A suspect was self-identified as 25-year-old Guy Edward Bartkus, a citizen of Twentynine Palms, California. Bartkus described himself as a pro-mortalist, saying people did not give consent to exist in his manifesto. He reportedly left a 30-minute audio recording in which he explained his reasoning behind the attack.
Apparently not political or religious extremism, just a proper nutjob.
Oh, Steve Gibson gave an excellent description of this in Security Now two weeks ago:
Security Now #1023: Preventing Windows Sandbox Abuse
and this is the Tom’s Hardware article he’s referencing:
Unpowered SSD endurance investigation finds severe data loss and performance issues
Steve is an expert in this field, he makes SpinRite, which is probably the best tool on the market for drive health testing and repair.
Might makes right is always the problem, whether you’re talking about anarchy, or hierarchy, or some kind of distributed system - some actor will use force to inflict harm for their own benefit (in contrast to inflicting harm to defend others). I believe the study of human history tells us that this always happens, it is not preventable. So the question becomes, how do we build systems that can protect people from harm without concentrating power that may itself be abused?
If you diffuse power horizontally, there is no vacuum to fill. There’s just shared responsibility.
I’ll just point out, this was the original concept behind the US Constitution. Whether it’s worked as intended is… debatable.
May your marinara never stick to your spaghetti!
Not enabling it may prevent you from accessing the user-facing features but may not actually prevent it from recording your conversation and training on it.
“It’s my estimation everyone ever got a statue made of’em was one kind of sumbitch or another.”
~ Malcolm Reynolds
A plant tested this way may look fine but then be undigestably in combinaison with other every-day ingredient, it can react badly with a medecine you take or be just toxic enough to poison you when you eat a full portion.
This is a really good point, biochemical reactions can be unpredictable.
Ugh, it’s so true, and they’ll hold them with shell companies to dodge regulations.
I am very much in favor of residency requirements - basically if you don’t personally live in this jurisdiction you can’t buy property in it, especially if you in another country.
The trick is catching investors who employ someone to live locally and pretend to be the owner.
Saving people by purposefully denying them the means to build affordable housing?
Keep in mind, it won’t be those people building affordable housing for themselves - it will be some company doing it, and some company managing the property after it’s built, possibly the same company, possibly not, possibly the same company pretending to be different companies.
Those companies will have a contractual relationship with the government and/or landowners. Government contracts will be required to go with the lowest bidder by default, so bare minimum construction quality necessary to pass inspection. Nongovernment contracts will be pushed to maximize profits and minimize costs, so construction designed to look upscale while being made of the absolute cheapest contractor-grade materials available.
Yes, well, unfortunately the most efficient actors in any market are typically the ones making the wealth extraction features of the whole system more efficient - this occupation pays the best. I often feel that the only thing that saves us from absolute, overwhelming exploitation is inefficiency.
I’m actually not sure how to interpret this image in this context… are you implying that the argument over AI is part of the culture war distraction? or are you agreeing with me that AI is a tool of “they”?
Um, actually this is my original argument…
It’s being used to replace human workers by the exploitative wealthy, and it’s actively destroying the environment we live in. If you are not against “AI” (that is, generative machine learning models - there’s no intelligence involved) then you are colluding with the robber barons.
See my comment here: https://infosec.pub/post/28262077/15946745
This:
You either object to the acceleration of exploitation and environmental destruction and refuse to participate in it, or you are a collaborator.
…is a restatement of that original expressed truth.
Not privatize, atomize. Centralized control is ripe for abuse, no matter whose control it is.
That is putting a lot of faith in a computer system that can’t tell the difference between crew members and unauthorized visitors, and regularly gives access to critical functions to anyone who asks.
Oh yes, let’s nationalize the communications platforms and give the government direct control over how people express themselves. Surely the government is 100% trustworthy and will not use that power to suppress criticism or political opponents, or track people who are ‘unpatriotic’, or redefine ‘hate speech’ in a way that benefits the current regime. No such thing has ever happened in the history of ever. What could possibly go wrong.
As a possible counterpoint, regulations like this help prevent rent-seeking development companies from buying up all the land, bulldozing all the houses, and building shitty apartment buildings.
Cities probably should open more of these zones to high-density/low-income housing but you have to be really careful how you do it or these assholes will come in, outbid everyone else and monopolize the rental market.
Skynet is Made in China. That figures.