Here's the problem, and why everyone resents this crap (your fellow IT folks most of all)...

Yeah, great, you're an Exchange admin and can send email "from" any random VP you want. And you have access to their recent document history so can "spice it up" by referencing actual projects we might really be assigned to. When your phishing tests are literally indistinguishable from legitimate emails, you're not "testing" anything, you're daring people to ignore legitimate work at risk of their continued employment.

If "my boss" sends me an email, which the headers show really came from his account, and asks me to take a look at a spreadsheet we worked on three days ago - You're not being clever, you're an asshole.

1) Comcast could have started moving to fiber a decade before the upstarts and qualified for the same subisidies.
2) Comcast has received 2.6B in subsidies since 1987.
3) Remind us again, how long as Biden been out of office now?

Tovarishch, your sons are dying, cold, alone, in a Ukranian ditch; just waiting for one of the many overhead drones to notice them and blow off their manhood while they bleed out. And for what? So the ex-KGB gangster in Moscow can fantasize about reuniting a mythical Historical Russian Empire that never existed and never will?

Go home to the family farm and enjoy a peaceful life. There's no glory for you in Ukraine.

I'm curious where exactly he gets that $1500 figure from. When Spectrum installed my fiber, it was half an hour's labor for a lineman, 150m of such crappy fiber I wouldn't use it as a patch cable inside my house, a 4-port 1Gbit EPON, a mid-range pre-compromised bandwidth-stealing router I threw back in the box the second the tech left (if I don't have the real admin password, it's not going on my network!). That's it. Even at massively inflated replacement prices for captive customers, that's $600 total at most (and realistically more like half that).

Pssst, Jason - You need to realize the fictional numbers you use to justify rate increases to state PUCs are just that, fiction; and your competitors are eating your lunch precisely because you don't understand the difference. One year of "subsidizing" the installation on a two year contract is still net profitable! But then, they say to never correct your enemy when they're making a mistake, and I could not be happier to have escaped Comcast's footprint years ago. You go right ahead and pretend everyone else in the market is selling at a loss. Meanwhile, they're doing just fine, I don't need to deal with Comcast, and you won't be missed.

The preliminary results that previously sent their stock soaring "only" showed a 49% reduction. 42% over a much larger population still ain't bad!

I'm honestly stumped why the market reacted as badly as it did to this news - That's still a 100% viable product, and it targets people desperate for any reduction in recurrence! Exactly 0 people will turn down 42% who would have been thrilled with 49%.

Why does using a browser depend on an "account"? And why is an already-installed application (not tied to a single service provider) going to stop working ever? I might not have a very good time with it, but I could still run a 29 year old copy of NCSA Mosaic if I really wanted to.

Then again, both of those pretty much are the answers to my other top question, "what the hell are Arc and Dia, and why have I never heard of them": Proprietary garbage whose continued use depends on the Chief Sociopath having a good quarter. Nope, and good riddance!

This story really isn't about PHP. It's about AI easily finding multiple severity-9+ externally-exploitable server-side vulnerabilities without even breaking a sweat.

Over the next few months, this same story is going to repeat for Ruby, ASP, Python, Node (or JS in general), .Net, etc. And not all of them will be so easily fixed - Or for that matter, disclosed at all prior to a working exploit in the wild.

Running a public-facing webserver is about to become the losing side of an inevitable arms race.

LPT: Peacefully protesting is not illegal in the US. Guess who this will be primarily used against?

That said, this is the same LRAD system that the military unequivocally promised would never be used inside the US or against civilians. The same LRAD system that failed spectacularly when field-tested in Iraq against so-called "insurgents". It's trivially defeated by any amount of metal (e.g. tinfoil hats really do work against it), rain or even high humidity, plastic sheets more than a few mils thick, wet cloth - Basically anything except bone-dry thin woven fabric is substantially effective at blocking it.

So of course, they'll just crank up the power and actually cook innocent bystanders, but let's be honest, we all know they'll do that even if it worked spectacularly well, because cruelty is the point, and 11 is more cruel than 10.

