meretext
Multifactor, non-phishable credentials do reduce risk of unauthorized login, absolutely. It reduces the risk of having a username and password that anyone can use if they know it. Give someone the PIN to your PIV or CAC card, and it's useless without the card. The risk then is that someone grabs your card and then beats you for the PIN, but that's a much less likely scenario. Sure you can mitigate brute force attempts at guessing passwords, and you can check things like source IP of the client and make decisions whether to allow the login or not.
The problem with compliance in my experience is that while it does reduce risk, when your mission must use or configure equipment that doesn't or can't use that control for some reason, the IT powers that be (esp. in government) demand you comply anyway, or else, even if you have mitigated that particular risk with compensating controls. That's when 'checkbox compliance' becomes a real threat to mission success.
I would take the machine to the neurologist monthly or so, he'd read the SD card and show me the results: stopped breathing at least 40-100 times a night.
Fast forward about 3 years, I entered into ketosis -- that's another story, but for now it just means that I stopped eating all carbs, my liver started pulling fat from my diet and fat stores and forming ketones. Muscle would burn the fat, the brain would use the ketones exclusively.
I felt amazing, slept incredibly well, did not nap during the day, was just all manner of incredible things happen from that. Went from 202 to 187 in about 55 days (I wasn't monitoring it, just knew what I'd weighed, and went for a weigh in to get clearance for a gym at work one day and there it was. I was shocked.)
Took the BiPAP machine in about 3 months after going into ketosis: Zero events. I had zero times I stopped breathing at night.
Maybe my cause was different, but I'd bet anyone going into ketosis for a period of months would see healing in the brain that may help this and other issues. I think this because back in the day, epilepsy was treated with a diet that kept patients in ketosis, and after about 6 months, they no longer had epilepsy. Sounds to me like the brain did some repairs it couldn't do when on carbs.
I now think ketosis used to be our natural state before agriculture. Not like there were vending machines with Snickers bars on the savannas we evolved on - high carb diets I don't think existed. Wish I could find the reference, but some research showed that someone on the typical modern diet (high levels of blood glucose) would, when given ketones exogenously (they ate or drank them), have them taken up by the brain immediately -- the brain prefers ketones, even over glucose, the opposite of what we keep being told. Hardly anyone today ever enters ketosis with our diets.
Before doing any further drastic and potentially irreversible things like surgery or drugs, I'd seriously consider trying to get and stay in ketosis for at least 3 months and see how that affects your apnea. It can be a challenge, but not insurmountable. First couple of weeks may be hard, read up on what to do to get through that time, then stick with it for a while.
(EDIT: Forgot to mention, I had GERD too, that's gone. No more acid reflux, even when I eat foods that used to trigger it.)
A Bella 5.3 qt air fryer. The basket is one piece, ridiculously easy to clean:
https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B07HRTWZJN
This has completely simplified my eating, but it's not for everyone. I'm not interested in cooking, and I'm able to eat the same things every day without issue. Right now I have a few burger patties, a chicken thigh or two, and a pork chop every day, and once in a while, salmon. Plus I cook my dogs food too, mostly ground beef and burger patties, and pork loin.
When I say this simplified my life, I no longer use a stove top, induction cooktop, frying pans, or oven, ever, and got rid of most of the cookware. If I want a different meal, I can always order out, or when it's safe, go eat out somewhere, but that's rare for me anyway. I just drop in what I want, spices as desired, turn it on and come back and eat. It will also cook vegetables, and when I used to eat them, I liked them better this way as it gave them an oven-like caramelized flavor.
Here are two different vendor/models that have the exact same basket:
https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B07MR3KWSL
https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B07WBSVH33
My original Bella still worked, but after using it between 3 and 6 times a day for over a year and a half it was time to retire it as the front had warped. I think it was $85 at the time. Couldn't buy it again as it said and still says not in stock at the link. So I searched for ones that had the same basket, and bought one each of the other two. Before the Bella, I had a much more $$$ Philips XXL, but that was a pain to clean because you had to take the basket apart etc. so I gave it away.
One tip: I don't go above 340 in temp, though they can go to 400 -- it'll warp the front a bit over time at the high temps, and fat can get into the element and make it smoke. Usually it's 280 deg for an hour with still frozen chicken thigh, and 280 deg for 20 mins for a thin burger, 30 mins for thicker. You'll have to experiment with temps and times until you find what you like with each food.
