chimeracoder
You're conflating a whole lot of different models here. In fact, "developers should be on call for the systems they build" is a principle that most schools of DevOps thought emphatically subscribe to.
> That's nothing?
Either you replied to the wrong comment or you didn't read the comment you're replying to.
I never made that claim.
That's very different from Android, which was an unreleased prototype that had zero users and was dramatically different even from what ended up shipping as the first product, let alone what it is today. Android at acquisition would be unrecognizable from what the majority of people worldwide are typing on this very minute.
Last I checked, Amazon has also not patched their Lightsail blueprints for WordPress, or even communicated about the vulnerability with those customers at all, which is arguably way worse, because
(a) by design, all-in-one blueprints aren't really intended to use system PHP or have system PHP updated in a meaningful way; and
(b) hosting static sites such as WordPress is 90% of the selling point of Lightsail as a product
He is not arguing that DNS security cannot or should not be improved; in fact, he explicitly states the exact opposite.
Sort of. Depends on the jurisdiction, and it's not always the case. That's why this is likely to be one of the core topics litigated in this case.
Nobody on HN is going to know the answer here at this point.
If you have entered into the contract and are even party to it in the first place, which is not clear in this case and is likely going to be one of the questions litigated here.
Unless you're uninsured (which is a whole separate clusterfuck), the hospitals aren't the ones who decide how much you pay for any service - the insurance companies are. The sticker price that hospitals charge is almost meaningless and is intentionally high because it's used as the starting point for negotiations, which always bring the price down (never up). There isn't any expectation that any insurer is actually going to pay the billed amount as-is.
This part of your comment is incorrect. Discoverable Webauthn absolutely can be used with hardware tokens like Yubikeys.
Regarding your second point: as any audio engineer or electronic musician knows, the same exact audio absolutely will sound very different on different speakers, depending on how well they replicate various sounds, what level of gain is being applied, and the volume (which is different from gain, although people confuse the two).
That's even before you get into the fact that many modern devices, like smartphones, will apply their own compression or sound processing before playing the sound, sometimes to compensate for those deficiencies and make them less noticeable, and sometimes to "enhance" the sound.
Loudness/volume (technically different things but let's conflate them here) are also unintuitive because human ears don't have a flat frequency response curve, and some things will be perceived as louder despite being the same volume, or vice versa.
Advertisers actually can (and do) take advantage of this, by using sound engineering to make things feel louder while staying within the desired volume, by targeting the way humans perceive the sound.
This isn't a defense of the advertising/streaming companies here, because it is a solvable problem. But it is true that this is a problem that they need to solve.
This is incorrect. The HBV vaccine is one of the most effective vaccines available for any pathogen, providing full immunity to over 95% of healthy infants, children, and young adults, and with that immunity typical lasting for at least 30 years (and likely for life).
If someone is one of the rare exception, tthat's easy to detect with blood titers, and the response is either to give them additional doses or to deliver an adjuvanted version (which is the same thing regularly done for other vaccines which are either less effective or primarily targeted at the elderly, who have weaker immune responses).
Also, about 3.5% of the world's population already has it. That's about 300 million people for whom a vaccine is pointless, and who are at dramatically higher risk of liver cancer (somewhere between 15-50% lifetime risk of an extremely deadly type of cancer), and for whom a cure would literally be life-changing, if available.
The HBV virus is also carcinogenic, which makes it unique[0] among the three big hepatitis viruses. Liver cancer is extremely aggressive and fast-killing, often reaching terminal stages before it is even detectable at all. It is one of the top three causes of cancer deaths worldwide.
Aside from the sheer number of people affected by this, it is also a horrible thing to experience. I have watched someone die from liver cancer, and I would not wish it on anyone.
