xp84

Not sure why you're throwing so much shade at people as though only poors would look at cars below forty thousand dollars. The 2027 Camry and the 2027 Escape both start at under $30,000. Tesla 3 is under $39,000.

Not everyone likes to blow 50-100 grand on an asset which loses 50% of its value in 3 years. Especially considering how much they're trending toward being so expensive to repair and unreliable that keeping it on the road after the warranty runs out is also expensive.

Nobody uses that expression to mean they would prefer to spend more, unless it's in the context where the number is so low that it implies a safety or fraud issue. e.g. "I would never buy a 5 cent burrito"

There's little point in spending more than $ 40,000 - especially for the crap currently being peddled in the U.S. I bought a 3-year-old electric luxury SUV with significantly under 20,000 miles for well under that.

I mean, if you're rolling in money, and don't need it for savings or more important purposes, you do you. But I'm with GP. 40,000 is excessive. Even in our devalued 2026 money.

I do own it. It's stupid to have immigration laws and rules and then be like "But also we won't ever look for you, and also one of our parties will specifically ban their states from helping look for you or from deporting you even for committing crimes."

I have no dispute of the 'both sides' thing. The parties are both out to score political points and rarely to fix anything. I just happen to be a little less disgusted by the one whose primary stated demands make sense.

Where did I lie? The person I replied to may not have all those same beliefs. I did say

  "It sounds like you’re saying we should all just accept
  that our visas mean nothing, and that in practice literally 
  anyone should be able to just show up, claim asylum, never 
  show up to court for their hearing, and what we should do 
  is absolutely nothing."

He says we can't consider people who overstay visas as fugitives. States can't arrest them because that's illegal in blue states. Therefore yes that person is strongly implying we should do absolutely nothing. What other effective method is there, besides looking for them and taking them into custody, for forcing them to comply with the terms of the visa that they signed? Am I missing his proposal?

I specifically discussed Democrats and "blue states", and none of what I said isn't found in their official platforms.

They just don't admit that all their policy demands add up to such an insane result (that borders don't really matter). That conclusion is mine, but it comes from simple 1+1=2 style logic.

You're kinda making my point for me. We throw barriers in the way of people who have skills and follow laws like civilized people, and then we bend over backwards for people who broke the rules, including ones who start out in bad faith with bogus asylum claims.

Personally, I'd be fine with an easy, renewable work visa for anyone who speaks and understands perfect English, has a verifiable college degree, and has a signed job offer.

I do believe that culture exists and matters, and despite being a young country, it doesn't make us racist to say that we'd like to keep it. Immigrants from Ireland, Germany, Italy, and Spanish-speaking countries (among others) have for generations done this, have assimilated (learning English, adopting acceptable cultural norms, etc) while still adding their unique cultural contributions. I expect no more from 21st-century migrants. And many do just that.

My only intention is to discourage the ones who aren't interested in ever being American from immigrating. In turn, I shouldn't move to Japan or Russia or Saudi Arabia or Kenya and live the most conspicuously-American lifestyle possible and then expect everyone to thank me for bringing so much diversity (and call them racist xenophobes if they don't).

> that’s an argument I would love to have over the current one

I sense that you're somewhat reasonable too. What pains me is that the leftist wing of Team Blue, which now controls its entire agenda, seems hell-bent on preventing those conversations, by shouting down any voices that insist on any limits. They never say "We demand open borders." But they fight anything that amounts to enforcement of any immigration law.

Anyone who shows up with no papers, no ID and simply says "I request asylum"? They demand that we wave that person through and give them a court date on nothing but a pinky-promise. (In the UK they also give them a free hotel room for years, not sure if we're doing that here yet!) If they just never show up for the court date, then they just become yet another undocumented immigrant, together with the visa-overstayers and people who made it past the border.

For that whole group, they don't want state or local police to ever assist in detaining them. They also overwhelmingly don't want a law enforcement agency tasked to enforce immigration to even exist, or to conduct investigations, or to go to places that undocumented people are known to work and ask people for proof they're here legally. So in practice, the border becomes imaginary once you grant these demands. Just claim you need asylum once, and stay in "blue states" and you're free to do stay forever. Even if you get arrested for committing crimes, Democrats will usually say the idea of deporting you is inhumane and racist.

All this does nothing but alienate the moderates like me (a Democrat who walked away less than 5 years ago), who conclude that Democrats are no longer serious. They say they want immigration reform, but in practice, no matter what laws are there, it seems they will always make excuses for anyone who abuses the trust placed in them, and oppose any outcome that includes the immigrant leaving.

