You have to go out of your way to use any of the crypto features. None of them are forced on you any more than the built in TOR/IPFS/BitTorrent clients. It's just there if you want it.
I don't know what else to tell you, you're not even paying for the browser, it's a free service. Any browser that implements an ad blocker is probably also going to have a lot of features you don't use
Just to vouch for this, I've been using Brave for many
years. Haven't done a single crypto transaction in my life. Whatever crypto features it may have don't get in the way at all.
You must be one of those people who have decided they're charming and funny, without realizing that people only chuckle at your "jokes" because they are worried about what you'll do when they tell you to stop making them uncomfortable.
I'm grateful for the author for showing me SimpleX-Chat[0]. I'm an avid Matrix user, but communication tools that weren't birthed from a political hivemind are important tools to support, especially when you're being told that the opposite is true. In this case, the communication tool seems to be grounded in interesting ideas that preserve privacy more than Matrix seems to be capable of doing.
Oh, this is bigger than just Android.
SDP munging can cause all sorts of havoc on desktop clients as well.
Bit of a blind spot in WebRTC implementations.
The (Special Council) Robert Hur tapes with Biden leaked.
Jake Tapper's book was released.
Both evidence significant cognitive impairment in a sitting president.
25th Amendment can be applied retroactively.
They needed something to shift that cycle, and distract.
I'm pretty in tune with US politics and I wouldn't describe either of those things as a bad news cycle for Biden, chiefly because he's not the president anymore and hasn't been in the news for what amounts to an eternity in the political world. The only person I've seen mentioning this nothingburger had been Nate Silver, and that's more likely out of his relentless need to show that he was the first, akshually, to talk about Biden being old before everyone else was talking about Biden being old.
Furthermore, I think it's questionable at best to suggest that someone released news as grave as their likely terminal cancer prognosis simply to shift the news cycle. That goes doubly for Biden, given his family history with (albeit brain) cancer.
> 25th Amendment can be applied retroactively
He's not the president anymore. What would be the point? Another bullshit end run to try to invalidate every law or EO he signed?
> They needed something to shift that cycle, and distract.
It’s kinda astounding how hard you’re trying to cover for a group of people who have such obvious contempt for you.
Truly remarkable how hard people will go to never have to admit “losing face”.
Not only did they very obviously lie to your face, they’re now continuing to lie and you, instead of calling out their lies, and demanding accountability or something are gobbling up the lies and asking for more.
Your incredulity doesn’t make you look clever it makes you look foolish, because everyone else knows who “they” is. Everyone else knows why the Biden family would do the thing every single politician has done since time immemorial when a bad news cycle is about to break (ie distract with a sympathetic story). And you’re sitting here asking “what is a bad news cycle?”
The Jake tapper book points to an intentional cover up by Biden, his entire family and staff. It implicates nearly the entire DNC leadership. It’s not just a sad story about elder abuse, it’s an entire administration spending four years overtly lying to the public. It calls into question not just all those people’s credibility and integrity but also implicates them in multiple felonies.
It’s pretty obvious why his family and supposed friends would do anything to try to distract from their crimes and say “he’s dying leave him alone”
> It’s kinda astounding how hard you’re trying to cover for a group of people who have such obvious contempt for you.
> Truly remarkable how hard people will go to never have to admit “losing face”.
> Not only did they very obviously lie to your face, they’re now continuing to lie and you, instead of calling out their lies, and demanding accountability or something are gobbling up the lies and asking for more.
> Your incredulity doesn’t make you look clever it makes you look foolish, because everyone else knows who “they” is.
I think you need to take a step back and read my comment again. You're not engaging in good faith here, you're a hair's breadth away from labeling me a sheep or npc. Is "gobbling up lies and asking for more" truly what you think I'm doing? Don't you think you could find a more charitable interpretation of my argument?
> And you’re sitting here asking “what is a bad news cycle?”
I didn't ask that.
> The Jake tapper book points to an intentional cover up by Biden, his entire family and staff. It implicates nearly the entire DNC leadership. It’s not just a sad story about elder abuse, it’s an entire administration spending four years overtly lying to the public. It calls into question not just all those people’s credibility and integrity but also implicates them in multiple felonies.
Why should I believe Jake Tapper's take on events over Bob Woodward's take on events? I've read War by Woodward, and while it's not kind to Biden at times especially regarding his age and mental acuity, it certainly doesn't paint him as senile.
But even if we disregard books from venerated journalists, we can see with our own eyes that he's not senile. He's done several interviews after leaving office where he's the same Joe he's always been -- mumbling and stumbling, but lucid.
What an odd take... why are you attempting to rewrite reality?
Anyone can watch videos of biden from the start of his career to 2016 and then when he came back into the spotlight in 2019, they can then simply watch any video from 2019 until today and see an absolutely marked shift in mental capacity from 2016. Even if his family was in denial in 2019 when he first started his run for office, it became pretty clear by the middle of 2020 to anyone with eyes and ears that he was experiencing dementia.
All those video are online, and easily searchable. the claims you're making don't make any sense and aren't based in reality.
> I wouldn't describe either of those things as a bad news cycle for Biden, chiefly because he's not the president anymore and hasn't been in the news for what amounts to an eternity in the political world.
