“You should have known what the intent of the question was. Management won’t know or care about the internals of your code as long as it meets requirements. You have failed this test.”
Or
“You should know that you’re calling a function with invalid parameters. Where did you get your CS degree from again?”
Pretty much. This is one particular form of damage control for an attacker who has the keys to your system. I think there were more urgent security concerns that occur in the untrusted zone.
Reverse engineering of hardware is quickly becoming too complex for non-machine-assisted workflows. I’d imagine this type of destructive chip really only makes sense cryptology modules, but unless a designer can also manufacture the chip in-house or otherwise guarantee against supply chain attacks, this is a half measure.
While more money has been thrown at the problem, the US still lacks the people. Quantity has a benefit over quality here if you have 1 blue force for every 15 red forces. Cyber attackers only need to get an exploit running once for success. Defenders need to stop exploits every single time.
Add on to that very strict requirements for US persons to be able to legally conduct offensive cyber actions (clearances) and relatively low pay compared to security research or information security careers, you quickly get to a point where you take what you can get, especially when you're down to 76% of your ideal manpower
Nuclear deterrent because it's submarine-borne. If a country makes a first strike on the UK, their submarines, which are ideally hidden and steaming around in oceans somewhere, can make a retaliation strike. They're still equipped with nuclear warheads but aren't necessarily intended for a first strike.
You can destroy the UK, but you won't escape unscathed.
You’d have to talk with your neighbor to make any modifications.
Something like this would probably work. You could DIY it with some plastic tubing from a hardware store cut lengthwise and stuffed over the tops of the fence. Maybe anchor it every few feet with zip ties or something.
If I remember correctly, fax machines are still used because they’re a “secure” method of transmitting sensitive patient information. Regulations are keeping that inefficient dinosaur alive.
They’re of course not secure, but people who are tech literate rarely draft this kind of legislation.
Literally yes, but in spirit no. VW had to create Electrify America as part of its diesel gate settlement. EA may or may not have been created without punitive legislative action.
It seems like a pretty reasonable alternative to massive fines out the ass. Here, they go towards building out infrastructure that was dominated by Tesla with a few smaller companies in the mix like ChargePoint.
This breaks down as a business grows. When your business employs a significant portion of the local economy, it accumulates soft power that can rival that of local governments, all while having little to none of the accountability or representation that one would otherwise expect.
Management is likely being fired to an extent, but one used to expect those with the authority and responsibility to be in such a position of power to be held accountable. We’re long gone from the days where a leader would personally take accountability and step down while making unpopular or harmful decisions.
I don’t have a perfect solution to this but I clearly think something needs to change.
The government should represent the interests of the people. If the people have shown interest in curbing these layoff behaviors, where thousands of people lose their jobs while management remains in place with no apparent cuts to the top billing, then why would lawmakers not want to translate these interests into legislation?
I get a reasonable wariness of keeping the government out of private business, but if you have a town of 10 people, all employed by local business owner, and that business owner lays off two people, you have a large percentage of the population affected. If the townspeople enact a local ordinance to prevent this kind of behavior in the future, would they be in the wrong?
Same as any other energy cost. Modern societies rely on some type of energy to exist. Maybe the poor people will suffer because they can’t afford to fill up their vehicles with the cheaper dirty fuel and miss out on work opportunities. Maybe everybody suffers because the cheaper dirty fuel catalyzes harmful pollutants into the air which everybody breathes.
I guess it’s easy to say don’t buy cheap fuel because it’s bad for you, but if the alternative means not having a job or something to people with little to lose, that’s a call that’s harder to sell.
“If it is true that there are serious security implications in us being able to get access to the sleep sensor calibration tool, that means that one dude in his bedroom in Germany who's tinkering around managed to defeat the security features of a $2 trillion company's products. That's bad. Or, behind door number, two this really doesn't have much to do with security at all and it's just one of those things where they just don't care if the decisions that they make result in them being less repairable for people like us when we want to fix a very very very common issue on these newer MacBooks that a lot of customers are coming in with. Either way it really looks bad.”
Until something is legislated, this will continue to the end-user's detriment.
I bought some Philips Hue bulbs In something like 2015 which have worked mostly fine ever since, but the control surface has become more and more intrusive over the years. I'm now relegating the bulbs to dumb use until they finally die.
I can’t imagine that’s any fun to deal with.
“You should have known what the intent of the question was. Management won’t know or care about the internals of your code as long as it meets requirements. You have failed this test.”
Or
“You should know that you’re calling a function with invalid parameters. Where did you get your CS degree from again?”