They ran out of real things to do. Now they're inventing things to do that just don't matter. It would have been perfectly fine to assess 152 birds to identify which ones are good or bad. Aren't there a whole bunch beetles waiting to be found? Why is this important?

P.S. There's never been a "global science" except in the minds of certain individuals. We've always been a marketplace of ideas. It's only a "global science" concept so that it can be controlled, manipulated and directed to "the benefit of all humankind" which could never ever possibly happen on its own. Even though it has for millennia. We are the apex predator not because we are the smartest, but because we copy what works - we learn faster socially and stand on each other shoulders. We do not need a "global science directorate."

They insist "this is the only way it can be done." Central command for anything never works. The market place of ideas and competition is what brings innovation. If you dictate to people who they have to work with, they have no incentive and no skin in the game to succeed only to share credit with someone they dislike. This is basic human nature. It's why decentralization is key. 2 parallel tracks is actually great. There is historical precedent. Riemann and Leibniz. Newton and Raphson. Rutherford and Bohr. And so on. The stage is the world. And everyone is watching. Is anyone paying attention to the hijacking in progress?

Actually, if you read the background material from the Asimov foundation, you'll see that the current show was made for modern audiences. Read into that whatever you like.

This was the true crime.

I think you're a little confused on Psychohistory. It's not that there are no protagonists. It's that there are no heroes that repeatedly save the day. The script was true to that - different people saved the day in different places, all tools to Pshychohistory.

Ok - let's do some simple math. When you buy a gas car, you still only drive the same distance on average. Would you buy a car that only traveled the 30 miles until it needed a fill up? There is a practical tradeoff between fill time and drive time. Almost every car operates on the premise of 15 minutes fill time for 300 miles drive time (give or take). This is a practical inflection point. Some cars do better than this. Some cars do worse than this. But by and large they are around this mark.
Now, let's multiply the "fill-time" by a factor of 8 (2h for your average EV). Now the inflection point of usefulness changes. We may not know what it is right now but we DO know that it's not the 300 miles. Would you want to "fill up" every 30 miles for 15 minutes or so in an EV? Or would you overlook that EV for one with a better tradeoff? The bottom line of these articles is that they want to push rental instead of ownership. It's about the narrative and playing with the numbers to push a story of what you should do, rather than what's practical.

I looked at the questions. The answers to the questions were in the actual question itself. Every single time. It literally provided the logic. If you took the correct statements and wrote them out as comments and then put the Java statements below the comments, you would have had the answer in no time. If you can't read the answer in the question, you don't deserve to pass. 34% meant they were looking to understand EVERYTHING instead of understanding the REQUIREMENTS. Gold plating gets no reward in the real world. The twitter user is wrong. This was purely an instance where the students were busy reading the book instead of reading the hints. Solving a real world problem means understanding and solving only the requirements and assuming the rest of the things are already handled (programming by contract). The teachers were right. Regardless of whether they were assisting or not. The questions themselves were SO THOROUGH, every answer should have been almost identical to the point where they would seem like they were copied.

Read the quote again: "Microsoft says that the vulnerability can be exploited by an attacker with either physical access to a system or administrator rights on a system."

I wonder who it could be that has admin rights to your system or has physical access to your system? Could that be you, yourself or someone in your family? Nah - it must be some malicious third party that is making use of this invasive malware that magically appears on your device - but that requires physical access or possession.

Let me translate: If you own your own device or you give yourself admin rights, you can use this vulnerability. Or if you give someone else your device or you give that person admin rights, they can use this vulnerability.

First off: physical access trumps everything. Would you hand your phone to some to have them mess with it? Second. Would you give someone admin rights on your device at random?

So in the final analysis, YOU can bypass SECUREBOOT so YOU must be PREVENTED from bypassing SECUREBOOT on a device you own? A lockpick can get you into your house or it get get you burglarized. Does that mean that you need steel shutters on your house?

This is all back to making sure you CANNOT TURN OFF the THINGS the M$ and the other overlords don't want you to turn off. Rememeber the battery fiasco with iPhones where older phones were throttled but then they made the excuse that it was to protect the battery?

Never forget: secureboot is meant to be secure AGAINST YOU. No one else.

Typo. SAML

No mention of SALM or OAuth but users are authenticating against a database? Didn't we stop doing that in the 2006 due to the need to interoperate with enterprise directory systems? Must be designed for mom and pop shops that don't have the ability to install Zentyal or 389 DS on a small VM running on a Xeon purchased on eBay for under $400 that can run everything, or can't install a free OAuth identity providers like the myriad out there.

Things are looking up. Maybe we can get parity with some of the commercial competitors.

Hello.

Looks very familiar to the C program.

#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
puts("Hello, World!");
}

LMAO. Good catch. My card is in good standing, thank goodness, per your standard.