"To give a sense of the scale of the attack, that is like receiving all the daily requests to Wikipedia (one of the top 10 trafficked websites in the world) in just 10 seconds."

You don't need to know how much traffic Wikipedia gets in 10 seconds. All you need to know is the difference between 1 day and 10 secods. It is like saying "The Ithaca Regional Airport received in just 10 seconds the same amount of air traffic that JFK usually gets in one day". You don't need to know anything about air traffic to understand that's an extremely chaotic situation.

Open source licenses generally don't disallow charging for redistribution.

For example, quoting from the GPL "preamble": "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish)"

Based on the blog post referenced by the article, it doesn't look like Google will be having their own internal versions of the libraries with bug or vulnerability fixes only available to paying customers. They will just provide the same code available elsewhere, and only "rubber stamp" it after scanning it for vulnerabilities, plus distributing the copy of the code from Google servers that are presumably secured against tampering from third parties.

As long as this "vetting" process is the only thing Google is charging for, I don't think they would be out of compliance.

37% of fully remote workers admit they are juggling a secret second job.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

According to the video, people use different strategies to get away with having multiple jobs. Some of them are detrimental to the employer. For example, people will routinely decline participating in meetings so they can use that time to work on the other job .People doing this also recommend to be mediocre at your job and never exceed expectations so you can handle the double workload without stressing out. There's a website dedicated to sharikng these tips: https://overemployed.com/set-l...

It's obvious companies are realizing WFH means they are paying top dollar to get sub-par results and they rather have you in their offices where it's easier for them to make sure you're not doing side stuff on company's time.

Set up a gofundme-like website but with the Apple logo and have people send them money in exchange of nothing.

It looks like the summary of this article is trying to ridicule companies that were reluctant to accept the product this startup was offering for free. But "free" is sometimes too expensive. The product they develop is some sort of data warehouse. What kind of guarantees did this startup offer regarding security, protection of personal data, protection against data loss, etc.? Was the product easy to implement? Did it have the right integrations? Was it easy to administer and scale? If the "free" product lacked these capabilities it could actually become a huge liability. Yes, many times the term "enterprise ready" IS abused as marketing bullshit. That doesn't mean there isn't a legitimate need for these "enterprise" features.

Apple tea? What a great idea! Why risk spilling generic-branded hot beverages on your Apple keyboard when you can ruin it with legitimate Apple tea and coffee from the official Apple Store?

This is an interesting question. I think most likely Facebook would be able to tell the automatically generated fake traffic from the real traffic. Ultimately it could lead to an arms race between the bot algorithms and Facebook's AI based algorithms as they become more and more sophisticated in order to defeat each other. In the long run it would probably not completely defeat Facebook but it could certainly hurt them by increasing their operating costs.

On one occasion a coworker accidentally unmuted himself on a zoom meeting and could be heard discussing technical stuff not related to our project with someone else.

Yes. There's a way to ask. They can implement whatever optimization they see fit in both the client and their servers and open a pull request in the chromium repo. A search engine is likely not a mom and pop shop, so they should have the resources and technical expertise to do this themselves, just like Google did. It's up to Google to accept or not the changes, of course, and to propagate or not the changes from chromium to chrome, but the process to push the changes exists. So unless some search engine has attempted this already and Google rejected it there's no unfair advantage on Google's part.

Japan. White people aren't in charge. It is still considered part of the developed world. Nice race-baiting, though.

Asia accounts for 81% of global plastic inputs to the ocean. More than one-third of ocean plastic inputs come from the Philippines https://ourworldindata.org/oce...

I wonder how many in that 8% did get their second dose, only at a different location than the first.

I live in California, and a month ago you could read stories of people driving to rural areas for a better chance to get a vaccine. As availability recently improved in big cities, it is possible these people would have made an appointment closer to home instead of driving a long distance again for the second dose.

It is very common to see posts in local subreddits where people ask "which sites offer Moderna / Pfizer?". Sure, it could be people really picky about the type of vaccine they want to get, but my guess is that in many cases it's people looking for the right 2nd dose

Many sites don't let you get the 2nd dose there if they didn't give you the first. But at the same time they give you the shot without requiring an id. So you could easily lie and say it's your first shot, in which case you would be counted twice as missing your 2nd dose. The article also mentions pharmacies cancelling 2nd dose appointments because they didn't have the right vaccine on hand. My guess is that affected people would have tried to book an appointment elsewhere. Again, lying about being the first dose if necessary (I know I would have)

The link you provided is not inflation-adjusted