smithkl42

I guess my big question here is why these endpoints were exposed to the Internet in the first place. I thought pretty much everyone these days put all their infrastructure in a private IP range behind a NAT firewall. I can't imagine throwing critical infrastructure up naked onto the Internet, whether I knew of a specific security issue with the firmware or not.

Love this.

The way the Greek is displayed isn't very helpful, though. Specifically, any vowel with a grave accent displays the accent as a separate letter, which makes it very distracting to read. I don't think it's a problem with the encoding, as I can copy the inline text and it displays just fine - though with some weird spaces before commas or periods:

ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ἦν ὁ λόγος , καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν , καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος .

Given all the flat surfaces on this, I wonder how much more difficult it would be to turn the flat surfaces from canvas into solar panels.

I've been driving roundabouts for decades, and think they're great - they really help with traffic flow. I've never found them confusing.

I had to drive this specific Kirkland roundabout the other day, and ended up missing my offramp and going in completely the wrong direction. It's the most confusing roundabout I've ever seen.

I'm waiting until my kids are out of the house (just a couple of years now) to repurchase the 3-volume set. The first purchase didn't survive my kids' childhood - which, yes, I think Watterson would have approved.

I'd be more likely to assume that it's a really great one, where folks like and trust each other enough that they can give each other crap like this and everyone understands and appreciates it, like good friends trash-talking each other on the basketball court. I've thought for years that the way you can tell acquaintances have become friends is if they start insulting each other.

Or, as you say, it could be a really horrible environment - but I don't think you can tell from one anecdote.

Good point. The pager attack on Hezbollah was risky because it involved physically changing the pagers enough to put explosives in them. Quite a lot easier just to ship devices with some subtly insecure code.

Consider yourself lucky. He's a beyond-sleazy, probably criminal online influencer, important in what's called the "manosphere". He's made a lot of money exploiting and abusing women and encouraging other people to do so. If the online clips of him bragging about how to manipulate women into doing pornography don't make you want to throw up, you're pretty far gone. Unfortunately, lots of folks are, in fact, pretty far gone.

If I were in charge of, say, the Mossad, I would have as a significant part of my budget purchasing every single bluetooth device on the market, and set a bunch of underemployed Israeli CS grads to work at finding these vulnerabilities, and then putting them into an easily deployed toolkit. You want an asset with access to, say, an Iranian government office, to be able to walk through the building with a phone and take control of as many machines as possible.

Now that I think about it, I think you have to assume that they probably DO do this...

If that was the case, it seems like those companies would have forced the city to clean up 10th and Jackson.

Until we have robot police officers, there will always be a human in the loop. But right now, there's a whole category of "drunk and disorderly" / "breach of the peace" kinds of laws that are ~100% up to the discretion of a police officer to enforce. I won't say you CAN'T have it any other way, because I can imagine alternatives like "don't have those laws", but I will say that you don't WANT to have it any other way.

I wonder what they mean by this?

> The camera can have different ways of seeing encoded in it, including kinds of gazes that enforce social agreements about what kinds of behavior and people are considered “normal”

The phrase "kinds of gazes" strikes me as the sort of thing that's only going to make sense to people trained in a very particular and idiosyncratic flavor of ethical critique. What a normal person sees here is, "These cameras can detect if people are acting bizarre and dangerous," which is probably something most people would appreciate. In Seattle, the problem, of course, is that the streets are full of people acting bizarre and dangerous, it doesn't take a camera network to find them, and the police seem to be under strict orders not to do anything about it.

Been bit by that before: it's not just an issue with Dapper, it can also hit you with Entity Framework.

I honestly think this is going to be a big part of what remains when AI is doing everything we currently think of as our work. Legally or morally, some things need a human in the loop.

Am I the only one who is mystified by this whole idea? People aren't CPU's. Good luck getting them to follow the code that you thought you were using to define their roles. On the contrary, what makes any complex system work is flexibility. And yes, if that calls into question the whole regulatory regime some companies (believe they) live under ... well, yes.