> This is extremely old. I am aware that the Tor project tries to keeps their defaults sane for any use, but someone has checked that the configuration here is still valid for this use?
Article was published in 2015. Seems 14.04 was the LTS, as the time of writing.
> Why even allow any mobile phone for the US solider if it could cause any arbitrary problem for the US military if the location data, name, unit, rank, ... of the respective soldier was published and permanently updated on a publicly viewable website?
By this logic, why keep anyone around after the SF86 hack[0]? Simple answer: Costs. It's a lot more expensive to lay off everyone with a security clearance (especially, if they're regular employees) and make a whole new batch of people go through the security background checks. We're probably talking billions - not to mention the issue with downtime of no one being around to do anything.
> So, why doesn't the military than treat every soldier who has a mobile phone near to him where the above could cause military problems to be a saboteur (perhaps even with the accusation of being a spy of a hostile nation) who should be charged by a military tribunal?
...because they (they being the military, in general) have - relatively - planned for this in places that they physically control (and the threats levels demand it) by essentially making all buildings that need to be secure giant faraday cages[1].
What that doesn't account for is people outside of the buildings[2], which is probably what they're hoping to address with this change. (Too little, too late, I think - as that data's already out there.)
For some people, the reality is that this has simply not been possible; and people have died and not been discovered for years precisely because of this[0]. The most extreme example was not being discovered for 42 years[1].
> You need to engage with your community to prepare for that dragon.
The delineating aspect of this is the "it takes a village" moniker. In Ireland, for example, someone can have lived in the same community for 10+ years and still be a blow-in[2]. The reality is: Sometimes, you cannot force the community to engage back with you.
> Investing hugely in cancer equipment led Denmark to expand its diagnostic capacity and make it possible for cancer patients to receive treatment within two weeks of diagnosis, compared with around nine weeks in UK.
This is a surprisingly vast difference in the time between discovery and treatment. Condensed, it's x ≤ 0.5 months versus x ≥ 1.75 months (if a month is strictly limited to four weeks).
> Why is there not a system that allows a business or other service to ask for government identification that is encrypted and only visible to government, but that allows a business to ask for certain details, required for the operation of the business (eg confirmation of driving license, or age)?
Generally speaking, it's the narrative of a pushback on a "national id".
Many countries already have this place. Estonia has the Digital ID provided by government[0]. Nordic countries use BankID, which is a form of KYC that is backed by banks (you prove your identity to the bank, the bank issues a bank id - usually back by certificate[s], and you login with this to services[1][2]). Finland is the outlier, here, with their own service[3].
Yes, which is part of a wider narrative in the US that insists everything must be privatized because the government cannot be trusted or is otherwise incompetent.
The irony I’ve always found in that statement is that while it’s true that the government can’t be trusted and is generally incompetent, it’s also true of private companies. So even though it’s a true statement at face value, it’s still not a good argument for privatization which is just trading one set of incompetent and corrupt people for another set of the same but with even less oversight.
"Full stop"? So you don't want to hear other arguments?
The ILO-based statistics differ from what you cited and explicitly "encompasses all persons not employed and who are actively looking for and available for work, regardless of whether they are registered with a regional placement office. "
> The ILO-based statistics differ from what you cited
What do the ILO-based statistics have to do with original comment[0] that they are in Switzerland, unemployed, don't collect unemployment, and don't count towards Switzerland's specific-statistics as a result?
The connection is that www.bfs.admin.ch itself will tell you that there are multiple sources for unemployment statistics in Switzerland, ILO-based being one of them. Picking only the one that supports your argument after being pointed out that there are others indicates unwillingnes to engage in a good faith argument. Since your tone is repeatedly condescending in addition to that, I'll end my engagement in this particular line of discussion.
> The connection is that www.bfs.admin.ch itself will tell you...
You mean the same exact domain in the first link I gave, which doesn't mention ILO, whatsoever? That `www.bfs.admin.ch`?
> Picking only the one that supports your argument...
It literally supports the argument for the original comment's statement. It's from the official governing body. What are you on about? If your complaint is that it disproves the statement, and they officially use ILO (doubtful but allowing for a comedy of errors) for their own statistics, your argument is with the governing body - not me. Correct?
Speaking of bad faith, why not show a modicum of effort on your part to reference any official documentation that Switzerland DOES use ILO in their own statistics? It comes across as the same specious approach used by vaccine conspiracy theorists, "...just trust me, bro, do your own research, you'll see...".
The fact that they would rather try to win an internet argument by showing indifference to what others have to say than learn something might hint at traits that keep them unemployed. Harsh but maybe this helps changing their mindset.
> I'm very curious about the privacy implications of this. I know that anything I do and store on my company's laptop can be tracked, but I hadn't considered that if I forgot to sign out of my personal Gmail on it that they could legally search that information.
If it's work-related, work computer only. If it's anything personal, personal computer only. This is especially true for situations where companies are using screen capturing tools that capture the screen every 'x' seconds[0].
The seeming convenience of using your work computer for everything isn't worth the risk but some people don't consider the legal implications, as you've noted in your anecdote.
Once your personal message to Bob or Jane enters an official record because it's included in the eDiscovery (even if accidental) result(s), it's over.
Better to not have a surface risk like that, than assume the process will keep your personal data safe.
I was under the impression that Apple requires its employees to login with personal Apple ID accounts for cloud storage.
> “You go through these steps of getting all your software set up, and all your devices provisioned to access internal Apple networks, and things like that. And it explicitly says you cannot use your corporate Apple account to set this up.”
How's that supposed to work? Apple requires employees to own Apple products or have a personal account in the first place? That doesn't sound believable.
That seems crazy to me. I've always had my employers either provide or offer to provide me with anything I'll use for work. Asking someone to use a non-corporate-managed account for work seems especially insane to me. I've never heard of that.
I've never heard of being asked by an employer to make an account associated to a non-work account (like a personal email). They should provision SSO, or at least use a company domain like apple.com or internal.apple.com for test accounts.
Day 1 at FooCorp: "Your email address is [email protected]. Conducting business activities with personal accounts is against policy and may result in disciplinary action including termination. It may also be a regulatory violation depending on industry."
This may have been an optional iCloud 2TB promotion for employees, but still relevant to the lawsuit.
I'm also under the impression that Apple requires its employees to dogfood their products and services. Hoping someone with personal experience and a lapsed NDA can chime in.
> It always shocks me how low this number tends to be for highly skilled craftsmen.
Generally speaking (only a Sith deals in absolutes), engineers want to engineer.
There is no incentive for management to nudge the best performing engineers to teach their expertise in their craft[s]. A high-performing engineer "reflects good" on a manger. The way incentives are generally structured, this becomes a problem that perpetuates itself: Everyone in the management pipeline gets more money for the high performing engineer to keep engineering, rather than to teach.
> Our focus remains on expanding access to AI while staying true to our principles.
Awesome...
> Our next phase of growth will bring ChatGPT Ads to more markets and introduce additional formats, objectives, buying options, and measurement capabilities.
Oh, not THAT kind of expanding access - the OTHER one.
Article was published in 2015. Seems 14.04 was the LTS, as the time of writing.