(TBH i think the whole Everest thing, especially in its modern form with guides and sherpas carrying everything and the ice fall doctors setting up and maintaining the route is overdone and doesn't really PROVE much anymore)
I really would be much more impressed by someone who volunteered 3 months alongside the sherpas (keeping the route, carrying the stuff for toursist) rather than doing one climbing for internet points.
My understanding: the criminals targeted people in their 80s who did not notice a problem, or did not report to police. The scammers randomly called the pranksters, thinking of making new victims. The pranksters could report to police, but instead decided it was an opportunity for a 3 hours "epic reaction" video.
True, but I think this is a phase. AI is going to find thousands of bugs in the coming year, that are low hanging fruit for its AI capabilities. bug bounty programme shouldn't pay for that.
But as development teams integrate AI, old code gets fixed and new code won't include bugs AI can find. Then the usefulness of AI bug reports will decrease again, until a new baseline where humans security teams (using AI tools and also their brains) are needed to find the bugs that AI can't figure.
I sort of listen to YouTube while I'm doing other stuff.
I tried that, but it didn't work. I found someone playing a series of 12 piano pieces I enjoy, organised in a playlist. Youtube played ads in between each piece. I could not move back to hear hear again a track, or skip to next, without getting ads. It was impossible to just focus on the music.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Did you mean to ask would Trump respond in good faith to an invocation of Article 5 by European allies?
The opposite. My NATO argument was whether, in the case of an attack against the USA:
(1) Trump would invoke NATO, an alliance he was never trustful in.
Say, why on earth wouldn't Trump just use a red phone and tell UK or Germany or Japan prepare themselves "just in case" because USA will be launching an operation against Iran in a week of time? This level of distrust of Trump in USA's long-time allies is appalling and does not make me think he would ask for help from them.
(2) Whether NATO partners would take the risk of helping Trump, as current events show there is more unknowns in getting caught in mental games with a madman, rather than taking the calculated risk of staying on the side. Those who stay on the side risk some more tariffs; those who participate risk that Trump decides dangerous military moves for everyone without notifying anyone, like what happened with Venezuela/Iran.
Say, Europeans might agree in defending the American soil, but will not want to launch an operation to capture Putin. Given recent history, it would not anymore be possible to exclude that the USA would take that decision on their own, or totally ignore the opposite opinion on their allies. Such a decision would doom all allies who helped Trump in that war in a MAD (nuclear) scenario. I believe high advisers are going to tell the European leaders to carefully stay aside.
When I said shit hits the fan I'm not speaking of the US-Iran war. It would be something crazy like NK lobbing nukes, attacks from China, meat waves from Russia...etc.
Thanks for the useful clarification.
I still have hard time thinking of a large European coalition helping the US right now, for the usual arguments:
(1) One needs public support, and public opinion is probably not going to be very high right now. And not even because politics would be anti-Trump; to the contrary, because pro-Trump (populists) parties are in a high wave right now, and those sort of people are generally unwilling to help foreign countries (and on top of they are pro-Russians).
(2) The comparative side of the respective armies, and the unhelpful geography. Say, if Russia tried to capture Alaska, Europe would not be in a situation to send help other than symbolic.
In a NK scenario, European allies would not engage without approval of the UN or, at least, an attempt to find such an agreement (even though a veto from China is probable). I highly doubt Trump would move with diplomacy.
I can't figure China attacking anyone beyond their present claims and known conflicts. They have been very consistent.
The overall problem is the problem-solving methods are so different that there isn't an overlap that allows Europeans to participate in the decision-making or implementation of anything coming from Trump right now.
Not only Waze is useful to the driver, it is now part of law enforcement. People using Waze in these "average speed" areas are not avoiding the law, they are actually doing exactly what the law wants them to do: pay attention to their speed, and comply with the limit.
This is Italy just fleecing an America tech company because they can.
I just checked my cable operator; Like Netflix, increased my subscription by 1 euro last January. But contrary to Netflix, they did follow the law, and included a 8 line paragraph that goes:
* "we keep investing in the quality of our services, our 5G coverage now reaches 97% of the population"
* "we will update the prices in agreement with the contract, and after publication of the inflation values [https LINK] for year 2025"... "increase your package monthly rate by 2.3%"
* "this will help us bring you faster and innovating communication solutions"
It really is not difficult, they just need to pay attention.
