Some have screens at school (Chromebooks or iPads), but even then, their weekdays should largely be screen free - which means they’re getting these hours in nights and weekends.
The never-ending word treadmill we're on is amusing. A perfectly descriptive word is associated with something awful. We stop using that "offensive" word in favor of another word. The new word is then associated with something awful and the cycle repeats.
It's almost as if the only point of updating our vocabulary and retiring "offensive" terms is to signal our virtue and tribe.
Just think a bunch of people were paid money to sit around and discuss this, someone was paid to write this and advertisers are paying to have spots next to it. All about a debate as to whether 'colony' is more offensive than 'settlement'.
It used to be normal to use the n word to describe black people, why did that change? Why isn't it ok to simply keep using that word?
You're argument is flawed. Constant improvement and constant self examination and constant self improvement are required methodologies to write good code or make good projects, yet here you are arguing the opposite
Out of curiosity, what would happen to you if you were swimming in the water nearby and a transmission cable was exposed to seawater? What path would the electricity take in the vastness of open sea?
There would be no electricity, since the automatic safety systems should detect such a failure and break the circuits, similar to what should happen if a cable fails in your bathroom. But assume not, to make it interesting. The way of shortest resistance is probably still through the cable. Or it would all go into the ground. I doubt that there would be any danger to a swimmer (that is not too close). Note that such cables are buried in the ground to protect them, or rocks are deposited on top of them.
Also an administration that has been wiretapped (maybe illegally? Let’s see what Durham finds), leaked against, and the recipient of other unprecedented behavior (such as anonymous Nytimes op-eds).
Does everybody here know the #2 at the FBI counter intel was texting his lover and asking if there’s anybody in the White House who could spy for them?[1]
They’d be foolish if they don’t try and dramatically shake things up. If I were them I wouldn’t trust any previous admin holdovers.
Neither Strzok nor Page was "the #2 at the FBI". Strzok was the second in command of the counter-intelligence division, but that's just one division of the FBI.
Since when are unfriendly op-eds in the NYT "unprecedented"?
Look, I'm sure the Trump administration has plenty of legitimate reasons to be paranoid about people trying to undermine them, but it's pretty hard for me to accept that driving out all your competent opsec people is going to reduce the amount of leaks and compromises.
He was the #2 in the FBI Counterintelligence Division, which isn't exactly second in command of the entire bureau.
Also, the article you linked said that the texts "may show potential attempts by the FBI to conduct surveillance of President-elect Trump's transition team". And that is according to one senator from Iowa. That's a big difference from what you're saying actually happened.
> That's a big difference from what you're saying actually happened.
It's been 2 long years, and hopefully (finally) the public will get some transparency regarding the genesis of the 4 FISAs signed to spy on the campaign.
Of course, to learn anything substantial about the IG report you basically have to surgically removal oneself from the MSM spin machines.
You threaten that and they say “go pound sand in the courts”. And even if you “win” in the courts you still lose because “the process is the punishment”.
I’m extremely skeptical about ANYTHING put out by this group, and Jim Baker in particular.
This guy was general counsel for the FBI at the same time they were abusing FISA warrants to secretly spy on Trump admins. You think they’ll stop at Trump? They’re just getting started.
We need to get back to our roots of being extremely careful about our intelligence agencies.
I know you’ll initially be turned off by the subject of the below article, but definitely read it. For the sake of our civil liberties, the leash of our intelligence agencies must be kept short.
“Hello thanks for calling. I understand you want to reset your password. To verify it’s really you may I have your cryptographically impregnable super token? Oh it’s lost, I see, how about can you verify your billing zip? Splendid you’re all reset.”
Suppose we take Coinbase (I don't use it, but I've heard SIM swapping is done regularly with Coinbase):
Suppose you lose all your physical keys: I don't think you can social engineer hack Coinbase (pretty sure most companies won't allow people to just give away your password/send a reset email to some other email).
Or suppose you get them to send me an email to reset my password. But my email also has FIDO u2f! And I know as a fact you can't social hack my email provider.
You would expect that if you restore the full backup of your iOS device to a new one, because you lost it for instance, that on the new device you could open the Authenticator app and see the same keys as you had on your old device. That is not the case though.
Under the hood Google Authenticator uses keys to generate the codes you see on screen and these keys are not backed up.
It’s a difficult decision of course. If you back them up in iCloud Apple and people who hack your Apple account have access. If you don’t the keys are lost if the device breaks or is lost and you need a workaround.
No, I know because that’s what I do and I had this fail on me when I migrated to a new phone. I switched to a different app that does backup keys when you use an encrypted iTunes backup.
Edit: oh you wanted to restore on the same device. Well that might work but it doesn’t help when migrating or if your phone is not available.
I think he's saying that the private keys to his crypto never leave physical hardware. There is no phone number to call if he loses them, but on the other hand what you are describing is impossible.
The joke is a thief will get ahold a live person and still be easily able to social engineer account access, despite best efforts to lock it down with technology.
I’ve mostly disabled 2fa via phone where alternatives exist. Unfortunately some services (such as twitter) require you to verify a number (you can sign up, but you’ll quickly be account-locked without providing a number)
I’m still wondering why I can’t use Touch ID to do U2F...
Working with restrictions is one of the not-so-secret prerequisites to a lot of creative discipline.