The second thing that has simplified my (cooking) life is a hard boiled egg maker:
https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B06XTJQN2X
Makes it a snap to get the cooking done right for soft, medium or hard boiled eggs, every time, very quickly. Just over $20 and I use it to hard boil 6 eggs every other day.
Again, no idea what happens next, as the behavior of markets is changed by the changes in who owns stocks, in that we have large institutional investors rather than small individual investors, and it's very difficult to forecast the behaviors of complex adaptive systems.
This article goes into some of the potential reasons for market behavior today:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/05/26/magazine/stoc...
I will close by saying that there will be much less public ownership of equity within companies in general, as less companies will be listed in the markets, so over time, large companies/businesses will be privately owned. Whether this is good or bad, I don't know, but it cuts out regular individual investors who can't even invest via indexed style funds, because that to my knowledge doesn't exist w/r to private equity funds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9SNfrE7P1s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP81YMvs4yI&feature=youtu.be...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N20nyUTqiyY
/s.
You don't have to have the expertise to form a judgement contrary to that of literally thousands of experts here for them to be actually incorrect. Note how you're using language to make it seem more 'true' and 'weighty': "judgement contrary to that of literally thousands of experts" -- again, implying that the vast number of experts that believe something to be true makes it more true than if fewer experts believed it. That's precisely the fallacy I'm talking about. You just made an argumentum ad populum, when you're fully made aware of what that is and understand what that is, you still couldn't help it. The more experts that believe something to be true, the more that will jump on the bandwagon because that many already think it true. That may be part of what's happening, because I don't think anyone actually knows what is happening and why yet. There are plenty of examples in history, even recent history, of that type of groupthink happening, and the Ancel Keys Dietary fat theory of coronary heart disease is one of them. Once he said that was the cause, then others believed him, took his study as showing causation, rather than correlation, and the overwhelming consensus was that saturated fat and cholesterol caused heart disease. And they were all wrong, the consensus was wrong, his evidence was inaccurate.
Here's how it seems to me right now, and I'll use an analogy: if you had a consensus of financial experts saying that Apple stock was going to go to $600 a share, and it does, were they 'right' or were they 'lucky'? Because there is no way, no matter how much 'evidence' they have, that they can know that Apple will reach $600. They don't know what will happen, they are speculating. Go read up on counterfactuals.
Yeah, I'm beating a dead horse here, repeating myself so I'll stop now and close.
Because I poke holes in evidence that supports the theory of climate change does not mean I'm against that theory -- it doesn't mean I'm for it either. I can take the position of, "I don't know", and that is my position. But I can still poke holes in evidence from both sides of that debate, while still holding the position that I don't know whether the theory is accurate or not. I can't poke holes in a 'consensus', because a consensus is not evidence. Belief in something is not evidence. Evidence is evidence, and our interpretation and understanding of such complex systems is poor at best.
Climate change may be happening, and it may be due to us, and it may have dire consequences. Or it may not, and we'll be fine, the climate will start to cool, and we'll see maybe we don't know all the mechanisms at play or how they interact.
Watch the first 20 mins of the Crichton talk. You'll know if you want to watch more by then. We think we know things, but we really don't when it comes to things as complicated as climate.
/s.
I can implement custom sieve rules on FM, and have, but I want to write a script to generate my sieve rules and then upload them automatically, rather than cutting and pasting.
I'd also like the ability to autoreply to senders not on my whitelist or otherwise managed in sieve, asking them to reply with a specific text in the Subject line so it gets to me. Most emails I don't ever want, and solicitation or marketing cold emails I don't want, and this might enable me to not have to even see them unless someone really wants to get my attention.
It would be nice if I could automate uploads of my sieve rules, but it's not that big a problem right now.
Eric asked me: "...what do you make of this chart shown on the nasa.gov page? It shows the cycles that you're talking about, but then it shows how our situation is incredibly different from any other cycles over thousands of years. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ So given evidence like that, what is your reaction?"
I responded that based on my assessment, this is not good evidence to support a claim that climate change (e.g. global warming) is 'real' and is human caused, and I specifically laid out why.
That's it. That was the point.
If you want to respond to any or all of those specific items, and show where I might be mistaken, great.
