I hate to say it, but this one I agree with RFK Jr on. You have to have a control group. If it’s ethically wrong to not treat with the standard of care then make the placebo group opt-in to placebo so they know they are not getting the current standard of care.
You can still do the compare vs current standard of care, but also need the placebo. Also diseases can evolve so re-comparing to baseline should be a must to make sure the current standard is actually helping like we think it does.
… It was incredibly sobering that a case about our privacy was being conducted both in private and in secret. So we’re pleased to see a course change here. That said, the battle is not yet won. The arguments to break encryption do not just relate to this specific case and we are having to constantly make the case for why encryption is vital in our democracy; nor does this judgment stipulate that the case will be held fully in the open moving forward – as it should be – only that we can know the “bare details”. We welcome this news but we continue to fight for full transparency here.
The legislation would force companies to store and provide law enforcement with access to their users’ communications, including those that are end-to-end encrypted.3 The consensus among cybersecurity experts is that complying with this requirement for end-to-end encrypted communications services will be impossible without forcing providers to create an encryption backdoor4 —akin to a master key that unlocks every door in a building.
Hopefully they don’t pass this devastating legislation. One has to wonder who this would be benefitting the most? I doubt law enforcement even cares that much. My guess is the same that is responsible for Brexit and destroying the US. Resist wile you can, or better yet get the things you care about enshrined in your constitution and advertised among your constituents. Don’t think it can’t happen to you next.
The LAP can issue loads to addresses that have never been accessed architecturally and transiently forward the values to younger instructions in an unprecedentedly large window," the researchers wrote. "We demonstrate that, despite their benefits to performance, LAPs open new attack surfaces that are exploitable in the real world by an adversary. That is, they allow broad out-of-bounds reads, disrupt control flow under speculation, disclose the ASLR slide, and even compromise the security of Safari."
SLAP affects Apple CPUs starting with the M2/A15, which were the first to feature LAP. The researchers said that they suspect chips from other manufacturers also use LVP and LAP and may be vulnerable to similar attacks. They also said they don't know if browsers such as Firefox are affected because they weren't tested in the research.
Unless it’s required to load the words, it’s probably JavaScript that is trying to prevent the user from selecting it, so disabling javascript would make it selectable because the thing blocking the select is disabled. If javascript is loading the words in, then blocking javascript will make it so the page doesn’t load. But they are typically separate scripts from whatever is blocking the select, so addons can selectively block scripts that are detected to block things like select or right-click, etc. If they obfuscate the javascript to where the word load and the blocking are combined, then another method will probably be the easiest to employ like one of the other options I noted above, or going to developer options and copying the text from the inspector.
Several options to get around that. (1) Install a browser extension that will disable whatever block the page has, (2) open developer tools on a desktop browser, delete whatever javascript is preventing it, (3) possibly print to pdf, someone else suggested screenshot + OCR, etc.
So not efficacy