This still confuses me. It's clear they wanted to 10x licensing costs and /10 customers which assumably raises margins, but i still dont see it working out.
My international enterprise and all our business partners moved every broadcom product we have to a competitor. On top of that, they were very aggressive and combative with their sales+cease and desist threats.
They earned enemies for life. Some of us care about business relationships. Broadcom is dead to me and anyone that will listen to me.
Is it possible SpaceX is not massively overvalued and delaying its index approval unnecessarily slows its economic output by needlessly restricting its access to funding, harming us all collectively?
>Does the author (a purported dietician) not know this him/herself?
FTA: First, “seed oils” is a marketing term, not a nutritional category. What we’re actually talking about are vegetable oils high in polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats
Olives are a fruit and yet they are disfavored by the movement. Coconuts are a seed but they are considered acceptable. And within seeds, maíz, soy, and safflower are all very different botanically.
Coconuts are fruit, actually. Also while corn kernels and soy beans are technically seeds, they are, at least in my opinion, pretty far from the vernacular definition of seed. Part of this is that soy is a legume, corn a cereal, unlike safflower and rapeseed, which might matter nutritionally.
>In a normal WinRE session, you have a X:\Windows\System32 directory that has a winpeshl.ini file in it
>However, with the YellowKey exploit, it looks like Transactional NTFS bits on a USB Drive are able to delete the winpeshl.ini file on ANOTHER DRIVE
Interesting. I dont know about this environment - some kind of naive file handle contructing/passing? But then, why require a key press during winre reboot?
I wonder how patachable this is. The thousands of winre thumb drives are certainly out of reach; maybe the bitlocker side update the access permissions? Would it require unenc/reenc?
>The thousands of winre thumb drives are certainly out of reach; maybe the bitlocker side update the access permissions? Would it require unenc/reenc?
The part that isn't mentioned is that the win re is privileged because windows stores a decryption key in the TPM that allows win re to decrypt the disk even without the recovery key. That's why the attack requires win re in the first place, rather than booting into an ubuntu live cd or whatever. This also means you don't have to patch all the winRE thumbdrives out there because their secureboot signatures can simply be revoked, meaning they can't pass TPM validation anymore, therefore they won't be able to decrypt any disks.
> This also means you don't have to patch all the winRE thumbdrives out there because their secureboot signatures can simply be revoked, meaning they can't pass TPM validation anymore, therefore they won't be able to decrypt any disks.
WinRE runs internally, not from a thumb drive, which is why the bootloader will unseal the disk for it (just like if you have a systemd recovery set up on a Linux distribution). It doesn't have a separate key or anything, it's just allowed to use the "main" one, by design. Microsoft just need to patch the WinRE partition in a normal Windows Update to fix the NTFS transaction log driver; no Secure Boot revocation or TPM-related changes are necessary (which is good for them, because _that_ would be a disaster).
By and large this whole thing is orthogonal to BitLocker overall; boot-time unsealed BitLocker is vulnerable to any post-bootloader auth bypass by design, and this is a goofy post-bootloader auth bypass bug.
Everyone's making a lot of good points about game theory and economic motivations, but there is a much more important and self-serving point: when you pay a ransom, hackers come after your shit x10.
Paying a ransom signals 3 things:
1) you are vulnerable to attack
2) you cannot recover from an attack
3) you've got cash
The result is that you get attacked much, much more. You could ask me how I know, but I wouldn't tell you :)
That I, an old person, know what it means suggests that it has already gone from (1) the incel or whatever community usage, to (2) ironic usage by others, and then finally to (3) widespread usage entirely divorced from the original meaning.
I’m 42, and definitely don’t feel old yet - at least, my mind doesn’t feel old. My body is beginning to show me what’s it going to be like.
I don’t think my generation is nearly as out of touch with youth and niche culture as our parents were. While there are definitely examples of slang that surprise me and for which I’ve not quite nailed down the colloquial usage, it’s extremely rare that I can’t infer the meaning from context.
For that matter, I’ve adopted some of it where it makes sense. “-maxxing” is handy, and conveys more than “optimize for”; I might say I’m “tokenmaxxing” when I’m talking about intentionally using more costly inference than necessary because I’m not the one paying for it and the time necessary to optimize utilization isn’t worth it to me as a result. Basically implicitly recognizing that what I’m doing is ridiculous when viewed from the outside.
The only slang I can think of that I’ve not fully understood is “type shit”. I get that it usually used as an affirmation of someone else’s statement - but not always. I think its exact semantics are likely still in flux, because I’ve heard it used to mean all kinds of unrelated things depending on tone.
—-
Thinking about this, I wonder if it’s not a continuation of the same processes that lead to the disappearance of many regional accents. That’s generally accepted to be happening, and caused by the rise of mass media (radio, TV, Internet).
Maybe the Internet (social media in particular) has lumped everyone together in one giant community, and as a result slang no longer has time to solidly meaning in a niche group before reaching the general public.
I'm guessing most people think that "old" is 10-20 years ahead of them, regardless of their age. So someone in their 20s thinks 40 is old, while someone in their 40s thinks 50 is old. Or something like that.
Yeah it’s a full generalization of “$NOUN-type shit” being a declaration that something that gives an impression of being characteristic of $NOUN in some way.
The gen z ascendant version is “what does it mean to omit the $NOUN entirely?” and makes it a bit more of an existential exclamation, like “that’s some real shit” or just “real shit”.
