Maybe. There's a feature called user namespaces in Linux that effectively allows an unprivileged user to act as if they were a privileged user within a specific environment. (Basically, containerization.) Within such a namespace, a non-privileged user could conceptually access nf_tables as if they were a privileged user. In theory this would only allow them to add additional filters within the namespace, but the vulnerability here can provide direct access to kernel memory.

Some distros add additional layers of security to prevent flaws like that, blocking access to nf_tables even within a namespace, but the vulnerability links to ways around those. (Link to the Wayback Machine from the source vulnerability disclosure.)

It's possible your distro may be secure - or it may not be. It depends on what features are enabled.

Which is great, when they're in transit. But once they're on-device, they're decrypted, and then Apple has access to them.

We know this, because there have been court cases where iCloud-subpeonaed iMessage messages were presented as evidence.

Just because the transit is secure, doesn't mean the endpoints are.

Ah. Then you want the Carice. But you are in the US. But it would make your heart sing

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

https://www.caricecars.com/

You’ve got to be shitting me. You are saying it’s normal in Canada to drive several hours to drop something off at a datacenter and drive several hours back? I think you mean it’s normal for *you*.

The number of people whose lives involve driving hundreds of miles to drop something off and then driving hundreds of miles back because the mail takes too long must be countable on the fingers of one thumb

You are so wildly wrong on this, it’s not even true. In an EREV, there is no direct connection between the engine and the wheels. The engine is used to charge the battery, which drives an electric motor, which is the sole motive force for the wheels.

You are 100% flat out completely and utterly wrong, and I have absolutely no idea how you have convinced yourself of this weirdness.

Find a single article that says an EREV works the way you insist it does, I dare you

They all say words to this effect: “ The EREV uses a combustion engine purely as a generator and as such there is no connection between the engine and the drivetrain. Usually a gasoline engine, the generator has a sole purpose of charging up batteries when they run low” (from the Arena article, but all the others say the same thing)

Here’s five articles saying I’m right and you’re wrong. I could have put in 50, but life is too short:
https://insideevs.com/features...
https://www.mckinsey.com/featu...
https://www.drivencarguide.co....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Again, what are you talking about?

Obviously, there are conversion losses in going from chemical to electrical to kinetic energy. Those are vastly outweighed by the inefficiencies that apply when an ICE engine is running under variable load and at varying RPM. ICE engines typically manage only about 22% efficiency. So the numbers are, about a 20% max loss for an EREV due to conversions vs a near doubling of efficiency of the engine compared to an ICE engine (40% vs 22%). It’s not even close.

And where is the power coming from to recharge the battery in the i3 or LEVC when it reaches that lower level? The engine! It doesn’t matter if there are intermediate steps or not; it doesn’t matter if the system balances the charge/discharge rate so that the battery stays at a constant level while continuing to provide traction for the car. It’s still chemical energy being combusted in the engine to power the traction battery. This strategy is to maintain battery SoH, keep headroom for regen, buffer transient demands, and keep the generator operating efficiently.

I *think* you’re attempting to play some weird semantic game in which you say that unless the battery SoC actually increases, the battery is not being charged. The tap is filling the bath at the same rate as the bath is draining, but it’s absurd to say the tap isn’t filling the bath.

More generally, you can’t just point to one engineering principle like “energy conversion losses are a thing” and ignore all the other operating conditions in which drivetrains operate. Wnat matters is system performance, which is affected by multiple factors, not one alone.

The Dacia Spring is that car.

"I should be able to drive to a city a few hours away and not be forced to use a restaurant until I can come back."

You know what's going through my head? It's this: who the fuck drives to a city a few *hours* away, only to turn round and drive back immediately? Because what other scenario precludes you from... plugging the car in while you go do the thing you drove to that city to do??

Make it make sense.

What are you *talking* about? EREVs are common and are extremely efficient, because the small engine can be run at an optimal RPM for efficiency while recharging the battery. The i3 had an EREV variant, the LEVC taxi is an EREV, and the Chinese market is stuffed silly with them, from the Li Auto L6 to the Deepal S07.

There are so many better ways to demonstrate that cheaper EV sales are increasing than randomly mentioning US-only sales of the not especially cheap Ioniq 5, a random comment about BYD global exports, and two new cheaper VAG models. It’s all true, but so oddly specific.

If you want to demonstrate the increasing availability of cheaper EVs in non-US markets, you would point to Chinese EV models newly available in SE Asia and S America, and the dramatic growth of cheaper models in Europe. Not just the Raval and the id.Polo, but the EC3, EV2, Twingo, Inster, T03, Spring, Surf, eC3, Frontera, Micra, R5, MG4I’m sure there’s more I’ve missed. VAG is big but they’re hardly alone in going after the cheaper end of the market, and the whole point is that it’s a decisive shift in the dynamics.

Disagree on this. That's like saying only shows that trek through the stars should be called Star Trek - and yet the best Star Trek series ever made was Deep Space Nine.

The Stargate is just part of the premise of the followup shows, not a required defining characteristic of them. Even for the original series, by about season 6-7 it was sharing the field with ships and other methods of travel.

As for Universe, it did stumble out of the gate (haha), for sure, but almost every show does. I think it had found its footing by the middle of the second season and season 3 was set up for some great potential. It absolutely deserved a third season.

But in this case, we're talking about metal vs plastic, not glass vs plastic. We're also talking about large touchpads (more usable) with a good haptic sensor (more usable) and a high quality screen that's bright and crisp (more usable) and a high quality keyboard that doesn't flex when you type on it (more usable).

No, that's not (necessarily) capitalism. For example, we had ownership in medieval times in the UK... Did we have capitalism? No. We had feudalism. In China, you have the concept of personal ownership. Do they have capitalism? No - they have a corruption of communism. Hell, North Korea has personal ownership. Do they have capitalism? No - they have a dictatorship. Russia has personal ownership. Do they have capitalism? No - they have an oligarchy. Nazi Germany had personal ownership. Capitalism? No. Fascism.

Basically every society in history has had the concept of personal ownership. The question of capitalism or not revolves around the question of whether the government allows mostly uncontrolled exchange of goods, and the method of production. In feudal Europe, I as a person was allowed to own a mill, and sell the grain produced by it... as long as the "government" (my feudal laird) allowed it. It wasn't free buying and selling of the mill itself, it was buying and selling of the mill as long as the government agreed with it.

What on earth makes you think capitalism is the only system that involves the concept of personal ownership?

They’ve already taken the war to Russia. They blew up an oil refinery outside St Petersburg two days ago, to humiliate Putin in front of his international delegates at his pathetic little conference. They’ve taken 40% of Russia’s oil production offline. Etc.