Ajedi32

If you want access to the whole internet and not just part of it, it has to be "one size fits all users". (At least with how the internet works currently.)

The root certs may have signed other intermediaries that are still trusted.

Is the increased value coming from you? Or from the tool they purchased to improve your efficiency?

A dump truck driver doesn't necessarily get paid more than a taxi driver, just because he's hauling more material. It's all about the value you personally bring to the table, not the value of the tools you're using, unless it's a tool unique to you.

If the overall efficiency of the economy improves, "the same amount of money" can afford more things. You don't get a bigger share of the pie, but the pie gets bigger.

If you also want a bigger share of the larger pie you need to be one of the people driving its growth, merely being employed by one of the many competing companies that is purchasing more efficient tools from a third party vendor does not qualify.

Nothing's crossing the border in this case other than information. It's more like a guy on the French side of the border shouting over to a guy on the Swiss side, and the French government trying to regulate what the guy on the Swiss side is allowed to say in reply.

Regardless of what analogy you use, the point is that the company isn't in France, it's in Switzerland. It doesn't make sense for it to have to do anything to comply with French law, even if it's interacting with someone who happens to be in France.

They wouldn't be providing services in France, they'd be providing service in Switzerland to people from France. No different than if someone from France traveled to a bagel shop in Switzerland for a bite to eat. If France wants to make it illegal for French citizens to communicate with a foreign business in Switzerland, I don't see how it's the business's responsibility to enforce that.

> Calif identified a critical flaw using GPT‑5.6 Sol as part of our Patch the Planet initiative

They found a vulnerability and reported it; isn't that a good thing? Are you suggesting it would be better to just not look for vulnerabilities, hoping that if nobody knows they exist, they can't be exploited?

I thought that logic had been widely discredited in the security community long ago.

Hmm, yeah maybe they tried to add pipeline exports to that figure without realizing the figure already included pipeline exports? Pretty boneheaded mistake if that's what happened.

Other possibility is that that Kplr article you linked is outdated; it doesn't have a date listed on it so it's hard to tell. The graphs do go up to September though so it can't be that outdated...

Kpler is a commercial data broker, not a political institution; they have no incentive to lie to their customers. Where are you seeing the article double counting ship transfers? The article doesn't try to do any math, it just cites Kpler. If 8.5Mb is current pipeline capacity, is it possible there could be other overland shipments making up the remaining 1.5Mb?

Something's not adding up. Surely demand for oil is not so inflexible as to sustain such greatly increased prices at pre-war levels of supply, right? Has demand for oil increased since the start of the war for some reason? Or is there another factor beyond the Iranian blockade now driving the entirety of the reduction in supply? The Russia-Ukraine war?

I wish there were a way to filter links and reshares out of my feed completely.

Yes, if you're okay with doing away with the concept of zone delegation beyond the top level domains, you can make proof of ownership a lot simpler and just validate directly with the registries.

If you want to keep zone delegation, your proof of ownership PKI is going to end up having to solve many of the same problems DNSSEC tries to.

And the thing is, once you have a secure, automated way for websites to prove ownership of a domain, the necessity of trusting a bunch of third party CAs to validate that information for you starts to become questionable.