Fun fact, the person who stole the sim probably worked for the carrier, or used someone who worked at the carrier that they either knew or had leverage over. You already have to verify your identity to the carrier if you want to make changes to your account, and while you might be able social-engineer your way past it, but I would be shocked if someone like Jack Dorsey didn't have a password associated with his account that is required to make changes. Saying the carrier needs to be sure before making changes is useless if the person at the carrier is circumventing it. Plus they already do it.
> while you might be able social-engineer your way past it,
My personal experiences and various accounts I've heard make this "might" shift to "fairly easily". Why are you so confident that it has to be someone with inside knowledge?
> I would be shocked if someone like Jack Dorsey didn't have a password associated with his account that is required to make changes
I do not share your trust. I'd be shocked if he didn't NOW, but you are basing your assumption off of what...that he recognized his status as a high profile target? Were that the case I doubt this vulnerability would have existed.
China tends to create absolute garbage for the chinese market. Huawei's reputation outside of china has taken a massive hit, even though they were considered industry leaders this time last year, so that's not helping. Add to that the fact that they seemingly pumped this out in about 4 months and skepticism is warranted.
I'm pretty sure he's just referring to the fact that if someone can push an ota update and you have something like iMessage that has encryption keys on the device, there's nothing stopping a company from pushing an update out that compromises your security. End to end isn't compromised, it's potentially compromised. Smartphones are the schrodinger's cat of security because while they're considered "secure" right now, they could be blown wide open via automatic update any second. Telegram is encrypted end-to-end, but if you have automatic updates on, there's nothing from stopping the developer or rogue actors (or states, like russia) from pushing an update out that uploads all of the encryption keys to their servers and decrypts everyone's messages. Automatic updates are fundamentally insecure because they can instantly compromise your security. If you want true security, go with open source and review (or wait for reviews) of all code changes that happen in the apps you use, and you want a distro that either doesn't have an os ota system or allows you to disable it. Also, there is potential for baseband attacks because we're all at the mercy of telecoms and no one runs custom firmware or opensource code on their baseband processor so who knows what vulnerabilities lie there.
Genetically modified foods are already in the food supply, thats why you see that "GMO free" logo on things. Its also why some company can sue a farmer for patent infringement by growing crops from last years seeds/harvest.
fighting it gives it attention and validity, its the streisand effect. And Julian Assange lives in the UK but was still a tool of the kremlin's propaganda wing. what's your point?
Don't think publicizing information against the US presidential candidates makes somebody "a tool of the Kremlin's propaganda wing". Or have you drank too much laughable American propaganda yourself?
That's... an interesting interpretation of Magnitsky's murder. (regardless of whether Browder himself was involved in any shady dealings). They, and supporting citations, also come from only one source, too.
No argument on the doxxing side, but I wasn't talking about Assange. We were talking about the "behind the scenes" movie, and the maker of the film might have been a Putin critic at some point, but is no more than a clown now. His Twitter feed is quite delicious, complete with claims that Russian press is freer than Western, and with adoring comments from people with English-sounding names, but written in such a stilted and obviously translated word for word from Russian language that one could do another HN post how Twitter's claim to have banned Russian bots is nothing but self-serving bunk.
So, I'm supposed to believe some anon's interpretation of this documentary... apparently based on his subjective analysis of some guy's twitter feed... over my own lying eyes?
How do you explain the Russian documents on Browders website that say ... what Nekrasov says, and NOT what Browder says? It's a pretty simple fact check; you don't even need to speak Russian to do it. I did it, and it appears that Nekrasov was honest and Browder is the deceptive lunatic who wants to start WW-3 over his tax bill. Hey, I could be wrong: on the other hand, I'm providing citations and you, an anon, are providing opinions as to the political content of someone's twitter feed.
Oh, you can believe anything you want, including, from your many posts, that Putin is a nice guy.
I do read Russian, though, and can read Nekrasov's (not "some guy") twitter feed. HYe might as well be working for RT or Sputnik, and deserves exactly as much credibility as those fine news sources. They also want one to believe that evil Browder wants to start a war. Right...
Lol, OK browderbot. Obviously I am a Kremlin functionary for not being a lemming. Only those who believe what some billionaire's PR firm tells them are non-Putin slaves.
Unlike you, I post under my real name. And I will say again: whatever your worthless anon view of Nekrasov's twitter feed might be, his documentary appears to be true in all the details I checked. Including the important ones of who Magnitsky was and what he was doing in Russia.
Not to do anything to violate HN's rules, and you certainly are free to believe what you want, or what you need, but in this particular matter I will take an opinion of someone who doesn't even speak Russian, and does not care to look at any of the primary sources with a great grain of salt.
""Magnitsky act: behind the scenes" where Bill Browder allegedly laundered his corporate holdings for tax fraud through various handicapped people, and eventually gangsters who were conveniently murdered."
Look, I'm not saying that's a bullshit documentary, but that's literally the kind of smear campaign Putin would execute to try to get talks of the magnitsky act thrown out. I wouldn't take any of that information as factual.
My spot checks indicate it was 10/10 on the money, not that this has anything to do with the subject on this thread. Just because some anon on the internet is giving me 'friendly advice' to not take any of the information as factual because Putin might like it (or because it makes Browder sad).... Why are you even bringing this up?
The difference here is that the 30% cut is on everything digital sold through apple's payment system - including in app purchases. Amazon has removed in-app purchases from it's kindle and comixology apps because they'd owe a 30% cut to apple. Make whatever justifications for the app store purchases you want, it's the digital content from other stores (video, music, books, etc) that will bring about the anti-trust issues. Add to that the fact that apple is the only one restricting users to their app marketplace and you have the recipe for an antitrust lawsuit. Microsoft got hit with antitrust because they included internet explorer by default, how apple has only allowed one source for applications for ten years and never been challenged on it I will never know.
This is a really weird device. The mac mini has long been used as a home theater pc of the apple ecosystem, due to it's formfactor and being the one apple device that didn't come with its own 20 inch screen or 3 foot tall tower. Apple tv, for all it's shortcomings, has sort of supplanted that and you're much better off sticking that under your tv and running your plex server somewhere else. So now we have a mac mini which is too expensive to be a home theater pc or to be stuck in a closet serving media, and is comparably priced with macs that have actual screens. So its like good for someone who for some reason doesn't want to carry a macbook around but wants a semi-portable workstation? or someone who wants an iMac with a bigger screen? It's not useful as a mac mini, and it's pretty redundant thanks to every use case being covered by an existing mac. Who is this device for? Who is buying this over a macbook or imac?
I've bought two Minis as dev machines in the past. Portability was part of it. I also saved a bunch of money because I already had a full set of peripherals. Edit: Upgradable RAM and the ability to install a second drive was also great in retrospect, I wonder if the latter is still possible with the 2018 model.
And I'm not sure whether glossy Retina screens are really the best bang for the buck for developers. I often wish I had dual 1440p or a ginormous 21:9 screen when I'm dealing with complex projects.
Many people. This is targeted at professionals who need a max with good performance. Eg. Software developers. I can imagine this being a popular device.