So this brings me to answer a question: Why do I even care? If I'm not a racist, what's wrong with just letting tons of immigrants in? It's often trotted out that supposedly, undocumented immigrants commit fewer crimes per capita than the general population. Even if that's true (studies seem to differ, and also I can't understand how we can be certain of the denominator in that per-capita rate), it's asking the wrong question. The people who are victimized by them rightly point out that if the undocumented immigrants were deported, we wouldn't have additional, more-criminal people in their place. We'd just have fewer crimes and fewer people. That would be a better outcome for people like Kate Steinle, who didn't deserve to die. (note: The insane undocumented immigrant who murdered her finally got deported (his seventh deportation!) in 2024[1], nine years after the murder. He said he was sorry, though.)

[1] https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ero-phoenix-removes-mexica...

I remember at one point years ago they were requiring their app (and/or maybe a sign-in?) for NSFW content, for no particular reason. Now it's this.

More and more I'm thinking of what a nonsense world we live in. Once upon a time we hated Microsoft for trying to make us use IE. Now every company from McDonalds to onetime-open-Internet-darling Reddit is trying to force us to use their shitty apps, which amount to just single-site web browsers, which almost always entails granting way more powerful permissions, and which always renders you unable to block ads.

Internet of Shit.

Honestly the names of most of the frontier models are just getting more and more confusing. Maybe this one gets a pass for being a specialist model for bio. But it's hard to decide which model to use at this point, especially OpenAI.

I feel like there’s a mismatch between what this is designed for and what people are assuming it’s for (plus no doubt hyperbolic marketing). Clearly this was designed to keep your files from your roommate or kid’s prying eyes, and not to keep military secrets or your plans to overthrow the government.

Especially since apparently Reddit now requires me to download their shitty app just to be able to see the full text now. That’s semi-new. Gross.

Honestly I wouldn’t expect anything to happen. At my company and all previous ones, everyone knows our CEO would never legitimately email or DM us on slack to ask us to real quick wire a few thousand/million/billion to the Caymans, or buy BTC, and he doesn’t have some global root on our servers either. Even people who have more technical access don’t tend to stay logged into elevated production accounts except at the exact time it’s needed.

Is there an important difference there? If it’s a contractor doing official government business, the fact it’s a contractor, and not running software written by public servants on metal that sits on US government property… is more of an implementation detail, isn’t it? The system would have the same importance and function, and contain the same data, whether or not this particular function had been outsourced.

I’ve never worked anywhere that would have done that. If you have a Sec analysis and it says you have vulnerabilities you harden and fix those vulns. You don’t just say “ok full rewrite in $HOT_LANGUAGE!” For one thing, you’ll have to retrain or replace your entire team, who may mostly be $OLD_LANGUAGE specialists. And either feature freeze, or carry on feature development thus needing a larger team, and making the spec a moving target for the porting team.

Now, do I think that it may be more likely in 2027 than it was in 2007 or 2017? Absolutely. Depends on how well-documented and specified your existing system is. A rust rewrite or whatever is highly possible now for many codebases, probably.

The fact you think all your political opponents are racists and evildoers is why the left lost in 2016, and in 2024.

The non-strawman argument is that giving someone citizenship of your country should not be automatic and quick. We want it to be difficult to get in, because otherwise, to borrow your word, “opportunists” find a relatively well-off, trusting society easy pickings to rob, cheat and steal from. And because we don’t want our country to turn into a place that looks like where some of these immigrants come from.

Notice how it isn’t Australians or Germans ending up having to be rounded up by ICE. It’s because they come from a country that believes in laws. And before you say “but that’s because you’re racist!!” I’d like to point out that the same thing applies to people from the Philippines or China who don’t look or speak like white Americans, but for the most part they come here legally.

Yup, and 50 million “Democrats” assisting them, people who’ve been convinced that maximizing the number of foreign citizens living here without valid visas is the enlightened and cool policy to aim for, or at least that if the other party won’t let them automatically naturalize everyone as they sprint across the border, that this is the next best thing.

We already have paths to citizenship, people just need to wait their turn. People with skills we need can already get in under programs that exist for that purpose.

We don’t want the full population of every failed or economically-languishing state (including ALL kinds of people, including the worst elements that exist in every society) to show up overnight and move in, which is what has happened in many western countries including the US with asylum claim abuse.

It’s rapidly turned high-trust societies into low-trust societies because that’s how those who come here from low-trust societies operate by default. People who have been here and know what a proper society looks like don’t like this.

> Overstaying a visa is a civil violation, not a criminal offense. If you want to hunt them as fugitives, change the law.

