I more or less quit alcohol when cannabis was legalized in Canada.
It’s a better recreational drug by pretty much every metric.
It only takes a few tens of milligrams of THC to get the desired effect vs 50+ grams of ethanol in an evening (that gets metabolized into carcinogenic acetaldehyde).
While we don’t fully know the safety profile of cannabis it’s obviously far safer than booze, especially when consumed with a dry herb vaporizer.
No hangover. I can wake up at 6am 7 days a week and work out.
A small amount allows me to instantly shed all work related stress at the end of a busy day/week and get in touch with my body, a process that without cannabis usually takes a few hours.
It makes sex better and boosts libido, unlike alcohol which can easily ruin a sexy evening if you have too much.
I can grow my own, providing a fun hobby.
It doesn’t cause any gastrointestinal issues, but in fact calms your gut. The opposite of alcohol.
It’s just better (for me) in every possible way. It enhances my life greatly.
Seems more likely the old mines in the area are causing the contamination with BMAA and that it is being consumed in shellfish. BMAA contamination is often associated with old flooded mine shafts, and there are several in the area where these people are getting sick, most of them upstream.
Not sure why you're assuming this has anything to do with climate change. What could be the link there?
Agreed. The only clearly justified use cases I’ve seen are illegal or unsanctioned activity.
The only things Bitcoin and Monero really excel at is avoiding sanctions, buying drugs on the dark web, ransomware, and as an alternative if your entire country goes to shit (e.g Venezuela).
I think for this reason crypto will always be around in some form, but I doubt it will ever be mainstream.
Central Bank Issued crypto currencies will almost certainly be a thing though.
I always thought that Bitcoin is an interesting and novel technology, and risky speculative asset.
I’ve also always thought that most of the crypto ecosystem is fraudulent schemes designed to separate people from their dollars, and that this unforgiving nature and lack of institutional and state control will likely preclude mass adoption as an actual currency.
So no, not much has changed, though the second point has gotten much, much worse.
If someone were to gain some kind of advantage that could prevent a retaliatory nuclear strike, then I could see it. Otherwise I highly doubt it. World War 2 offensives were made possible by the advances in mechanized and aerial warfare.
Interestingly enough the US has been retrofitting their nuclear arsenal with better targeting systems, making it much more effective. The Russians don't like this, which is why you hear talk of hypersonic missiles, autonomous submersibles carrying nuclear warheads, etc.
Perhaps some kind of neutron-based weapon could be developed to counteract large numbers of incoming ICBMs in the upper atmosphere, or to destroy an enemy nuclear arsenal in place. There we concepts like this, and the US even built some for defense against ICBMs (The W66 warhead).
The problem is often political. I have been at many orgs where the management of the dev team over promises something to the executive, and then when ops finds out about it and realizes the project is going to be a giant dumpster fire whose failure they will likely be blamed for, it becomes really hard for people to foster a “we’re on the same team” mindset.
As with most organizational dysfunction, middle management fiefdoms are to blame.
It always helps when the executive can see through this bullshit and ask the right questions, but often by the time this happens millions of dollars have been wasted.
It bypasses all proxies and interception, and hides all of the traffic contained in the tunnel. This means no traffic logging of the tunneled traffic, no IPS/IDS in front of the SSH service, and no visibility into the SSH traffic itself. If the box with the SSH service isn’t in a DMZ it also compromises network segmentation.
The problem isn’t SSH over TOR being insecure. It is sidestepping all of the security controls in place at your org and not talking to the netsec folks first.
Honestly I would be amazed if any competent netsec folks would even allow TOR outbound by default. I certainly wouldn’t allow it by default in an enterprise environment.
“Because I think I might know better I will act in a disrespectful way, and make someone else’s job harder instead of working with them to solve the problem”
You’re not the one who’s phone is going to ring at 3am on Saturday when that Tor node gets compromised. You’re not the one who has to manage the security incident. You’re not the one who has to explain why your security controls and policy did not prevent this from happening. Nor are you the one who has to clean up the damage if something goes badly.
I also think you’re vastly overestimating the average developers awareness of security issues. Perhaps you are very well versed in this topic, but many developers are utterly clueless, even when it comes to basic application security practices.
“Policy made my job slightly harder so because I know better than the netsec team who clearly has or should have unlimited time and resources to help me I will do what I want anyways, and put the organization at risk.”
Also known as “how to make the netsec team hate you 101”
I agree with you about why shadow IT exists, but most IT departments are spread so thin that expecting them to be super responsive to anything but the most critical business projects is often totally unreasonable.
Then they have to waste even more time hunting down idiots setting up Tor nodes on their internal networks.
I can confirm as someone who works in netsec that this exactly how it would have gone at my previous employer.
There is a tone of “I know what’s best and will do what I want” in this thread.
If you think that the way to get the IT department to implement something for you is to sidestep around policy instead of working with them, you will just piss them off.