But he has been in the news, and people who aren't the President can have negative press. I suppose by your definition you could say it's not a bad news cycle for Biden --since he's senile-- but rather his team, the press corps, the media generally, and certainly Democrats who are trying to make a case for the midterms.
> The only person I've seen mentioning this nothingburger had been Nate Silver
I don't follow Nate Silver. The NYT and Dems hyped him for years but I never thought much of him. "Akshually", why do you follow Nate Silver? Why do you follow people who care what Nate Silver thinks?
> Furthermore, I think it's questionable at best to suggest that someone released news as grave as their likely terminal cancer prognosis simply to shift the news cycle.
Perhaps you need to get more in tune with US politics. This is simple stuff and very common. Biden has done far worse.
> That goes doubly for Biden, given his family history with (albeit brain) cancer.
Biden, in fact, often brought up that very thing to help him in political arguments. I don't really hold that against him.
> He's not the president anymore. What would be the point?
justice, I suppose
> Another bullshit end run to try to invalidate every law or EO he signed?
Well, it wouldn't be "bullshit" then.
> "They" being his family, or what? Who are they?
The Biden family certainly, since I think everything goes through Jill.
You're already arguing from a position of bad faith and frankly it's going to be a waste of anyone's time to engage with you.
> I don't follow Nate Silver. The NYT and Dems hyped him for years but I never thought much of him. "Akshually", why do you follow Nate Silver? Why do you follow people who care what Nate Silver thinks?
I don't follow him either. I had to Google what this bad news cycle was and found an article by Nate Silver published a couple days ago that uses this book you're talking about as a jumping off point to say "haha I was right about Biden being old" in typical Nate silver fashion.
> You're already arguing from a position of bad faith
You're mistaking facts that make you uncomfortable for bad faith argument. Biden's senility isn't in dispute --at least among those that matter-- which is why the media types are throwing his family and his administration under the bus. A bad faith argument would be those who said he was "as sharp as ever" or that "this version of Biden intellectually, analytically, is the best version of Biden ever". A bad faith argument would be grabbing one result from a half-assed Google search and trying to pass it off as insight.
> frankly it's going to be a waste of anyone's time to engage with you.
if only!
At any rate, it doesn't matter whether we agree or disagree here. To me it seems obvious you're not a close observer of US political news. It's not controversial to say that Joe Biden is senile and was senile during his presidency. There have been numerous articles in outlets that you no doubt respect stating as much, and they blame the Biden family and administration for hiding that fact from them. In the last week there have been articles in the NYT, Axios, Politico, The Financial Times, CNN, The New Yorker, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, the AP, NPR, The Nation reporting on and discussing the issue. Whatever your personal opinion may be, the mainstream opinion is that Biden was and is cognitively impaired, and that it was covered up by Biden's family and his administration. And this was completely off your radar until you read it here? And you Googled it, said "well if Nate Silver believes it then it's untrue", and you were cocksure enough to post what you were thinking?
I really don't know what to tell you, except that maybe you should try using better search terms. For example, when I looked for articles about this issue recently I went to Google and typed in the phrase "Joe Biden".
Oooh, kernel 5.4
This means that Teslas are vulnerable to every exploit discovered since, and anyone wanting to gain full access to the system has a multitude of tools to get there.
Not necessarily. The problem with clipboard audits using version number matching alone is they don't account for patching. The proper way to do a vulnerability audit is by building and running code under test in sandboxed environment, and running each CVE-indicative sploit against it. For example, RHEL would be a Swiss cheese exploit magnet if they didn't regularly patch the heck out of every CVE for every component that came down the feed.
> The proper way to do a vulnerability audit is by building and running code under test in sandboxed environment, and running each CVE-indicative sploit against it.
that doesn't work if there isn't an exploit
the other problem with both "clipboard audits" and your suggestion is that neither take into account the full context of the system. in general, a potential vulnerability might be significant, but in the context of your system, or tesla's, it might often be completely irrelevant. the converse is also true, and more problematic. it is very common for a potential vulnerability to be masked by other system characteristics.
the only way to do an audit is to do a comprehensive review of known potential vulnerabilities in the full context of your entire system stack and a well defined threat model requirement. otherwise, you will both underestimate some and overestimate many others. and you can't assume this is static; it must be repeated continuously because inputs and assumptions are constantly changing.
The gold standard deep and certain vulnerability remediation requires A/B test exploit sample code.
You're really going off into the weeds about other concerns rather than covering and ensuring known flaws don't exist than can be checked automatically and mechanically given proper infrastructure that don't need significant or constant human attention. There is a place for human attention, but it isn't going to scale to check 10 million machines.
I don't buy it.
The only evidence is the robot itself saying something vague.
Their insistence based on flimsy evidence just screams irrational hate intended to inflame confirmation bias.
I’d argue that Tesla needs to provide stronger evidence for us to believe their claims, not the other way around.
It has yet to be shown that these robots can do anything useful in any meaningful timeframe. We’re still well within the sphere of vapour ware that Musk has created for many years now. It would be naive not to ask questions at this point, or not to expect clear answers for that matter.
Last time the robot was a literally a person in a stretchy suit. Forgive our incredulity that this one wouldn't also be a dog and pony show, not unlike the two concept cars shown (the bus has no ground clearance, and the robocab does not have the lighting required to be sold).