The time has come when a full-body faraday cage is required gear for any serious protestor - So naturally, we should fully expect wearing anti-static clothing to a protest to become a felony as soon as police realize their intended victims aren't squirming in pain enough to sate their sadism.

Respectfully, that's not what banning "tasks that require significant effort or time, or would typically be performed by a cleaner" means. Unlisted ad-hoc requirements have been prohibited all along (though admittedly, not well enforced).

AirBNB / VRBO / whatever gets a cut of every dollar. They benefit from junk fees, and couldn't care less except to the extent it costs them customers or risks incurring regulatory oversight - And basic cleaning has been a pretty standard clause right from the beginning (albeit there's a legitimate concern over hosts double-dipping).

Some folks would prefer to repair the toilet they have than run away to use the neighbor's.

If you're just fine with living in a cesspit, though, you do you.

I think everyone is missing the real story here.

This has nothing to do with taking out the garbage, and everything to do with making it impossible to be an "absentee landlord" (or at least hiring a cleaning service)

And it's a much needed change! Far too many deadbeats pick up a literally-condemnable shack in a touristy area and think they can just list and ignore it. It's easy to ghost someone over email, not so easy when your renters are in your face demanding the toilet work ASAP.

The surveys my company sends out really are anonymous, insofar as they don't contain a tracking ID and don't ask for a name.

They do, however, ask for our site and our job title. Which would be just fine if I was Engineer #81 of 200 working out of corporate HQ. Instead, our job titles are unusually specific - Mine is basically "$Teamname Engineer 3", of which there are only two in the entire company, and we're based out of different satellite offices (we're all remote, so my "site" is just the company's largest physical office in my state - A whopping 12 people on-site, maybe 50 including remote workers).

So is it anonymous? Technically yes, functionally no.

No argument, but none of that was on trial. They didn't lose because they largely ignore hate speech, misinformation, bots, etc - All of which are basically legal except in very specific contexts (licensed professional advice, incitement to violence). They lost because they lied about user privacy and their efforts at moderation.

This isn't apologia, but it's an important distinction to keep in mind. The first amendment is an effective defense of the content itself; it's not a defense against deceiving their customers and regulators. So why am I writing this? Because Zuck's appeal to 1A is merely another lie - Whether this stands or is eventually reduced on appeal, he's already spinning the PR away from the blunt fact of "we lost because lied", to the far squishier "Meh, moderation is hard, so sue us - Oh wait, you did LOL".

Great question! Just convince the 34-time Felon in Chief to obey the Epstein Files Transparency Act of December 2025, and maybe we'll have an answer.

You're barking up an empty tree here - I'm no fan of Biden, but the Executive didn't have the power to ignore the judicial seal from March 2013 through January 2024, when they were ordered unsealed for Giuffre's case (pity she conveniently ate a bullet before it could affect the election). Not coincidentally, January 2024 (under Biden) coincides with the first substantial release, followed by progressively more throughout 2024 as the data could be verified; and continued to be released in batches, right up through inauguration day when undeniable financial records were finally on the table, and instantly squashed by the incoming administration.

Meanwhile, the Executive also can't just ignore acts of Congress, such as the Epstein Files Transparency Act; yet here we are still debating "why" the files haven't been released as ordered.

Do you really want to compare the right's evidence-free hit-piece against Clinton against hundreds of thousands of pages of in this debate? But hey, whaddya know, it looks like Clinton is mentioned extensively in the Epstein files. If only POTUS would obey Congress and release them all, you might finally get to take down Slick Willy! Good! Lock all of the pedo trash up, but maybe let's at least start with the diaper fouling the Oval Office before we head back to dredging the swamps of Arkansas..

The word "DAC" is conspicuously missing from this press release. Every single detail I quoted only applies to the 1-2cm between the DAC and the jack (or if we're willing to hold crappy aftermarket headphones against Sony, maybe 2m in total between DAC and ears).

People are responding to my comment like we're talking about end-to-end high-entropy multi-GHz signals. Comparing the human auditory range with modern ultra-high-speed DACs, we may as well be talking about DC for all the difference it makes.