thenewnewguy

This is a massive dodge of the question - do voters not bear some level of culpability for the candidate they choose to vote for?

I'm not talking about candidates reneging on their promises, places that are voting in favor of public transit but got messed up by their ancestors, etc. - I'm talking about people voting today for politicians that are clearly pro-oil and follow through on that.

What if the guy in the car voted for pro-oil politicians whose campaign explicitly included expanding fossil fuel consumption and cutting budgets to trains and other public transit?

Because ultimately the way we organize society is we have a democracy and we vote on representatives to make the laws. Companies actually don't get to directly cut public transit, they have to convince voters to do that.

I'm not sure why you think my solution would be blindly hoping? We change things in modern society with laws (and enforcement for those laws).

For example, many countries are already passing laws to limit the sale of new ICE vehicles and/or to provide incentives to own electric vehicles. And these laws are effective - we can track new vehicle sales and see that we are tending in a positive direction.

It matters because to actually improve things in society we need to identify the true root causes.

Blaming the owners of oil companies doesn't help fix emissions problems, becuse oil companies are going to pollute a ton essentially regardless of who owns them. The real solution to that problem is to reduce the global consumption and demand for oil.

I haven't done a super deep dive but from what I can tell, they only considered individual people that own a 10% stake, not other holders like index funds.

Their methodology is extremely suspect in my opinion, as they attribute "shareholder emissions" to anyone that owns 10% or more of a company. Direct quote from their doc:

> a person with a 20% share in a company has 20% of its emissions allocated to their shareholder emissions

While shareholders obviously hold a greater degree of control over a company's emissions than a random consumer, assigning 100% of the blame for oil company emissions to the owners and 0% to people buying oil seems insane.

Also, filtering only for owners that control a 10% or higher stake masively skews the results as large portions of companies are held by the general public in much smaller quantities via 401ks, pensions, etc.

The first option on Form 8948 is "Taxpayer chose to file this return on paper" - is there any evidence paper filing is going away permanently?

Apple created and designed the update system for their operating system from scratch. The fact it doesn't include the ability to update a security-critical file quickly is entirely their fault.

Most (if not all) of the popular BSDs managed to ship the update ages ago. I would expect a trillion dollar company like Apple to have better and more thoughtful engineering than random volunteer projects.

All of that is Apple's fault - they designed and created MacOS. It's not like they're publishing to a third party platform.

Why would I judge Apple only on the quality of this docs page (which is good) but not on their poor work that resulted in this situation in the first place?

Yeah but none of this matters for the "git for legislation" idea right? The point here is to record the history of the text of the laws, not their meaning.

Can you spell out the economics for us?

Let's assume I am a white-hat hacker with access to this allegedly widespread exploit. Obviously, I understand why a nation-state attacker wouldn't want to share their exploit here but what do I as a random citizen stand to lose? It's not like I care about hoarding the exploit to pwn innocent civilians.

You seem to imply there's some economic reason such a white-hat hacker wouldn't take the $500 but don't actually say what it is.

Clients cannot because the current CAA spec only requires that it be checked/valid at issuance time.

Thus, as a client, it is impossible to distinguish between:

1) A certificate that was issued in violation of a CAA record

2) A certificate that was issued correctly for a website that later changed their CAA record

Would you consider 20 years "lately"?