The problem with describing the "spending" like this is that it only counts money that's donated to specific candidates or their PACs.
What it doesn't count is the literal billions that have been spent capturing all of the media outlets (from TV networks and stations to newspapers, and throw in large modern media companies like Meta, Twitter/X, etc.). Also, the Republicans have a stranglehold on "political Christianity", where you basically get party sermons from the pulpit every day and twice on Sundays.
The boost from these far outweighs any specific campaign spending, because these organizations have had years to build up their messaging on their targets, that no amount of specific election campaigning can come close to touching.
Exactly. The most important and expensive part is convincing the population that the problem is x, and the campaign financing is just a "finisher" to make sure people know which party to vote for to get the x they now think is the problem fixed.
> I have a serious issue with this idea that anyone trying to remote s/w engineer from North Korea is automatically a terrorist.
> Maybe some of them are just trying to make a living?I have a serious issue with this idea that anyone trying to remote s/w engineer from North Korea is automatically a terrorist.
> Maybe some of them are just trying to make a living?
No one in North Korea get to "just make a living" communicating with and working for foreign entities. This is a country that is so paranoid that every visitor to the country is required to stay with an official escort who will vet any contact you have with locals.
The only way that someone gets to communicate with a foreign entity is if they are employed, or closely managed, by the North Korean authorities.
I'm not sure that agents of the North Korean government deemed loyal enough to get external internet access are looking for jobs at defense firms and devs in order to be good, honest employees that definitely wouldn't clone any technology or backdoor anything...
Good question. The "ultimate zip bomb" looks something like https://github.com/iamtraction/ZOD - this produces the infamous "42.zip" file, which is about 42KiB, but expands to 3.99 PiB (!).
There's literally no machine on Earth today that can deal with that (as a single file, I mean).
> There's literally no machine on Earth today that can deal with that (as a single file, I mean).
Oh? Certainly not in RAM, but 4 PiB is about 125x 36TiB drives (or 188x 24TiB drives). (You can go bigger if you want to shell out tens of thousands per 100TB SSD, at which point you "only" need 45 of those drives.)
These are numbers such that a purpose-built server with enough SAS expanders could easily fit that within a single rack, for less than $100k (based on the list price of an Exos X24 before even considering any bulk discounts).
No, at least not the ones I am aware of. iirc these kinds of attacks usually targeted content scanners (primarily antivirus). And an AV program would of course have to recursively de compress everything
Not these fighter planes. They literally need both the propulsion and an active flight computer to fly stably. Without the flight computer, they are uncontrollable. Think balancing a pencil on your finger - if your finger is immobilized or loses control, that pencil will fall almost immediately. The plane's controls are much more complex and unforgiving.
And without propulsion, they are just flying rocks. No gliding.
No. As long as it has electrical power and the flight controls are working it can remain stable and glide even with a complete engine failure. Of course the glide ratio is fairly low but it's totally possible for a skilled pilot to make a dead stick landing provided there's a suitable site nearby with acceptable weather conditions.
He was transitioning the aircraft from mode 4 (STOL) to mode 1 (normal flight) when he made the decision to bail. The wings were not generating lift - without computer control the aircraft could have rolled severely.
Pilots eject when the wings are level. If he was facing the possibility of severe uncontrolled roll (or believed he was) then ejecting now before the roll was a good call. At least so far as his wife and children are concerned.
Going from mode 4 to mode 1 on the F-35B (I don't know about the AV-8 family) has a significant portion of the flight below stall speed. I don't think that we know at what portion of the flight this happened.
And that's an insignificant detail in the rest of the post anyway, a nuance that does not invalidate the rest of the points made in the post you are replying to.
We do know at what portion of the flight this happened. It's right there in the report. The airplane was in stable forward flight, not stalled. You did not make any valid points.
> No. As long as it has electrical power and the flight controls are working it can remain stable and glide even with a complete engine failure.
I'm not so sure about that. I'm pretty sure that flight controls are directly tied to thrust, because it would be the engine that also drives the hydraulic system.
It's like that even on passenger jets. If you lose both engines, you also lose hydraulics (aside from whatever little hydraulic pressure the ram air turbine provides). I would not expect there to be a ram air turbine on a fighter jet, which would mean complete engine failure = complete loss of hydraulics = complete loss of flight controls.
Nope. While it's true that the F-35 lacks a ram air turbine (RAT), it does have an auxiliary power unit (APU) that can power the flight controls, avionics, and electro-hydrostatic actuators as long as fuel remains. It also has a battery that can power critical systems for a few minutes when all else fails.
That depends what you mean by "low". The F-35B (like any fixed-wing aircraft) is perfectly well flyable down to stall speed, and below stall speed it doesn't fly at all. For the conditions described, stall speed would probably be something close to 120kn (exact performance parameters are classified). (Some fighters can use thrust vectoring and other aerodynamic tricks to retain a limited amount of post-stall maneuverability but that doesn't really apply in this case.) In an engine failure situation, pilots are trained to trim the aircraft to the speed that will give the best glide ratio and that's going to be well above stall speed.
Vertical flight mode wouldn't be usable in a situation like this. They only transition to vertical flight at low altitude with the landing site in sight.
Every plane has what is called a stall speed, which if you go below it it loses its ability to stay in the air. Above that, even 1kt above, the plane will still fly. Also, to make sure you can fly the longest possible distance to have time to troubleshoot any issues, planes also have what is called best glide speed. If you maintain that, you’re golden.
There are a lot of factors that come into play when you lose the engine, but unless there is a serious issue, you still have control over the flight surfaces.
Unfortunately that's not how it plays out in most large organizations, which have separate network, hypervisor, security, etc., teams. Everyone works off a playbook, whose origins are usually lost in time and space.
If you want them to change the playbook, it'll involve some schlub having to run from pillar to post between those organizations, trying to get everyone to agree to a change to this policy, and you can bet he or she is not paid or motivated to do this. If another vendor comes along who will go with the flow, they get the sale.
Every organization I’ve worked for has been able to change policies at will. I’ve written them for half a dozen. I don’t particularly like writing policies but if you do you’ll be able to remove the absurd and broken parts.
You don't get to pencil in your own policy when the organization must conform to standardized compliance rules (such as HITRUST for health related companies) that mandate certain policies, or risk losing customers who look for compliance to these rules. These guidelines can take years to catch up to modern best practice.
I think the hardest thing about books like SICP, or the Knuth texts, for "casual hobby programmers" is the need to tear themselves away from thinking in the idioms of popular languages like Python, Javascript or (back in the day) VB.
It's almost like having a Zen master trying to teach you the principles of Zen using a special artificial language with simple but precise semantics, that you have to learn first (and understand thoroughly), rather than try to learn it in a conversational language.
It's a difficult task, but ultimately rewarding. However, it is a struggle to turn your mind away from Javascript when looking at an algorithm or a data structure being taught by one of these texts, and use the simpler semantics of Scheme or "literate programming".
No, that's the old way. The new way is for the President to issue an executive order to have their target officially arrested, rendered somewhere overseas, and then follow up with an official order to have them assassinated (just declare them a foreign agent).
Any and all communications outside of the executive order would not be admissible as evidence even if the DOJ did want to prosecute!