Note that I did not make any claims as to whether climate change (e.g. global warming) is or isn't 'real', nor whether humans are or are not involved or the cause. If that's what you got from my reply to Eric, then you're reading more into my response than I wrote. I think we should be analyzing and challenging all evidence, supporting any claims and any position. That's what science is supposed to be about, IMO. I made that clear:
"First, I want to be clear about the context for my challenging that slide you pointed me to located at https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence -- I am not challenging whether climate change is real or not, and I'm not challenging whether humans are or aren't the cause of it."
I do think we should be working on renewable energy sources that are cleaner, reducing environmental pollution, and so on, because that really makes sense regardless of what's going on with the climate.
In response to your other comments:
I'm not a climate scientist either, but I don't think you need to be one to analyze data and evidence. Read the study and the NOAA data that the evidence Eric pointed me to is based on, and see for yourself. As for whether most people have the time, I agree, most probably don't, but Eric specifically asked me to look at this data; I think it fair to ask him to do the work to analyze it as well.
Your comment along the lines of "most climate scientists believe X" doesn't really say anything other than that most climate scientists believe X. So? Most experts used to believe the Sun revolved around the Earth. As I've said prior, consensus is not evidence. That many experts believe something is presented as evidence may be very true. But that doesn't say anything about whether what they believe is actually true.
"An argumentum ad populum (Latin for 'appeal to the people') is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so. Other names for the fallacy include appeal to (common) belief,[2][3] appeal to the majority,[4] appeal to the masses,[5] appeal to popularity,[6][7] argument by consensus,[8] authority of the many,[8][9] bandwagon fallacy,[7][10] consensus gentium (Latin for 'agreement of the people'),[10] democratic fallacy,[11] and mob appeal.[12]" (From WikiPedia I think).
As for the consequences being dire, we'll see.
I recommend you watch the Michael Crichton talk I gave the link for.
/s.
First, I want to be clear about the context for my challenging that slide you pointed me to located at https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence -- I am not challenging whether climate change is real or not, and I'm not challenging whether humans are or aren't the cause of it.
I am challenging the specific evidence you point to, and not blindly accepting a graph without questioning what data it is based on and how that data was analyzed. The problem with providing a slide like that to people as evidence is that it fits what they already believe, and so no one questions the source that generated these results. Slapping an atmospheric CO2 value in ppm onto a graph taken from a study that measures CO2 values in ppmv from ice cores isn’t science.
The slide you point to on that page shows a graph from the study mentioned in the graph’s caption, and purports to show historical atmospheric CO2 over the past 800,000 years, to measurements of the actual CO2 taken from actual current atmosphere. I have read and annotated the study, and I’ll accept that data as accurate for now and won’t challenge what is in that study.
However:
1. The graph you point to is not the graph that the referenced study supplied -- it is that graph with a portion added on the end that did not come from the study. It looks like someone took the graph from the study, and tacked on the ‘1950 on’ CO2 levels measured from the actual atmosphere (which are from the NOAA Mauna Loa measurements).
2. The “1950s on” label is inaccurate. The study states that accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2 did not begin until 1958. It’s minor, but it’s important to be accurate here.
3. How do we know that the CO2 in an ice core can be directly compared to a measurement taken of actual, live atmosphere? How do we know there isn’t some process whereby the CO2 in an ice core shows up as lower than an actual atmospheric measurement? That may be in the end notes of the study, but I’m not going to do the work to dig through that now. It’s something that needs to be validated, if it hasn’t already, before being accepted as fact.
4. The study says that CO2 levels and arctic temps are strongly coupled (correlated). Correlation isn’t causation. Correlation is correlation. We see that two things are correlated, and our brain immediately sees a causal connection. STOP DOING THAT. Cholesterol is correlated with coronary heart disease, but it is not a cause of CHD.
5. Despite the study stating that CO2 levels and arctic temps are strongly coupled (correlated), it also states that there were significant deviations between Temperature and CO2 levels multiple times over that period, meaning that there were multiple times where the CO2 levels were not correlated with arctic temperatures. Clearly then, CO2 levels are not always in line with what you would expect temps to be if CO2 were driving the temps higher -- what mechanism is causing temps to be what they were despite CO2 levels suggesting the temps should be different? Maybe CO2 levels were higher, but the temps stayed lower, meaning that more CO2 was released from some other mechanism -- or maybe something else prevented temps from going higher despite increases in CO2.