Contrast to HSV, which is widespread (approximately half the population has at least one HSV latent infection) and causes very few problems beyond occasional irritation in virtually all cases that do not involve other comorbidities or immunocompromised status. HSV is also suppressible through antiviral treatment, making it generally untransmittable (if treated and suppressed) and unlikely to cause symptoms. Most people with HSV do not even bother to do this, which is if anything a testament to how little HSV affects their lives (most don't even know they have it, and there is no clinical justification for routine testing in otherwise healthy patients).
Of all infections pathogens for which I could wish a cure into existence, HSV would be extremely low on my list.
[0] While HCV can cause cancer if left untreated for a long time and if it causes cirrhosis, approximately one third of people clear HCV infection in the acute stages without any lasting ill effect. Of the remainder, it takes a long time for cirrhosis to develop, leaving plenty of time for treatment. First-line treatments are approximately 95-99% effective. So there is no clinical reason HCV needs to increase a person's risk for cancer, as long as they have access to medical care. The same is not true for HBV.
That's certainly not true in many European countries
A little less than 10% of the workforce.
GP is correct - basically there was a report making that claim about the decline in employment rates of US-born workers over a certain time period. It was almost immediately debunked because it excluded workers older than 65, who are almost exclusively US-born, and excluding them heavily skews the average. Many of these workers also aged out of that bucket during that time period, which makes the comparison misleading, since the actual size of the studied workforce varied, and the workers who were excluded from the studied cohort were strongly correlated with the effect they were trying to demonstrate.
Furthermore, that effect is also exacerbated because of the uneven distribution of baby boomers.
You are incorrect. What you said is technically true in that there is no statute that requires it, but in practice, OP is correct.
It varies depending on the country of origin, but in the case of immigrants who hold citizenship from India, which is the country OP mentioned, you can likely expect to have to wait that period or even much longer before becoming eligible, unless you have a way to otherwise jump the queue.
The OCI card is better thought of as a green card that you have to reapply for once at the age of 65.
It provides the ability to live and work, with some minor restrictions, but none of the typical benefits of citizenship that wouldn't come with permanent residency in the US.
The majority of permanent residents gain their green card through a status adjustment (ie, from a nonimmigrant visa).
Status adjustments are the norm, not some fringe edge case.
Not really. The place that sells the tickets doesn't have to be the performance venue itself.
This sort of distribution was quite common pre-Internet. In theory it's even easier now, because so many of the venues have (unfortunately) consolidated under vertically integrated ownership (e.g. directly owned by Live Nation). Which incidentally, after scalping, is the biggest reason that ticket prices are so high in the first place.
"Google does not care about zero-day vulnerabilities" is an absolutely ludicrous claim.
I'm confused by this. Some have migrated away from the locality domains but some are still in use even by official/state purposes.
Here's the website for the Newton, MA public schools: https://www.newton.k12.ma.us/
Belmont: https://www.belmont.k12.ma.us/
I believe Cambridge used to use one as well but I can't confirm that.
As explained elsewhere, this is a problem for the merchants, not for the platforms. The platforms don't lose money on this, and may in fact profit off of it.
There are orders of magnitude more CSAM on other platforms, such as Facebook. As explained elsewhere in the comments, Pornhub was targeted by evangelical, anti-pornography groups which weaponized claims of CSAM against Pornhub for their own political purposes, despite the fact that Pornhub had vanishingly few instances even compared to other pornography platforms, let alone non-pornography platforms (like Facebook).
There is so much that has changed! If you think FOSTA/SESTA are the only thing that have changed, you're clearly not up to date on this topic!
> Banks didn't do this before 2018 as aggressively
Because after FOSTA/SESTA passed in 2018, the groups that lobbied for it started targeting financial infrastructure as the front in their war. This is not some secret; they've been very open about it and their lobbying efforts have been extremely well-documented.
You are either misreading those bills or confusing them with other similar bills which did target banking infrastructure (and which thankfully did not pass).
FOSTA/SESTA did increase liability for platforms, but the applicability of those laws to this specific case is minimal to nonexistent.