm using several Tp-Link Tapo P110M Matter smart plugs [1] and a Tapo P316M Matter smart power strip [2] with HA.
The P316M, purchased in the middle of October, came with firmware that supported Matter 1.3 out of the box. I simply added it to HA using the "Add device" button on the HA screen and it worked.
The P110Ms, purchased at the start of this month, came with older firmware so they did not show energy use out of the box in HA. A quick trip to the Tapo app to add them to it during which it checks for and installs the latest firmware, brought them up to the latest firmware. After that the energy monitoring information showed up in HA.
1. I opted in to sharing my information with everyone that 23andMe identified as relatives. "Relatives" in this context means genetic 4th cousins or closer. For me that turned out to be 1500 people, all of whom are as far as I know complete strangers to me (I'm adopted).
2. One or more of those 1500 people used the same password on 23andMe that they used on some other site that suffered a breach that gave up plaintext passwords.
3. That password was included in a credential stuffing attack that let someone get into their 23andMe account, where that intruder downloaded the account owner's relatives list which included my information.
When I chose to share my data with 1500 strangers I was pretty much conceding that I didn't really care who got it.
reply