6. Let’s assume that there is a strong correlation in the evidence of the study’s data that actually points to there being a true cause and effect result between CO2 levels and temperature levels. You still have to prove what is causing what, not just that one causes the other. You have to show whether temperature rise is the result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, OR increased CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of increasing temperatures. Even if CO2 increases show up prior to temperature rises, it still doesn’t mean CO2 is causing the temperature rises. CO2 could be a leading indicator of future temperature increases, not a cause of them, meaning that whatever mechanisms are increasing the temperature, they are first triggering increases in CO2 in the atmosphere. That could mean that both CO2 levels and temperature rises are both caused by a something else.
7. By far the biggest error I find in the slide you pointed to: They used different unit measurements!!! The ice cores measure CO2 in ppmv, the NOAA atmospheric measure of CO2 is in ppm. They are not the same! It is quite possible that if you could convert the ppm of the NOAA data into ppmv units, it might fit right in to the study’s graph! I haven’t proven anything, I’m saying it’s now an open question, that the slide you pointed me to is a result of someone tacking together two separate graphs of data that is measured in two different units. You cannot compare them directly. See here:
http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between...
I wouldn’t be surprised if you can convert the 400 ppm CO2 value into ppmv and that it comes out to around the 280 ppmv CO2. Try these calculators:
https://www.lenntech.com/calculators/ppm/converter-parts-per...
http://www.aresok.org/npg/nioshdbs/calc.htm
That could make the NOAA data comparable to the units of the study’s data, and plot that and it might fit the study graph perfectly, and not the slide you showed me. Even if it doesn’t, it’s not proof of the opposite. The CO2 in the ice cores is in water; the CO2 in the NOAA measurements is in gaseous form. That alone might account for the difference, but still, I question whether CO2 measurements in water can be compared to CO2 measurements in air without some conversions and adjustments for units, or other factors.
So I’ve poked holes in that graph you provided as evidence. It isn’t proof that climate change isn’t happening, and it isn’t proof that humans are not to blame -- it is simply showing that the evidence in that graph you provided has serious problems, and should not be used as ‘evidence’ until those problems are resolved. But it will be passed around and people will believe it is evidence and not question it, because they've already decided what the truth is and aren't interested in challenging evidence that fits their already selected belief.
I highly recommend watching Michael Crichton’s talk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIAQJVlg54E
Over and out.
There are seven (7) issues I've identified with the graph you provided as evidence. See if you can identify those same issues.
Find and download the study that the graph on the https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ page that you provided says it is based on. It's short, four pages. I downloaded, printed and hand-annotated the study, scanned it in and I will provide a link to the study with my annotations after. I will also answer all of the questions you've asked me, again, after. Promise.
Here's the link to the unannotated study:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06949
or the PDF version, which I prefer:
Good hunting!
/s.
The climate has changed, waxed and waned many, many times over the ages. There was an ice age that ended about 10,000 years ago. There was a warming period, followed by a cooling period in the middle ages (search Little Ice Age on wikipedia). Where were all the carbon emissions then? There's plenty of evidence that the climate changes all the time, and there is no 'normal' climate, no 'set point' where it is 'supposed' to be at -- that's simply not how climate works. We don't really know how it works, all of the factors involved. But there is no specific set point that the climate is 'supposed' to get to and maintain. What kind of silliness is that?
Yes it is changing, getting warmer, but there's a lot of scare mongering going on that we're at fault, and I don't think we've figured that out yet. Who's to say it won't start cooling off again sooner or later? If you're old enough to remember, in the 1970s (and maybe 1980s) we were scare mongering over the coming ice age, a global cooling that was going to freeze us all out. How ironic we're now in the midst of the opposite.
I will say that one very positive thing about all the scare mongering is that we're pouring money into clean fuels and methods, which is brilliant -- we should have been doing that all along, and if it takes some fear to push that, great.
For those who condemn people like me who aren't convinced that the warming trend is all our fault, be very careful about your science. Just because 4 out of 5 scientists or 99% of scientists agree or believe climate change is happening (it is) and that it's our fault (that's not clear yet), doesn't make it true. The number of people who believe in God doesn't improve God's chances of existing, any more than the number of athiests who disbelieve in God makes God disappear. Belief is not reality. Belief is belief. Reality is reality. The two are not the same, and they are not related or dependent on each other in any way. But too many of us get hijacked by our beliefs and go nuts because we think it's realty.
