Distract them by withholding information, so you feel like more of an expert than they are, and they don't have enough concrete info to form an attack plan.
An effective strategy for lots of higher tier management. For both good and bad reasons - often they don't want the details, they want to know that you know the details. You're being paid to know those details, after all.
Unless you're 100% profitable, its always a higher effective %. If you're running somewhere closer to 10% (remember that it needs to be after all costs/paychecks/etc), that's nearly a third of your profit.
Anything optional that skims off the top cuts into profits extremely quickly.
I think this is the wrong way to look at it. If 3% fees mean a company is 7% profitable, it's 7% profitable, not 10%.
Businesses which accept credit cards get the business of customers who want to use credit cards. Those which don't, do not. Me? I want to tap my watch, get my 2%, and leave. I do not want to reach into my pocket, extract my debit card, and enter my PIN. Not a dealbreaker, I do business on the regular with two places which are cash and debit. But it's my preference.
Yes, there is an underlying coordination problem here. The major payment networks are quite probably engaging in anticompetitive behavior, as the lawsuit we're talking about indicates. But this does not, at all, mean that businesses which accept credit cards are penalized financially for that decision, on the contrary, in expectation we would find that most are rewarded for it, on the simple evidence that most of them do, in fact, accept them.
Separating it from any other costly incentive to do business, free samples, flyers, discount sales, loss leaders, is just special pleading. A cost benefit analysis includes costs and benefits, or it is unworthy of the name: and customers doing business are a benefit to that business.
"This will reduce your profit by nearly 30%" is accurate, and real profit is about all anyone cares about (or should care about). Many people would not choose that, if they could choose, but it's effectively required at the moment.
You are still assuming that the company will do the exact same amount of business, with or without credit cards. That's after I went to considerable effort to explain your error. You're just repeating it.
Condensing the steam back into water would undo the cooling power, so yes. Massively less efficient. Negative efficiency, as required by thermodynamics.
Your only gains would come from whatever increased surface area the system has, radiating energy however it can. But a radiator without any water involved would be as good or better. Air-cooled datacenters do exist, they're just trading other costs and usually can't release as much heat.
There also used to be pretty strong social expectations to host and visit such parties. That was essentially gone by like 1990, for my area, and I always kind of got the feel that everyone was glad to see the expectation disappear.
They can be fun, but I and almost everyone that I'm friends with much prefer to simply visit and hang out with no plans at all. Just be there, maybe chat a bit, maybe ignore each other and read a book for a few hours, maybe find something to eat / do a lightweight potluck. Which rather sucked that COVID ended up shutting down almost all of our communal places to visit for that.
This is it for me too. Having to plan everything days or weeks in advance means you can just decide to hang out because you feel like it, and you have to commit to the date you set no matter how much that day sucks when it arrives. And having to clean and do all this bullshit before you can have company over doesn't help.
Yep. Takes a while to get everyone over the "someone's coming, MANIC CLEANING TIME!!" urge, but I find it a lot more pleasant to just... help clean if something needs cleaning? It's a shared space. I don't clean for fun, but it is rather nice to remove a bit of stress from a friend's plate.
I quite liked the Despecialized editions when I watched them quite a while ago, for anyone who hasn't seen them - the audio remastering is very appreciated (VHS rarely has good audio), but certainly not the poorly-fitting CGI additions.
Harmy's despecialized versions are awesome. I watched them in a single sitting a couple of months ago. They have been the only recent editions that resonate with my childhood memories and give me that warm fuzzy feeling that everything is in its right place as I remember it. Moreover the days before I rewatched Andor and Rogue One in tandem. IMHO, as a full saga and the culmination of a story, they are as close to perfection you can get.
The fairly obvious answer here is "OEMs don't care about security because very few people will pay for it, either with $ or time". Benchmaxxing sells better.
Let's first start with y'all providing any proof that it was "benchmaxxing" that causes OEMs not to ship hardened allocators (and not - for example - breaking compatibility with users' software).
And then we can move the goalposts to "more secure distro with GrapheneOS" which isn't part of the conversation until you dragged it out.
If you're expecting some leaked internal document that says "priorities: 1. benchmarks, 2. security", no, that probably doesn't exist. But their priorities are revealed by their actions.
GrapheneOS typically ships security updates within a day. But most of Samsung's phones get quarterly security updates[1]. There will never be a primary source with a Samsung insider saying "we're fine with our customers being vulnerable to widely exploited security bugs for the next 89 days, in order to save our massive corporation a few thousand dollars a month." But their priorities are revealed by their actions.
If the statement "OEMs don't care about security" is trivially proven false, as you said, then you should be able to prove it trivially by naming even just a single OEM whose update cadence matches GrapheneOS's.
Also look at their advertising. Endless "X% faster" mentions that often get significant visual space, but when was the last time you saw "security updates 7 days earlier" or "tagged memory for better safety"? Even a single mention of "security" on a phone's manufacturer page is uncommon, and that's usually just mentioning a normal Android feature, or something like Knox or Secure Folder and not "we made choices that make a common class of attacks much more difficult or impossible".
The numbers aren't zero, certainly. Nor does it imply directly proportional levels of effort. But they are incredibly obviously given wholly different levels of attention on nearly all phones, by nearly all phone manufacturers.
How did you think Pixels got features GrapheneOS needs if the OEM wouldn't care about adding the Titan chip, modem APIs and all the other security features that are featured on pretty much every launch doc?
The only "secure" stuff I see in there is for local AI stuff, encrypted folders, and securely managing other devices. Nothing at all about hardware security or updates or anything that Google has been adding to Android (which imo they're fair to claim! but nearly none do).
iPhones are similar: https://www.apple.com/iphone-18-pro/ they have a small card to see Apple's general privacy policy near the bottom, but other mentions are stuff on the level of "it supports WiFi with passwords".
While there's tons about AI, cameras, and speed. Because those sell better.
Which is far beyond "a trend" and approaching "a truism" for phone sales pages. I challenge you to show even a single large-market-share phone sales page that makes a device security claim (niche ones do! but they're niche), outside Pixels. The very first one I visited demonstrated my point just fine, as did the second.
---
Pixels actually do make some claims ("7 years of updates", Titan chip, etc https://store.google.com/product/pixel_11_pro?hl=en-US) and Graphene routinely holds them up as the sole manufacturer doing a good job (now hopefully two manufacturers, for at least some products). Others really do stand out starkly against even that ankle-high bar.
equipment = the phone you physically hold in your hand
The OS is software, not hardware. The OS vendor is not the OEM.
Yes, Android does a lot of security work. No, it doesn't automatically mean Samsung cares about security, just because one of Samsung's many dependencies cares about security.
I mean OsmAnd - other mapping apps don't slow down anywhere near this much.
OSM-rendering apps are a fair bit more computationally-expensive than many apps, so I do expect them to show the allocator's cost more, but OsmAnd stands out quite starkly against every other app on my phone.
The hardened_malloc configuration in GrapheneOS is the security-focused configuration. OsmAnd ends up acting as a malloc microbenchmark in certain configurations. Users have reported it only happens with the OpenGL rendering mode and it doesn't seem to happen for everyone.
GrapheneOS can provide a performance vs. security toggle for hardened_malloc for these rare cases but it rarely comes up as relevant.
An effective strategy for lots of higher tier management. For both good and bad reasons - often they don't want the details, they want to know that you know the details. You're being paid to know those details, after all.
reply