Trump has pissed off a lot of allies and created a lot of bad sentiment. This doesn't change anything.
Bad sentiment, seriously? Trump directly and voluntarily damaged our economies (with tariffs). Trump threatened our national security, more than once! Trump denied us needed help for our friend Ukraine!
I personally see the USA to have POTENTIAL to be a FRIEND AGAIN one day in the future (which I hope is soon -- I'd love to feel secure and visit the USA again, or visit the students I send there as myself an academic with active collaborations with some of your top 5 institutions). But politically/militarily cannot consider the USA to be a friend right now as per definition of friendship which implies reciprocity. We haven't had evidence of reciprocity lately, while he have had evidence of duplicity, and even evidence we need to be careful.
our allies would assist just the same given it would likely be in their direct interests to do so.
1. What allies? My news last week says Trump threatened again to with draw from NATO. You say we're allies again this week?
2. Let's see these direct interests: Iran has demonstrated they are not stupid. They aren't at war with the world, they are at war against whoever bombs them, or helps the bombings happen. It's in the European NATO country's BEST INTEREST to remain NEUTRAL in this war, and avoid becoming a target.
The facts that show EU countries intend to remain neutral:
* Several EU country already signalled they won't help. Spain DENIED the USA flying over their airspace with military aircraft.
* France sent an aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean to secure the European interests; then refused to use it to secure Ormuz, and making the point to say they're not at war with Iran. Obviously! France has ONE aircraft carrier. We don't want to have it pinned in Ormuz, when we are in a hybrid war with Russia!
This war is already costing us militarily. We (France) are helping friends in the middle east, using OUR anti-missile resources to defend their ground. We spent years of stock, and we can't make those missiles very fast. Soon we will have depleted our stock of anti-air missiles and no way to restore stocks in less than a decade, while Russia is out there at our doorstep...
What is going to happen if some country decides to help the USA in this war? Apart from direct retaliations from Iran...
* this country designates itself as a target for local terrorism. European countries have populous Iranian communities and won't take that risk easily.
* if European countries send troops to Iran, Europe would be making themselves vulnerable to the Russian front. We're not that stupid! We need our entire military in Europe to remain dissuasive against Russia.
If shit really hit the fan
What is your scenario "shit really hits the fan" where NATO countries would benefit in helping the USA? Let's speculate:
(1) somehow Iran manages to retaliate against the USA on American ground (since they can't send troops, maybe a couple of missiles, or through terrorism).
1. Would Trump invoke NATO Article 5? Really, with his ego? Then would anyone trust him with help right now? Or is he going to impose 200% more tariffs (like he threatened Spain two weeks ago) if he doesn't get exactly the amounts of troops he wants, or the amount of money he demands, or whatever goes through his mind that morning?
2. Can you provide any reason why we would actually risk our lives for a war we didn't choose, we were not even be INFORMED OF a minute in advance? I don't see any benefit for any to enter this mess.
3. We (non-USA part of the world) are at PEACE with Iran right now. Why would we want to become their target?
4. USA is constantly playing Big Boy. What sort of help does Goliath needs against David?
4.1 Do you really think European countries will send troops in Iran? We have democracies, we typically have 4+ political parties in a constantly moving equilibrum. If governments do stupid things like this, they fall in a month, someone else becomes the leader and most likely backtracks.
4.2 or do you want European troops to help secure Washington DC while you're busy in Tehran?
4.3 Would you actually have use for a European aicraft carrier, when the USA has 11 in operation, and whole Europe has TWO? (And both are 2.5 times smaller than the American counterparts?) Trump has been constantly belittling European armies. Do you expect Europe to go all-in with... so little investment in defence... as Trump painted it?
(2) the war expands when Russia (Iran's ally) attacks Europe as retaliation, or seeing an opportunity. That still won't make Europeans enter the Iran war. To the contrary that will make Europe withdraw from wherever else and defend itself.
Let them get their own streaming if they don't like what Netflix has to offer.
They like what Netflix has to offer. Netflix if #1 in Streaming in Italy with 27% market share https://www.vogon.today/econom...
