There actually was a push in the UK a few years ago to outlaw pointy kitchen knives, but it met with great resistance and was dropped.

However, the point remains that stabbings in the UK are actually less common that stabbings in the US. This points out that while many think that guns are the cause of the US' violence problem, the real problem is deeper: US culture is just more violent.

I suspect that he's neither the first nor the last who are genuinely quite eager to see more 'equity participation' in some of the big bot shops; given that they've burned through all the VC they can get and even the dumb money is starting to get nervous. Retail bagholders and state investment under the guise of benevolence would be just the thing.

What is much less clear is whether the same amount of interest will be present once current investors take enough of a haircut that the remainder is actually worth something, or one or more of them actually start turning a profit.

That sounds nice and all, but there's really no legal way to do that. The money was collected illegally, so it has to be returned (with interest) to the people it was collected from -- the importers.

It's going to take years to find out just how corrupt, and we'll never get the full story. What we can see isn't even the tip of the iceberg.

Heh. The usual metric is "mission success". For a manned flight, that includes getting the people down safely. For a typical unmanned flight the mission is "get the payload to the right orbit". If you manage to land the rocket after that, that's gravy.

Zipline is still around, still making deliveries in Africa and some other places, and also doing some in the US, for Wal-mart.

There isn't any launch platform with no failures, ever, that's not how you measure reliability. Reliability is measured on percentage of successful launches (payload reached target orbit), and Falcon 9 is, indeed, the most reliable orbital launch vehicle ever, by a wide margin. Here are the platforms with >= 100 launches (the 100-launch line is kind of arbitrary, but you have to draw a line somewhere and platforms with very few launches don't have meaningful statistics):

#1 Falcon 9 (including Falcon Heavy): 637 successes of 640 launches, 99.5% success rate. If you focus only on the block 5 variant (most-flown version, currently flying), it's 572 out of 573, 99.8%.
#2 Atlas V: 106 of 107, 99.1%
#3 Delta II: 153 of 155, 98.7%
#4 Space Shuttle: 133 of 135, 98.5%
#5 Long March 2/3/4: 503/521, 96.5%
#6 Ariane 5: 112 of 117, 95.7%
#7 Soyuz: 1889 of 2014, 93.8%
#8 Kosmos: 559 of 610, 91.6%
#9 Proton: 382 of 431, 88.6%

Soyuz has to get props for the sheer number of launches, of course, though that's probably mostly because the Russians couldn't afford to build another platform. Soyuz isn't a particularly great rocket in any way -- smallish payload, good but not great reliability -- but they kept using what they had. It's also worth noting that assuming Falcon 9 maintains its current launch cadence (which it won't; Starship will probably start taking its launches eventually, and if that doesn't happen, the cadence seems likely to increase), it will match Soyuz' launch count around 2033.

Thank you for completely avoiding and missing the point. Reread the comment. If you prefer imagine a world where you gamble. Or instead imagine a friend who was could make either one of these bets. There's one side of the bet where if they took it, you'd likely consider them to be an absolute idiot and the other one where you'd see them as functionally getting free money. So the idea that you cannot estimate a probability for an event that is only going to happen once is just wrong.

Spotted the frequentist. More serious comment: If someone offered you an even bet on one side for $10 that next year Jesus's Second Coming will occur, I'm pretty sure you would take the side of it not happening, even though that's a single event. If they made the same offer for first contact with intelligent aliens, you would do the same. And I can list many similar examples. So you are able to make estimates about probabilities for events which will only occur once, based on your evidence and world models.

As does using Windows.

Really? I don't think I've ever used NTFS on any machine I've owned.

It's a good thing for you that most people do. Those ads your'e avoiding fund most of the content you consume. You can only freeride as long as enough others are paying the toll to subsidize you. I do the same, but I won't be surprised or angry if it becomes impossible.

Obviously many others had thought of it. Hastings' brilliant idea was to pivot from what was working (DVD rental by mail -- which itself was pretty innovative) to streaming while the DVD business was still good. That seems like a blindingly obvious move in hindsight but it's actually really hard when you're in the thick of running a successful business to step back and think "We need to completely change our business strategy, even though it's working well".

As geekmux mentioned, Blockbuster was incredibly well-positioned to do both of the things that Netflix did, first to pivot from brick-and-mortar DVD rental to rental by mail (possibly exploiting their broad physical store base) and then to streaming. They had deep relationships with every player in the content industry, large and small, they had near-universal name recognition and positive perceptions in retail video distribution. But they did neither, they just kept running their business until their market disappeared. That's what usually happens, and it's not because the CEOs are stupid, it's because it actually takes someone with both vision and guts to see and act on broad market changes before they happen.

You really can't. Not with conventional weapons. Not even with nukes, really, though with nukes you could kill pretty much everyone in the population centers. Is that what you're proposing?

Those are minimums, not maximums. Devices should request new certs when they get low. Also, the three-month period is driven by expiration times. It sounds like the EU has decided they want to enforce a maximum expiration time of three months, though I think most countries I've talked to were planning monthly expirations.

And, BTW, this structure is inherited from the ISO 18013-5 security design, which I created (others contributed refinements, and the data minimization scheme was inherited from other systems, but the core design was mine). So... I know a little something about it :-)

If the issuer will collude with the verifier, they can easily and fully unmask the user's identity, because the issuer knows all of the public keys they issued, and to whom. This is a known issue, something we considered for 18013-5 and decided had to be accepted for now. There is cryptography that can solve this problem, but at least back in ~2020 when the design was finalized (a) a lot of it was still too novel and (b) wasn't supported in common hardware. I don't think either of those things have changed, and there's a further complication that there aren't any PQC algorithms with the necessary capabilities, though the existing design can be trivially updated with PQC key agreement and signature algorithms.

It's really not, because they also have the same value as thousands of others that were issued with the same timestamp. Granted that if the request (as identified by IP) is from a region with low population it will sometimes, maybe, be possible to weakly conclude that two proofs by users with same timestamp might be the same person. But this would be a very weak signal and it still doesn't tell you anything about who that person is. The IP address is a far stronger signal.

At least for 18013-5 there is a detailed threat model, but it's not in the standard because we were told that standards are supposed to say "what", not get bogged down in "why". I'm not sure if the model is published anywhere.

Or not. You can still have a stateful firewall with IPv6, and it will provide exactly as much security as a NAT device. There's no reason to require that all of your devices be able to exist on the public Internet, which is actually a pretty tall order -- especially for IoT devices that tend not go get updated as much as they should.