We use `sops`[1] to do this and it works really well.
There is a Google Cloud KMS keyring (for typical usage) and a GPG key (for emergency/offline usage) set up to handle the encryption/decryption of files that store secrets for each application's deployment. I have some bash scripts that run on CI which are essentially just glorified wrappers to `sops` CLI to generate the appropriate `.env` file for the application, which is put into the container by the `Dockerfile`.
Applications are already configured to read configuration/secrets from a `.env` file (or YAML/JSON, depending on context), so this works pretty easily and avoids depending on secrets being set in the `ENV` at build time.
You can also, of course, pass any decrypted values from `sops` as arguments to your container deployment tool of choice (e.g. `helm deploy foo --set myapp.db.username=${decrypted_value_from_sops}`) and not bundle any secrets at build time at all.
The moral, legal and technical imperative to protect this data is 100% on the company storing this data. Even if the onus of protecting sensitive personal information were passed on to the performers making a living from this site, they would still need to show their full legal name on a redacted ID (which makes finding the address trivial).
The owners of this site should be ordered to pay restitution for the damages it has caused to all the performers impacted by this leak. If there are no consequences for things like this, companies will continue to be poor custodians of sensitive data that we entrust to them. The most vulnerable people in society will, as usual, suffer the greatest harm.
A lot of concepts that originated in plan 9 have been widely adopted by modern unix-like operating systems, most notably the /proc file system, so in a certain sense I would say that it was a successful project.
Lack of applications, drivers and compelling use cases ultimately caused the project itself to fail. It was also competing against operating systems with huge commercial backing that already had deeply entrenched market share.
Presumably because they do not want huge segments of the human population to die because they are unable to afford access to the literally most basic necessity for life on this planet.
Maintaining your own email infrastructure is a security nightmare on its own right, you are probably better off using Gmail and just GPG encrypting everything unless you really know what you are doing and have a surplus of free time.
Amphetamines (used to treat ADHD and narcolepsy) and Benzodiazepines (used to treat anxiety disorders) are both well-known to be addictive. Benzodiazepines in particular can have fatal withdrawal symptoms if a patient quits them cold turkey.
SSRIs and SNRIs both have horrible withdrawal symptoms and can take months for patients to taper off if they decide to quit or change their meds.
SSRIs and SNRIs do not really meet the threshold for being considered addictive, however, since they do not induce any kind of euorphia, intoxication or immediate relief of depressive/anxious feelings.
Amphetamines and Benzodiazepines have a much higher potential for abuse, which is why prescriptions for them are carefully monitored by drug enforcement agencies.
In my experience, the sense of "enlightenment" that came from experiments with psychedelic drugs arise from the realization that a very small quantity of chemicals (a dose of LSD is measured in millionths of a gram) can have such a profound effect on your perception of reality and sense of self-awareness.
That said, psychedelic drugs do not inherently bring the user to any kind of spiritual discovery or intellectual awakening. The path to enlightenment requires one to make the conscious choice to continue down it on a daily basis and the self-discipline to not get stuck in the murk and mire.
Drugs are just one of many tools available to facilitate meditations on the nature of being.
Unsurprisingly, however, hallucinogenic drugs are likely more often used as a distraction from reality. This is certainly a valid use-case for many people, but it does not have anything to do with enlightenment.
Some people have underlying neurological issues that can manifest in teenage/early adulthood years independently of drug use, although use of psychedelic drugs does tend to exacerbate such problems.
It is possible the drugs permanently changed this person. It is also possible the drugs merely accelerated what would have happened regardless.
For most people, psychedelics are indeed pretty harmless.
The real difference is that a cancer diagnosis is probative (based on measurable, detectable underlying physical pathology) whereas a psychiatric diagnosis is not.
It is really hard to truly self-study in mathematics. Going through the opencourseware and reading textbooks (working as many exercises as you can, of course) will get you only so far. It is important to have someone (ideally with a PhD-level education in mathematics) who you can meet with to guide your study, correct mistakes and answer questions.
There are also excellent free and open source frontend interfaces for vault that are out there, such as vault-ui and goldfish. We have used both at my org, since the HashiCorp enterprise pricing is unfortunately not within our budget.
You can also set up vault to encrypt each shard of the root key with the GPG pubkey for each administrator before dumping them to output. This way, plaintext shards of the root key never even touch the disk or otherwise come into view of anybody other than the intended recipient.
> Users won't care whether or not they are using something decentralized
This is a good point, and it is demonstrably the case even among cryptocurrency users who have a coinbase wallet. Coinbase is not decentralized, and for a lot of users this is actually a nice feature because you can transfer BTC balance from one coinbase user to another without incurring any miner fee or waiting a long time for confirmations.
If most people who wanted to use bitcoin actually cared about decentralization, coinbase (and other similar services) would have virtually no users.
There is more than one way to construct a synthetic identity, but in most cases that I've been aware of, a stolen SSN is used to construct the totally fake identity.
Using a completely fake SSN instead of a stolen SSN is what distinguishes "synthetic identity theft" from "synthetic identity fraud".
The identities in both cases are completely fake, but only in the identity theft case is the synthetic identity backstopped by a legitimate SSN that belongs to a real person somewhere. If that real person is a child or "off the grid", then the CRAs have no idea who the real person is and their SSN is ripe for creating a synthetic identity that will probably go undetected for years.