It sounds like you’re saying we should all just accept that our visas mean nothing, and that in practice literally anyone should be able to just show up, claim asylum, never show up to court for their hearing, and what we should do is absolutely nothing. In “blue” states they are strongly encouraged to sign up for driver’s licenses and welfare programs, and state agencies are forbidden from even asking their legal status. State and local police in those states are often banned from spilling the beans even when they commit crimes.

So, overstaying legal status can’t be addressed by states because Dems think it’s too mean to send them home, and it can’t be actively done by federal agencies because to do so, they have to come into states and investigate people to determine if they’re legally here or not and we don’t like the possibility that they might ever get it wrong.

This is why Democrats lost all respect from moderates like me who used to proudly be part of that party a decade ago. They’re not serious anymore. They appear to want a system that pretends to work but which everyone ignores because everyone knows it’s never enforced. Like driving 70 on the freeway in a 65 zone - everyone does it.

This is not how we should run immigration.

No, unless it’s were a cli image viewer. The gui parts of the OS, and what’s written by Apple, use keychain.

Macs have two completely independent root CA stores. The cli and all the opensource parts use /etc/.

Curl project did actually release support to compile it with default keychain support a year ago, but of course Apple never updates their cli tools, so expect to see that in macOS 37.

Note: I’m not defending Apple here.

It was arguably always halfhearted at best. Look at how behind they were on many things for years. They update things, I assume, when necessary to make the build toolchain work, and possibly to hold onto their POSIX compliance status which some us government buying contracts demand. The fact they changed the default shell to zsh instead of that decade(s)-old version of bash they used to have (avoiding a GPL license change, I think?) was a miracle.

I might find that a good tool, too, but it’s worth pointing out that even doing that upon any change to the keychain trust settings won’t fix the full problem here. The bad “4” certs are also signed by another root, Sectigo, so when CRLs are not being used (a case that seems common for the cli tools), then the certs downstream of the “4” certs have an alternate path to a trusted root. Unless you also nuke the Sectigo cert. which I would personally, but I have a different risk tolerance for breaking random sites than I guess Apple expects its whole customer base to have in the aggregate.

I know, it always makes my jaw drop when I realize that it’s still a significant number of people, since I remember it being a thing I used circa 2005. I don’t think git was even a thing back then.

This seems like extremely acceptable collateral damage to me. Sectigo should already be working with their customers to reissue immediately since they are the ones who signed the dumb intermediates. Trust only matters if there’s accountability. If root CAs want to keep their trust, it’s on them to not sign things that are bad. That’s the responsibility that comes with the license to print money that being a root CA gives you.

If I’m an OS vendor I would have been putting them on notice days ago that their root was being dropped and they have X days to reissue certs and deliver a new root cert or otherwise they can just accept that they’re not qualified to be a root anymore.

I think they meant that Apple’s updates seem to be the opposite of incremental, and they’re not wrong. If anything, Apple has moved in the exact opposite direction in the past decade, moving towards using enormous cryptographically-signed volumes (“sealed” is the term). This makes Apple really happy because they can make sure the users aren’t allowed to modify any of the “system“ files themselves for any reason, but also means that they can’t incrementally update things as easily as they did before. They ship multi-gigabyte “patches” every time.

Why would they need to? Can’t they ship an update that runs an executable that uses the already-existing tooling to update the pem? They’ve posted the cli instructions, so, ship that as a shell script and run it. It should be idempotent, whether the user has already “untrusted” it or not.

> Removing the root CA will mean that these valid certificates no longer work.

Great, that’s fine. They can reissue.

I read GP as a descriptive comment not a justification. They are showing with this issue that they don’t truly support the cli tools in a way we ought to rely on. Whether they occasionally provide some support doesn’t mean they’re supported. Only full and competent support counts, everything else counts as “it’s best-effort at best”

It doesn’t look like that, it looks like it’s a cert.pem file.

You have to admit that “just a quick patch” isn’t automatically low-risk. You could cause a large blast radius if you rush any patch out without proper testing.

Honestly that last paragraph I totally agree. I did edit to “never trust” these clowns’ root CAs in Keychain Access on my Mac, and this is the first I’m hearing that there was any possibility of that being flipped back. Will have to look into that.

If I can speculate though on why these bundles come from the browser or OS and aren’t fully in the user’s responsibility. You’d have to start from scratch for it to not have a bunch of stuff the user had ‘no need for’ to be present, and the user would need to see a cert window semi-frequently that gives the possibility to start trusting a CA, and the bottom 99.99% of users in sophistication has no idea whether they should say yes or no. I mean, without being signed by a root CA you already trust, even the name on the new CA could be completely made up. “Do you want to trust the ‘Apple Root Certificate Authority’?”

Wait, did I miss this? Can you share details on what browsers started doing this?