int0x2e

The Iranian regime would absolutely use nukes as soon as they have two or more weapons ready. Just as they have launched countless attacks against civilian areas in many of their neighbor states in the past 2 weeks, including several nations that have prohibited any use of US military installations or their in their country or their airspace as part of this campaign.

If Iran's regime had nukes, I guarantee you'll see UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and several others go all in on their own nuclear programs immediately. They'd be fools not to.

Israel's nukes are troubling, but the weird "nuclear ambiguity" doctrine has already stood for so long and managed to avoid nuclear flare-ups so far. I'd still like them to not have nukes, but they won't be launching any nuclear first strikes for sure - since we've seen them not do that even while fighting many major wars and suffering losses without taking that step...

There are not even 7,000 Mossad agents, period. 7,000 is the highest estimate publicly available for the TOTAL number of employees in the Mossad, and 95% of them are not agents - just like most US intel are not field agents. Real numbers for agents are far, far lower without a doubt.

Also - Israel got burned so bad with the idiotic Pollard affair, there is zero chance Israel would put so much of their assets in the US when they have a 7 front war. They are many things, but they are not idiots, and they clearly care far more about their immediate security interests than what the US thinks.

These theories make absolutely no sense, my dear fried.

Iran was well on that path anyway. The US strike absolutely did turn Iran from a peaceful actor with no interest in nuclear weapons into a regime bent on acquiring nuclear weapons.

I used to think the same way, and I loved UBNT. Sadly, after 2 different more advanced configs I had caused wild stability issues - affecting APs, a USG and the controller itself to the point of making them less reliable than a random TP-Link router, plus an ERL randomly dying on me without warning and never booting again - I decided to pull UBNT from anything and anywhere.

I now exclusively use open-source projects with a strong history and community - or used high-end enterprise gear that I pick up when it reaches EOL so it's dirt cheap. Stability has been so much better, even with the most advanced configs I ever created.

Storage will never work. Quote me on this. Nuclear or a mix of nuclear and renewables will be the only way to seriously get away from fossil fuels. Also, even if storage works some day, hoping we manage to discover how, scale and implement it across human civilization in time is a crazy bet to make. Even if we seriously go all in on nuclear and renewables tomorrow - it might already be too late, so betting on some miracle tech to be found, scaled and implemented in time is not only unwise, it would require several miracles to have any hope.

This is more of an argument for how pure economic thinking and the current constraints/processes have poor correlation to actual impact and desired outcomes. It's similar to how Enron would make the most money when California had rolling blackouts - by operating right at the edge of the network crashing, they would make the most money because reserves were low, so they intentionally shut power stations down and caused small grid crashes.

If you really believe in renewables, if anything, we need to go all in on nuclear for the base load, but no one seems to be headed in that direction other than China and India, because the don't have the same market failures we do.

It's much worse - if the data isn't just a ton of tiny files, and you're able to spin up a bunch of workers for parallelism, you can get up to 120 Gbps per storage account (without going to the extreme of requiring a special quota increase).

That means in a little bit over 5 minutes, the data could have been downloaded by someone. Even most well run security teams won't be able to respond quickly enough for that type of event.

That works for some types of code and fails for other types. If you have very long lived but memory heavy apps, allocations really matter...

At a former team, we went from spending quite a bit of time on code style comments and disagreements to spending no time at all on it, with the simple act of making the code linter a breaking step in our CI build, and deciding no review will start until the build is green.

We had to adjust our linter settings here and there - but it was still super efficient for everyone's time compared to what we had before...

I can't recommend this more.

The difference between theory and practice, is that in theory there is no difference, but in practice - there is.

So far, every "provably secure design" I've seen ended up being insecure in practice due to the things people abstract away.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I have not seen it done perfectly thus far.

We've seen more success by having many many iterations and widespread usage of common designs and patterns. These are not perfectly secure by any means, but they are secure enough against common threats to make it functionally equivalent until we figure it out.

For enterprises, it's hard to have a ton of different tools. I worked at a very large software company, and our security tech stack was so big and convoluted, that just maintaining a compliant CI/CD pipeline was a 5 person job, because there are ~20 different tools to integrate and debug, and each of those changes every year or two, so you're constantly re-learning, re-integrating, debugging,etc. Having a single (or just a couple) vendor(s) sounds like a dream!

Those aren't cheap, but rolling your own usually isn't any cheaper. Even huge enterprises usually buy instead of build because it's cheaper in both the short and long run.

Think about most managed cloud services - you could deploy your own SQL servers on EC2, configure replication, fail-over, backups, security patching, log collection, observability, etc. - but you'll end up paying a lot for engineers to build, maintain and monitor that solution compared to just spinning up one of the ready made offerings by AWS. It might be cheaper to do if you have a ton of RDS, but it really has to be a huge huge volume, and even then, AWS will probably find a way to discount your bills to make it still better...

I work at one vendor currently and have worked at a few prior. The difference is astounding - my previous gigs, including one of the biggest vendors ever was exactly as you said. My current gig is exactly the opposite - strong focus on real security insights and value, none of the box-ticking bs, and a great roadmap. It is rare, but when everyone at the org, and especially the product side really know how attacks play out - you can make a real impact on the world.

You're right that a generator must be taken care of, but a truck with an inverter is very different from a generator if you plan to power something significant. The truck+inverter will probably keep your fridge and lights running, but can't power your whole house unless you get an oversized aftermarket alternator, which will cost more than the generator probably will (aftermarket car parts aren't cheap).

Does Google really have Android though? Android is open source with a flexible enough license that if Google ever tried to tighten their grip too much, they'd lose the dev community quickly. They own the Play store and Google services, but you can create an AOSP device (a non Play/Google services device) with no issues, and some chinese/low-end players already do that exactly to avoid some of the licensing costs and requirements.

They may have had a very good handle on Android talent in the start, but now every facet of Android engineering has a non negligible community outside of Google.

I'm not saying it's like Google has nothing, but their position in the Android universe is one or two bad moves away from slipping from their grip at any moment. It's not a hard link like Apple's.