SIKE was not endorsed by NIST. It was a candidate for standardization. It failed.

Yet they appear to drive exactly like a 16 year old. They do the same stupid crap, like just stop where they are when they get confused.

What a great example of "how to lie with statistics". Compare the MAXIMUM sentence of one crime with the AVERAGE TIME SERVED of another.

The MAXIMUM sentence for murder is life without possibility of parole (or in some states, death). The average time served before first release for murder is 18 years.

The MAXIMUM sentence for wire fraud is 20 years. The average time served (for fraud of this size) is about 5 years.

More than 50% of mainframe workload is now "new workload", meaning Linux and/or Java. It's time for the "legacy only" meme to die.

So you actually think that they spun up an LPAR that had a CPU dedicated to your task? Here's a hint - they didn't. You were sharing that resource with dozens, maybe hundreds of other users. Your benchmark is completely invalid.

Nobody says that everything digital the holds value is a security. The rest of your rant is meaningless.

I don't know how you got that from what I wrote. I was responding to someone who was making the claim that if State Farm was not interested in profits they would have no reason for expensive advertising. I simply pointed out that keeping/increasing your customer base is important for insurance companies even if they aren't profit driven, because the more customers you have the more the risk is spread. I also specifically said "provided the customers do not present undue risk". State Farm obviously considers California as "undue risk" so they don't want those customers. Nothing wrong with that.

Do you know how insurance works? The more you can spread the risk (ie by having more customers/owners) the less that risk costs each customer/owner.

You can self-insure, but then you have to have enough in reserve to pay for a loss. Or you can agree to mutually insure with someone else, now each of you only has to have half the reserves (assuming the odds of both having losses at the same time are very small). Or you can pay a professional athlete millions of dollars to do a TV ad to get many more people to join your mutual, and now your costs go way down.

Increasing the number of customers (provided those customers do not present undue risk) is important even without a profit motive.

State Farm is a mutual, owned by the policy holders. Profit is not in the picture, they just need to break even.

Of course there is: building in catastrophe prone areas increases catastrophe exposure for the insurance company, whether or not the actual number of catastrophes increases.

State Farm is a mutual insurance company, owned by the policy holders. The "enormous profit margins" you are claiming just do not exist. Ideally they would break even every year as that would mean the premiums are as low as they can be to meet the payouts. In reality, some years they have a little excess (in 2022 they had an underwriting gain of $849M on premiums of $27.6B), and in some years there is a shortage (2021 had a shortfall if $1.1B).

They lose a lot of money most quarters? This chart https://www.macrotrends.net/st... shows their quarterly profit for the last 12 years. There are exactly 2 quarters where they had any loss at all.

There are no contempt charges because there was no contempt because there was no court order to be in contempt of. What they did was violate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which state that if you are involved (or are about to be involved) in litigation you must take steps to preserve electronic communications so they are available to the opposing party in discovery. The penalty for failing to take those steps is exactly what has happened here: you may have to pay associated costs. Furthermore, if the court later finds that you failed to preserve the communications in order to deprive the other party of them, then it can instruct the jury to consider all of the deleted evidence as being damning to the party that deleted them.

It is a civil case, nobody is going to jail. There is no contempt of court charge as there was no court order.

It's not where your eyes are looking that is the problem, it is where your attention is focused. Doing things like checking your speed, looking in your mirrors, and other similar things do not require attention. You can glance around and process what you have seen while you still have your attention focused on driving. Operating a touch screen requires attention.