I used to walk to and from school by myself, and after school I'd walk to the bookstore by myself, apparently most other kids aren't interested in reading at all, before heading home for dinner. It was a merely ten minutes walk, but other parents are somehow surprised. Fortunately, I've only encountered nice strangers who gave me free snacks and all that, but now I think about it, I just felt super lucky nothing really happened.
I read the comment about the unreliability of economics, however I do like to point one thing, most economical model fit well when the economy is doing ok or within a certain range of parameters, until something outside of those safe area happens. Think of 2008, and think of the economical impact of the pandemic. It's impossible to account for in prior models and thoughts as those are nonlinear events almost no one can predict. This is the thing with economy, we can only know a bit about our position and surroundings, but we have no way of knowing if we are in a local optimum, or if we are approaching a tipping point that invalidates all prior models. There are variables that don't matter until they reach a certain mass, there are metrics we simply can't find quantitive method to measure, let alone to predict. Economics is always messy, and with a lot of the classic thoughts proven wrong, we should be wary of any of the assumptions we make.
Language is the classic case for network effect, the more people speaking one language, more information would be communicated in that language, more beneficial it will be for learning such language.
It doesn't take Einstein to understand that George Floyd could just be anyone in that scenario.
To focus on his personal history is simply irrelevant and is in disrespect of the judicial branch and the principle on the separation of powers. No one is contending the truthfulness of his criminal history, but he didn't die as a result of that, he died as a result of the disregard of human life by an officer of the executive branch.
Even if you don't like BLM, which is okay, it stretches too far to claim it a terrorist group.
Please don't just reduce it to 'facts you don't like', facts won't get you banned, but those claims the OP made are more than that.
Do you care to elaborate? I understand it might look similar in style, wouldn't call it a replica though, a lot of the fonts are similar. For example, maybe a detailed pixel to pixel comparison why it might be a replica?
For anyone who's fresh to cyber security, the fundamental axiom of it is that anything can be cracked, only a matter of computations (time*resource). Just as the dose makes the poison (sola dosis facit venenum).
Suppose you have a secret, that is RSA-encrypted, we might be looking at three hundred trillion years according to Wikipedia with the kind of computer we have now. Obviously that secrecy would have lost its value then, and the resource it requires to crack the secret would worth more than the secret itself. Even with quantum computing, we are still looking at 20+ years, which is still enough for most of the secrets, you got plenty time to change it, or after it lost its value. So we say that's secure enough.
In Google's defense, they aren't the market leader, that's zoom, they are the market challenger. So by definition, they can't be anti-competitive in the market of video conferencing tools, even though Google's otherwise enormous.
I actually remember a lot of things from age 3, less now, but likely more in details when I was sixteen. I got thrown over the shoulder out of nowhere while we are hanging out in the playground the first year I was in kindergarten (3 yo), then I was vomiting up blood, it wasn't entirely fluid with some kind of jelly texture, which clearly scared the kid and he ran away, I don't know that kid and I don't remember his face, but I remember the experience, the playground, the sun, there were two kids who'd come over and one of them throw me over his shoulder. I also remember when we went to the aquarium with my parents, where they had this stuffed dolphin and we bought it. Of course there are a lot more that I don't remember, but I'm aware of those things that I do. When I think about it is that the difference is when you ruminate over those things, it becomes a continuous experience. For the kindergarten incident, I was curious about the thickness of the blood, and I was thinking a lot why was it solid. And for the toy dolphin, every-time I was playing with it, I remember where we get it.
A side note: my mother majored in education, so she actually talks about Childhood Amnesia, which other's have mentioned, to other parents or teachers mostly. She told it that kid don't remember anything before five. So when I tell her things about the experience of my younger self when I was well in to primary school, she was perplexed.
Also: while I'm actively thinking about it, those memories came flooding in, and though I'm not going to put them here, I think it gives a valid point that yes one can remember at the age of three.
I can imagine major power or North Korea doing those sort of things when the circumstances come, but the 'rich people' part is pure non-sense.
First of all they have no interest in doing such.
Secondly, Attacking cable infrastructure using submarines is in effect a declaration of war (or act of terrorism). I understand this world gives you this illusion that money = power, but just remember who prints the currency, who owns the army. Only because this sort of things are not in your daily life so often like the rich people are doesn't mean they don't exist.
The last but not the least, they likely won't be rich at all when the governments of countries affected freezes their assets, which should be the least of their concerns if that actually happens.
Except it doesn't require the status of a treaty for the United States. Since the current corporate tax rate in the US is above the 15% agreed upon, it doesn't really matter if the senate signs on the deal or not. And the senate has little reason, even as republican-majority, not to when it's mostly a deal restricting small countries for offering tax rate too low.
I don't think the agent's action is proper, but it had nothing to do with computer fraud per se, nor is it the legislation intention.
Suppose someone was granted access to evidence room, but had a look at the evidence that is not of his case, or a case file that he have access to for reasons not work-related. And those generally falls in the area of internal regulation, in which case the agency takes the legal blame for the agent, and should it take actions against the agent, it might be supported.
Plain simply, even if those records are physical the referred agent could have done the same thing. Logically, it's not a matter of abusive conduct through computer, it's a matter of abusing public power.
That's almost an overly-simplistic view on the matter, it wasn't because it's a good idea, just because it's cheaper. American likely would not have any global hardware company like Apple without outsourced labor since the dollar-priced device would be way too expensive for the rest of the world and maybe Americans too. And much of the comfort Americans depend today rely on China's cheap labor (or elsewhere for that matter). When a shared bedroom in SF cost two thousand dollars, most people who earn four thousands can live a considerably comfortable life because they are getting paid in dollars but buying with Chinese Yuan, so to speak. but if they are only allowed buy things made by their fellow Americans, it simply would not be enough.