Interesting. But isn't this more like something (re-routing of text-messages) that happens inside compromised telecom service-provider? If they can hack the telecom-provider they don't need to get my phone-number from Facebook.
I haven't read the article in detail, but I think the point is some versions of this attack can be carried out by pure social engineering. Go into a store, claim to be you, talk your way out of giving ID, then get a new SIM card associated with your number and walk out with it. In this case, name+number is indeed helpful info for the attack since it doesn't involve any actual "hacking" in the computer security sense.
Is that really true though? Men are overrepresented by multiples among the Homelessness, prison sentences, assult victims, suicides, gun deaths. Often by factors of 2-3x
They're also deeply underrepresented in college, and the gap between men and women going to college is growing. Among young people, especially in cities, women actually out earn men.
Figuring out who's "better off" seems to be entirely dependent on what ruler you're using to measure "better", and which subgroup you're using to do the measurement.
Isn't that exactly what Parler is doing? The reason it doesn't work is because network effects and collective action make businesses that try uncompetitive. Go against the grain and all of a sudden everyone you were trading with that made your business feasible drops you. If any other businesses try to support you in their place, they'll also be singled out and get the same treatment.
I think everyone is ignoring the nitroglycerin that's been poured onto what was originally just embers. Every single one of these social media platforms has had an enormous incentive to broadcast viral mind destroying rage-bait to everyone 24/7 for the past decade.
People say that free speech needs to go, but free speech has been working fine for centuries, and allowed formerly incredibly unpopular opinions to take hold, opinions that we now take for granted. There's also plenty of historical precedent for horrible shit promptly happening right after it gets removed.
The solution is not to ban wrongthinkers, or get rid of free speech. The solution is to build our civilizations communication systems in such a way that they incentivize actually productive discussion, rather than this.
This seems like a paradox since broadcasting viral mind destroying rage-bait is... free speech. So what you're suggesting seems like it necessarily involves curtailing free speech.
Does anyone know the risk of radiation bit flips in this case? I don't think it's an issue with ecc ram, but if it's not that could be a problem for certain applications.
Again, I'm fine with being bigoted against peoples choices. If you make bad choices you can be damn sure I'll won't respect you. I can't accept being bigoted against the way someone is born.
I don't understand who's bright idea it was to use water as the primary coolant for a nuclear reactor. IIRC almost every single major nuclear incident has been caused or dramatically exacerbated by having it boil away or cause a steam explosion or mix with the ground water or chemically react with the fuel rods to produce additional heat and hydrogen gas which also explodes.
Like just go through this list and count the number of times water was a good chunk of the problem.
There are multiple options that don't have this issue. For instance, if you use liquid lead the thing can sit around indefinitely with no active cooling. In fact you have the opposite problem, you need to keep heating the lead to prevent the whole reactor pool from freezing.
Of course, but a liquid lead reactor's failure modes don't usually involve a massive release of radioactivity all over the environment. Absolute worst case you'll get a meltdown and/or a coolant leak. But diligent materials choices should prevent an associated fire or steam explosions that would spread radioactive elements all over the place.
This isn't true with all liquid metal reactors though. Liquid sodium reactors have flammable radioactive coolant, and a coolant breach could be environmentally disastrous.
The first working nuclear reactor was hastily cobbled together in a tennis court. It's literally just a critical mass of inexpensive magic rocks, a control system, and some way to remove the heat.
The only reason it costs so much is precisely because everyone is paranoid, so we demand expensive security systems and protocols. If the regulators got out of the way you could probably put one together for a few million dollars.
The fact that we can is probably the reason for the fears around the reactor. People don't fear the technical limitations of a well-build and well-managed safe reactor, and those can be built. But they fear the danger of the corruption and corner-cutting in some countries which is very difficult to constrain, which will lead to building an unsafe reactor.
At the height of the Chernobyl disaster, calculations were suggesting a vast swath of Europe could be rendered uninhabitable by humans for several generations in the melt-to-groundwater-detonation scenario. As it stands, an area of diameter slightly smaller than the length of Manhattan is still considered high-risk for permanent habitation.
Yes they can, they can totally do that and if they do you're screwed. https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/15/22332315/sms-redirect-fla...