Nah it kept it's meaning, just spread more. If anything, the level of abstraction grew. "Mogged' used to be a standalone phrase, but now it's always "___mogged".
Before “mogged” was a standalone phrase, it was apparently “AMOG” - “Alpha Male of the Group”.
I don’t remember knowing that before this conversation. I asked Claude for the history of the term, then for primary sources, and manually put the below together to show a history of the term over time:
This is true, but there's an extra nuance: mogging isn't just dominance, but effortless dominance (or at least seemingly effortless). Incels use this to justify their aversion to putting effort of any sort into anything: if other people don't have to try, why should they?
There's an interesting Behind the Bastards podcast about the rise of incel culture and its push into mainstream. It's called "From Elliot Rodger to Clavicular." They talk about the language of incels and how their vocabulary tends to end up in the mainstream at a surprising rate compared to other fringe cultures. "Mogging" is one of those terms that comes from incels.
My theory is that these people are the stewards of internet culture. Moderators, meme creators, leaders of niche online communities. Therefore the jokes they make spread a lot more easily due to exposure.
I think part of it is that people use it ironically to make fun of incel culture but then it gets absorbed into our language unironically. Similar to how AAVE ends up in mainstream language because non-Black people use it ironically (more to make fun of themselves), but then it ends up becoming an everyday part of the language.
The know your meme page on it is extensive. My distillation is:
Mogging is behaving as though you expect everyone is going to think you're great because of how you look; in particular that you think you look better than someone right next to you.
Although I have the misfortune of knowing what it means, every time I see it some part of my brain assumes it's something to do with cats (via British slang).
What I gathered is that "mog" is from "amog" which means "alpha male of the group", which makes "mogging" being "out-alpha'd". Which isn't new, it goes back years if not decades to the "alpha male" trends through "pick-up artists" to modern-day incel/bro/manosphere/etc subcultures.
I know the author from about ten years ago and I'm not surprised he's into it. But also he's Dutch so it's probably used very much ironically / as a joke here.
Sorry this is totally unrelated but it caused me to have an epiphany:
Google is not a software, hardware, or SaaS company. They are an ad-funded moonshot R&D incubator, searching only for billion dollar lightning strikes.
Every part of their business exists only to broker and sell ads or capture more market share to show ads to or to collect and trade data/Metadata for better ad targeting.
facebook is a people database. meta is more people databases. [1]
contracting companies sell additional employee time to other companies.
welcome to the epiphany that many tech companies aren’t primarily software focussed. i was lucky to have a lecturer at university point this out to us fairly early on.
[0]: they started doing production — but that was just to be able to license more tv/films ;)
[1]: phrasing it like that puts a truly horrifying spin on their ad/data brokerage stuff i’ve just realised
(Well-regulated) free markets are sort of built on the principle of educated consumerism. Your choice matters; its not up to the government to make illegal every non-optimal product. However, we do expect some minimum level of safety.
What does that mean for llms? Their nondeterminism does seem to incline them toward a legal safety requirement. Can you buy a fire extinguisher that 1/1000 times burns your house down? Or can your car brakes instead increase acceleration in rare cases?
Im using llms much more than i used to, but i still cant shake the fundamental stochastic nature of the technology.
Wherever I'm going, I'll be there to apply the formula. I'll keep the secret intact.
It's simple arithmetic.
It's a story problem.
If a new car built by my company leaves Chicago traveling west at 60 miles per hour, and the rear differential locks up, and the car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside, does my company initiate a recall?
You take the population of vehicles in the field (A) and multiple it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average cost of an out-of-court settlement (C).
A times B times C equals X. This is what it will cost if we don't initiate a recall.
If X is greater than the cost of a recall, we recall the cars and no one gets hurt.
If X is less than the cost of a recall, then we don't recall.
Im an outsider and a layman, so this might be totally off base, but...
The way I hear people talking about github reliability doesnt sound like scaling problems to me. If you drive 20 miles every day but then decide to drive 2000 miles and run out of gas, thats a problem of scale. If you drive 2000 miles and your engine explodes, thats a problem of design.
Maybe their design problems are being made evident because of sudden scale, but they're still design problems.
I think the fair side of this is that you have to make tradeoffs when you design things. Scaling problems are design problems, but whether they were mistakes or not really depends on how predictable that scaling was.
Car analogies are typical, so I'll add in there.
My car can take the four of us, and we can load it up with things from the shops. I can put a bunch of heavy tins of food in there, or some DIY things, but if I put several tons of stones in the boot it'll totally fuck it up.
Is that a design problem?
Not really, it's a relatively cheap regular car, and it failed at a certain scale.
It would be a design problem if it were a flatbed truck, despite it being the same scaling that showed the problem.
Making my car resilient enough to take that weight would require tradeoffs that would either make it worse for other jobs I want it to do or at least add significantly to the cost.
This is similar in engineering software systems too, you can make it handle scaling up better, but this can require a much more complex architecture that may make it slower at smaller scales. It can make it more complicated to work with, add additional risks of failure as well.
My international enterprise and all our business partners moved every broadcom product we have to a competitor. On top of that, they were very aggressive and combative with their sales+cease and desist threats.
They earned enemies for life. Some of us care about business relationships. Broadcom is dead to me and anyone that will listen to me.
reply