Also understand that one published study is regurgitated with the same sensational headlines in 1,000 or more news outlets, making it 'appear' that there is a consensus of all these news outlets. No, it's the same piece of news, sensationalized and then repeated a thousand times over, not a 1,000 different news outlets reporting on a 1,000 different, separate studies that all came to the same conclusion. We have some serious mental biases that come from repetition -- stop watching the news! (How many news stations report how many planes landed safely? None. How many report the one plane crash that happened? All of them, in gory detail.)
Recall that cholesterol used to be the big threat to our health these past 40+ years. Surprise! We're now finding out over the past few years that it ain't so. A whole generation or two of scientists had to pass on before we got to today where cholesterol is not considered a cause of CHD. Back in the 'fat and cholesterol cause CHD', you didn't get your science funded if you weren't taking that position as truth, and if your research wasn't geared towards proving exactly that. Go read up on how Alzheimer's research has been stymied for decades because scientists refused to accept that the beta amaloids were a symptom of the disease, and not its cause.
Be careful of the agendas of those who say climate change isn't happening. But also be wary of those who claim to know that it is, and that it's all our fault -- they have their own agendas.
And when anyone, especially a scientist, says "the science is settled", you are now in the realm of a dogmatic religion, closed-minded to any evidence that contradicts the belief in the 'faith'.
So, climate getting warmer? Seems to be, yes. Carbon emissions causing it? Hmm. Not so sure yet. Humans causing it? Again, no clear cut evidence that shows how this warming period is due to us that explains how all the other warming periods came about that weren't us. Will it never cool off again? No one knows, but it's done so in the past, so the balance of probabilities is yes. Unless we really are the cause, and there's a tipping point where we can never see a reversal, and we pass that point. Sure, it's possible. It's also possible we'll be struck by an enormous chunk of rock that wipes out the human race, which I think is a serious threat, but for which we don't seem to be putting a lot of energy and funding into providing early warning and a means to do something about it.
Whether we are to blame or not for the warming climate (as of today), I hope the hysteria continues for another decade or two -- the motivation it provides for developing cleaner energies and products won't likely happen otherwise, just like had we not had the Cold War, the space race would not have happened, and we'd not have landed on the Moon. (Sorry, moon-landing deniers. It really happened.)
https://github.com/dimitri/pgloader
My suggestion is script what you need to test to check throughput for the number of concurrent conns you think you'll be needing and base decisions on that. FYI - I use Fossil SCM over git. It is awesome.
Never upgrade your infrastructure or critical devices to a new major release of any vendor's operating system, or an application's major release, until some time after those releases have had time to be experienced by others, and any major issues resolved.
I've not upgraded to Catalina, obviously -- I'm in the process of, over the next few weeks or months, finding and upgrading any 32-bit s/w that now must be 64-bit to work. Until I've validated that, and the bugs have been worked out, I will wait to upgrade.
As for prior comments about using open source or other options, well, I don't see that there aren't issues there as well. I delay upgrades Linux, FreeBSD and even OpenBSD versions until any major issues have been worked out for the same reasons.
Ultimately, there are no safe ways or safe operating systems or safe applications that you can count on not failing after a major version upgrade. Windows releases may be less buggy for a while, but maintaining Windows and using Windows is more of a hassle for me that I'd be trading illusory stability for extra work on an ongoing basis using and managing that OS. I love open source, but there are issues there in usability, interoperability, availability of apps and so on -- configuring a desktop manager, etc. I love open source, always championed it within government, but there are issues and tradeoffs ith it as well.
I use Apple products for my work and other areas because their products generally work well, the ease of use can't be beat in my opinion, and it's worth the tradeoff to me of an occasional hiccup in upgrading. The Catalina upgrade is much more than a hiccup, but still, because I'm waiting it out on macOS and iOS, it won't affect me. And it should not have affected you, if you'd waited it out. Sorry it's causing so much pain for you and your business, but I don't see moving to any other platform is going to solve or resolve similar issues in the future. Mitigate the risks by waiting before upgrading in the future.
Good luck.