Uh, who determines that the infrastructure wasn't properly secured? Who is willing to risk prison because some intern accidentally committed an API key or made a dumb mistake. Conversely, what's the chances that no one actually gets prosecuted regardless of how sloppy their security practices are?
> who determines that the infrastructure wasn't properly secured
An investigative body, the same kind that determines the who, the why, and the how when an airliner crashes or a bridge collapses. Obviously a lot of work needs to be done to get from point A to point B, and it won't happen overnight, but software development is currently a deeply unserious profession and at some point a genuine software engineering practice needs to be developed.
I am, perhaps naively, slightly hopeful that the LLM bullshit plaguing our industry will be the gust of wind needed for the house of cards to collapse and governments to realise that allowing the entire world to be vibe coded is not sustainable.
Pretty famously, aviation incident investigations are almost always not done with prosecutorial intent, and more about truth finding. It leads to people involved being cooperative to prevent future problems instead of ass covering to prevent jail.
In a darker reading; strong aviation safety is mostly motivated by not killing customers. An airline or plane maker who kills more customers than others will rapidly bleed those same customers and lose them to less lethal competitors. If no one cared about dying people I imagine aviation safety wouldn’t be so impressive.
As someone else here said, software, for the most part, is a deeply unserious industry. The stakes are so comparatively low and the consequences less obvious that it’s a lot easier for companies like intuit to maintain their supremacy simply by being entrenched, having strong sales teams, and the hearts & minds of non-technical managers.
In recent times it seems Boeing has been flirting with enshitification and half-assery but critics are not quiet and not falling on deaf ears
Sure, fatal stuff is bad for the bottom line, but that is a vanishing minority of what gets investigated.
You may not be aware, but there are thousands of non fatal incidents reported per year that just don't make the news.
There is a strong culture of self reporting instilled right from basic flight training, even when there is no damage or injuries, and even when the incident would have never been noticed by the authorities. You are almost guaranteed not to face consequences if you are open and honest about an incident. The FAA openly says that they would much rather educate than punish, and they tend to do that with pilots who own their mistakes. As long as there is no intent behind the fuckup, pilots are unlikely to lose their job, let alone their license.
Ideally the chances are high to certain they get prosecuted for sloppy security practices. It's part of the gig of being a CEO, if you imagine you are such a visionary/ideas guy/leader/whatever, risk taker (always a risk taker) then you can gamble spending 20 to life because you weren't actually as good as you thought.
Seems fairly logical for any large country to create something like this. Visa/MC is nice but allows the US to apply undue pressure to individuals. E.g. the US applied financial sanctions on ICC officials in the EU resulting in them losing access to Visa/MC credit cards and banks even those are that are purely EU based.
Not sure how it is overseas - but in the US, the #1 problem with Visa/MC is the huge percentage that they skim off every transaction. Businesses running on tight profit margins often give a discount if you pay with cash instead.
I think the fees are on order of 1-3% depending on your risk and business type. Certainly an issue but it's mitigated a bit by the decreased costs of going cashless. I.e. cashless operations avoids theft by employees; overhead for stocking, counting, and handling money; reduced insurance due to less chances of robbery; etc.
Sugarcane was due to cheaper sources. Pineapples I think was due to economic factors as well. Basically, one of the most isolated population centers in the world adds a lot of cost due to shipping things in and out and being a US state imposes means that labor isn't going to be dirt cheap.
Also Jones Act: ships from Asia can't pick up cargo from Hawaii on the way and drop it in mainland US. This means that shipping between Hawaii and mainland is much more expensive then it needs to be.
The Jones Act doesn't affect shipping prices all that much. If you look at the shipping lanes, the shortest and best shipping routes between Asia and the west coast travels by Alaska. Going to Hawaii adds multiple days and thousands of miles to the route. Also, the harbors in Hawaii aren't equipped to handle the large container ships used for trans-pac shipping routes so the cargo ships couldn't stop in Honolulu even if they wanted to. Finally, the Jones Act allows ships coming from Asia to stop in Hawaii to drop off cargo and then continue on to the west coast to unload the rest of their cargo, this doesn't really happen.
The grassroots institute is an explicitly right-wing/libertarian organization that advocates for their preferred policies. So take their studies with that in mind.
However, the Jones act doesn't really have much of an impact compared to the significantly higher cost of labor in the US compared to brazil and india. Also the US got rid of alot of sugar subsidies, and import controls which essentially made sugar growing aside for some specialized situations infeasible.
