A person I know had a story once, I believe about Citi, where they had a phishing message and wanted to report it to the bank's fraud/security people. And the person they got to told them that to see whether an email is legit, look at the email and see if it has a citibank logo, because that's how you can tell it's legitimate.

If my fuzzy memory of years back is correct, and that was indeed Citi, then yeah, they should absolutely be on the hook for some amount of this fraud.

(source: https://infosec.exchange/@Goss...)

Been watching the Post Office scandal drama that ITV made. It’s really good.

One big notable so far - they introduce the CEO in episode two.. skipping over the CEO before her, who was actually in charge when all this kicked off.

He went on to be CEO of ITV.

They censor lots of things they disapprove of. Their ToS allow them to censor on lots of topics, and they do.

If they were not censoring other things, they might have a better defense. There'd be a real argument there, but it'd at least be an actual argument about the facts. The notion that they have an "anti-censorship stance" is, however, nonsense.

The key point here isn't that he wrote a fic, and it wasn't "a loving homage", he was claiming that he owned the rights to LoTR and suing over it. His suit against Amazon was what brought him to the Tolkein estate's attention.

I think if he'd made the fan work and not actively gone trying to pick a fight with them, they'd likely not have cared.

I don't think any other part of our infrastructure gets described in terms like "lost $6.5 billion in the last year". Normally we talk about what it costs to have infrastructure, because we're paying to have a thing we need. We don't talk about the school system in general "losing money", we talk about "what we spend on education".

That said, it does make sense to think about this somewhat in the context where a for-profit business is using that infrastructure and not really paying for the costs of providing that infrastructure.

I know more than one person who was a paying customer, and then suddenly their account was locked, and they never found out why. And I don't think this is a case where "they know what they did". I think they have no idea whatsoever, and Discord refused to even hint at it. Did they break a rule? Maybe! Will they ever be told which rule? No! So there's nothing they can do to change their behavior to fix it, and no reason not to just make a new account and use that instead.

The main effect is, there's no circumstance under which I'll ever pay Discord for anything, because multiple people I know got cheated out of money they paid to the service and never even got a hint as to what they supposedly did, let alone a chance to see what the "evidence" was, or dispute a finding.

Given that it will just make stuff up, it really seems to me like this is probably criminal negligence, and I really urge you to think this through: If it confidently hallucinates the answter that x is not in y, and x is actually in y, and someone gets hurt or dies, who is going to be liable for that error? "Pretty good" is not good enough for things that can kill people.

The degree to which it can confidently hallucinate plausible-sounding but completely wrong things makes me very disinclined to use it, or anything based primarily on this approach, because that's significantly anti-useful. To use it, I'm going to just have to go do all the research again myself anyway, or risk being horribly wrong. I guess it could be entertaining to play with, but after watching a bunch of people confidently relying on things it said, I'm pretty sure it's just poison. To say nothing of the various copyright-type issues, etcetera.

I just want clearer guidance on how to change my face and fingerprints when they get compromised.

It is a shame that we only have something like 150 years of research showing that "crunch times" actually hurt net productivity, not just quality, and don't actually get things done sooner than having people get enough rest so they are performing at their best. As a result of the comparatively scarce entire body of literature in this field, all of it publically available, the information needed to prevent disasters like this has been extremely hard to get, being available only to anyone who can read, anyone who has ever worked, or anyone who has ever actually met a human being.

No, we've had pandemics before, we've studied outcomes, and lockdowns aren't exactly free, but they generally reduce deaths. There weren't 100k deaths "caused by the lockdown". Furthermore, there's lots of non-lockdown things, like social distancing and mask wearing, that would have helped hugely, but weren't done.

Mostly, though... If you want to claim that there's extra deaths from lockdowns, don't offer speculative narratives and how you feel like lockdowns might lead to deaths. Offer real, solid, numbers. Epidemiologists have been writing about the direct and indirect effects of policies like this for over a century. We have studies and graphs from the 1918 pandemic, after all. So on one side, we have basically all the science that's been done in this field, regardless of political affiliations or country, for more than a century, and on the other hand, we have a small population of people, more than 95% of whom are right-wing, who are making claims contrary to that science and who offer no actual evidence, just speculations and vague handwaving appeals to "extra orphans from the lockdowns" without actually justifying or supporting the claim that the lockdowns kill people.

Also, no, covid's mortality rate isn't really "more in-line with the common flu". I know that was a popular thing to say early on, but it's stupid. Yes, it looks low if you disregard all the people who have other health problems, or who are old, and so on... But you know what? If you want to do that, you have to also look only at flu death rates excluding all the people who have other health problems, or who are old... And then you run into the problem that it's really hard to measure that death rate because it's so low. (I've never actually personally had anyone tell me about someone they know dying from "flu" who wasn't old and unhealthy to begin with. I've long since lost count of the number of people I know who know someone who died from covid, and not all the dead people were old or unhealthy.)

I think they're saying it because it's true, and was commented on in the news back when it happened, and specifically, the administration required hospitals to report this stuff to HHS, who could be trusted to fudge the figures for him, rather than to the CDC, who kept maliciously telling the truth even when it looked bad for him. That's one of the major functions of the "executive branch" -- running all the federal agencies. And, in some cases, running them badly.

So, in a way, you're right. The information is "withheld" from the CDC, so that political appointees in HHS can nudge things to try to make it look more like it's not as bad a disaster as it is.

Yeah. We had to postpone an "elective" surgery for four months, and that's four months during which my spouse couldn't walk most days and was in screaming agony at least one day a week. But hey, technically "elective".

They'd have to have a lot fewer deaths to catch up given how badly that first pass went, and as of yet, nothing suggests that we, or they, are even particularly close to the number of previously-infected people you'd need to develop herd immunity, and we're still not totally sure it even provides lasting immunity, although we have good reason to believe it provides at least some resistance for a while.

Getting to those kinds of numbers would require a lot more infections than we currently have evidence for, which would probably imply a lot more deaths.

I think you misunderstand. There are no specific tools you need to parse conventional log files, you can use any tool you want, but most Unix people will be familiar with, and have, the standard tools. The point, though, is that those are the tools that work on absolutely any text stream, which means that they, or any other workflow that works on text streams, can be used on log files. With systemd, you need an extra tool to extract the information into a text stream in addition to whatever tooling you need on the text stream.

Your point about --since/--until is actually a good point, but the first part is just incoherent. You'd have been more persuasive without including it.