This is just Italy fleecing the tech company because it can.
No it's not. It's not "Italy" (as a country, as a government) that brought the case. It's a consumer union and the lawyers they paid; not "Italy".
What it is, it's a megacorp not competently reading the law of the country they operate in. It was just as simple as writing "to keep up with inflation". They just had to write that to be in the clear. Just like one has to say "yes I do" when getting married, otherwise it might not be valid.
This is really standard stuff. I'm not in Italy, but I have seen reports in other news of, say, a decision of a district to change the name of a street to be cancelled by a Court because the district forgot they have to justify the reason for the name change (which is just as simple as to write "to honour the name of a local citizen"); and a criminal sentencing cancelled by a higher court because the lower judge forgot to justify something. This sort of mess up happens, it's fair game for someone to bring the case to Court and win.
Not sure why you mention United States here, it's not at all in TFA. I'm only talking about Nepal needing to pass laws that prohibit insurance, which I believe isn't compatible with generic principles that you can't pass laws that cause serious prejudice to everyone just to avoid some small monetary damage.
There is a clear imbalance here between the objectives (avoid a scam estimated to 15 millions dollars over 3 years) and the means (prohibit life-saving insurance to thousand of blameless tourists who needed assistance in Nepali hospitals). This is part of constitutional control, independently of the fine print in the particular instance of constitution in your country.
Insurance scams exist everywhere, and we're not prohibiting fire insurance because some people set fire to their own houses.
and maybe Everest tourists should be required to walk up Kilimanjaro - or an equivalent - before tackling the big one.
That's the case since last year. Tourists are now required to climb any of the seventy-four 7000m+ summits of Nepal before being issued an Everest permit. https://www.placesnepal.com/bl...
1a. (prohibit insurance) Probably would not pass constitutional examination. That disproportioned affecting the lives of honest people compared to the objectives. The insurance fraud rate is small (3.5% 171 identified cases out of 4782 hospitalisations according to TFA). the proposed change would lead to honest blameless tourists dying because they would not want to afford the needed help in case of actual need.
1b. (body recovering deposit) is already happening, it's a $15,000 fee https://thehimalayantimes.com/...
2 (prohibit trekking in Nepal) is out of the question; it's Nepal's golden goose.
Most fraud cases reported in the summary are paper fraud easy to uncover: duplicated helicopter invoices, fake medical reports. They can be avoided by improving the procedures so fake stuff can't happen. The other part where people get poisoned are harder to prevent, but can be controlled by severe criminal charges against the guides, and stripping licences (to the agencies, to directors)
He provides the source code of OnlyOffice, but auditing such a huge codebase is not easy. And he controls the repo and could be sneaking something. The risk exists.
It's different if we hire him to execute tasks, e.g. implementing a new function in a codebase; he does not control the repo, everything he writes is reviewed by a project leader, so the risk is much lower.
would you require him to be resident in Riga, as opposed to Nizhny? Or is that something dictated by the EU?
For some company function he would be required to be resident in the EU. For example human resources; because personal data must be consulted while physically located within GDPR jurisdiction.
In any case, there is still no hatred. We're cool with him as a person. He's fine living in Riga and publishing his software.
Just we would have to be careful with tasks assigned to him manipulating sensitive data, because for as long as the war lasts, we can't be sure which side he is except if he was vocal opponent.
It's just a pictogram, or a rebus.
I believe to the contrary, it would be misleading if Sun Microsystem had gone into photovoltaics. Then by watching the headline and icon you could not determine if slashdot were seriously referring to Sun (photovoltaics) technologies. Since the Sun brand is inactive and Sun never was doing photovoltaics, we can be sure it's ironical, and enjoy seeing again a great logo form the past.
I could have made the obvious suggestion to use the Apple logo for food-related topics, but this one would be misleading. Apple never engaged with food, but that isn't a problem. The problem is Apple is an active brand regularly referred on this site, so readers wouldn't be able to determine if Apple is referred as the active brand or a pictogram for fruit/food.
Because DEC is gone, we know that the "d|i|g|i|t|a|l" logo on this website is used for "digital world/education".
Many people are unenthusiastic about your work.