Not really, it makes sense from point of view if you want to have an empire, you need a merchant marine to move things around by sea on ships you control.
Jones Act doesn't accomplish what it's supposed to do but that's mainly because it was weak protectionism. Many other countries just shovel government money into their shipbuilding at rates that would probably make many just as angry.
I can believe it would make lots of people just as angry. But I really doubt policies like the ones from China or South Korea have an impact near as large as the US's.
It doesn't help that the US is full of non-contiguous territory separated by deep ocean. Other countries have similar laws but aren't as impacted.
Energy consumption wasn't really a concern when the idiom developed. I don't think people really cared about the energy consumption of instructions until well into the x86-64 era.
Not sure why this is being downvoted, but it’s absolutely correct. For most of the history of computing, people were happy that it worked at all. Being concerned about energy efficiency is a recent byproduct of mobile devices and, even more recently, giant amounts of compute adding up to gigawatts.
This take is anachronistic. Thermal issues were evident by the late 1990's. Of course by that time not many were working in x86 assembly but embedded systems sure cared about power.
People forget embedded predated mobile by a good 20 years.
Training ASICs (like Google’s TPUs) can generally run inference too, since inference is a subset of training computations. TPUs are widely used for both.
Mining ASICs (Bitcoin, etc.) cannot be repurposed…they’re hardwired for a single hash algorithm and lack matrix math needed for neural networks.
Various intelligence agencies are willing to pay 2-3M for a working exploit for iphone or android. I think that they would be fine with paying 50M for a userbase that has a high population of devs, admins, etc. Being able to backdoor someone like this in the right organization down the line is probably worth 50M.
> Various intelligence agencies are willing to pay 2-3M for a working exploit for iphone or android.
Little Snitch is not a working exploit for iPhone or Android.
> I think that they would be fine with paying 50M for a userbase that has a high population of devs, admins, etc. Being able to backdoor someone like this in the right organization down the line is probably worth 50M.
No, sorry, this is absurd. A ton of products have a high population of devs, admins, etc. These are not getting acquired by intelligence agencies. Give me one example. There's nothing inherently valuable about this population.
Who is a Little Snitch customer worth 50M to attack? Name them.
A bunch of those big breakers require two people. One person in a flash suit and another with a 2m long pole around the first person. That way if an arc flash happens, the second person can yank the first person to safety without also getting hurt.
Ruins the fun and interrupts instilling respect deep into the bones of interns.
Allegedly
While on "work experience" from high school I was put on washing power lines coming straight out of the local power station near the ocean - lots of salt buildups to clear.
Same deal, flashover suits and occasional arcs .. and much laughter from the ground operators who drifted the work bucket close.
The metal chopsticks are pretty much only get used in Korea. The shape and material of the chopsticks varies by country so you can make a good guess as to where someone is from based on which chopsticks they use.
Some of them of course are invented whole cloth. British Received Pronunciation was invented and needs to be learned and is the standard of the upper class. It's neither right nor wrong but it's there to differentiate.
RP isn't really a thing any more, except among some of the older aristocracy and Tories and a few legacy BBC Radio shows.
Most people have settled into Estuary, which has split into a high/corporate/media Estuary-tinged dialect, and low street Estuary. The BBC has its own special neutral version.
Fifty years ago the difference between upper class/BBC/RP and street English was almost hilariously obvious. Watch a BBC show from the 50s and 60s - even something like Dr Who - and everyone is speaking a unique RP dialect that doesn't exist any more.
Idk. I’m in my early 40s, not a Tory, not aristocracy, and I speak with RP, as do many others I know. Maybe a product of schooling, but I wouldn’t say it’s dead.
In media, you’re quite correct - it has become rare bar presenters who are now in their 80s or older.
You say “needs to be learned” but that’s no more so than any other accent.
We just grow up with it because it’s how our parents and the parents of our friends speak.
If you want to change your accent you can, of course, get elocution lessons but most Brits do not. We just have a large variety of accents of which RP is one.
It's not the natural evolution of a regional dialect coming to prominence but rather the conscious consensus of a geographically distributed social stratum.
Interestingly, the sociolinguistic literature shows that such a consensus is strongest among an aspirationally upward-mobile social group rather than the already social elite. In other words: The aspirational middle class make a big effort to speak how they think the upper class speak in hopes of joining them one day.
Maybe some of them may have had a purpose. With this one, if you were used to putting your elbows on the table and there were more people around, you just took up too much space and made it unpleasant for others around you.
reply