Google doesn't give a damn if you leave unless you are a ad spend whale. If you're not spending at least a million a month on ads you are just a drop in the ocean for Google.
Isn't that just what you say though when a senior executive fucks up? I just assumed. No company is ever going to say they dumped some executive. They are going to happily depart ways every time.
True! But, those who fuckup don’t leave with this much fanfare; they quietly fade away into vacuum. Also, 23 years is a long time. Stupidity doesn’t take that long to show cracks.
I used to feel that way and I only had Siri devices since I had privacy concerns. Somehow I ended up with a free echo dot and it was significantly better. I got some smart lights since my kids could not remember to turn the lights off and now I have that on a privacy network associated with alexa and I've been impressed with the voice recognition. If you have a huge house being able to say 'alexa turn off the upstairs lights' or 'turn on the garage light' when you have a trash bag in your arms is pretty great.
How is this any different from a physical grocery store deciding on what to position on the ends of the rows due to incentive? People love to act like these problems brought on by the internet are new but all to often it's just an evolution.
At least my grocery still is reasonably organized and well laid out. If I need ketchup, I know exactly where to go to find all of my options side by side.
If I tell Alexa to order ketchup, who knows what brand I'll get or what size? It's possible I might end up with banana ketchup or even mayonnaise given how poorly Amazon's search functions work.
This is a cool idea like the potato powered clock. There are so many holes here. Let me just pick one. They don't seem to account for reassembly issues which is a huge problem and vastly multiplies your problem space depending on how you implement the solution. What the fuck am I going on about you ask?
Think of it like this: sig: abc
Traffic a[1] b[2] c[3]
where the packets are properly ordered in 1 2 3 order. Simple fragmentation could be sending them out of order - I believe this paper accounts for that. What if instead you send a[1] b[2] b[2] c[3]? Windows assembles this one way (depending on the version), linux another, bsd another. It's super fun. Then what if you send c[3] b[2] c[3] a[1] b[2]. One could argue, "hey d*ckhead we're going to normalize the traffic first" the problem is what is normal? Stevens had tons of good work on this. Some systems have a 'normalization' standard that's similar to how their network gear works. Also I find the fact that they say 'all the patterns' must be matched for the sig to fire. Does that include an or? Are they breaking the or down into sub detectors or something? The 10,000 signature thing is also kind of fake as the number of signatures constantly grows like the number of amazing taylor swift songs.
All in all these authors need to go read the old breakingpoint test standards, or ixia, or nss, or really anyone.
Reassembly and ordering is one of the major focus points of this research. They talk very much about this and the performance implications. You can literally "ctrl + f 'reassembly'" ??
This all has very real world applications like with Corelight.
> One could argue, "hey d*ckhead we're going to normalize the traffic first" the problem is what is normal?
This is why this kind of IPS integrates with a firewall well. Two decades back, my team built very fast for its day firewall that would only let assembled-and-refragmented fragments through.
There was no confused ordering past the firewall, and no scenario of IDS/IPS and victim defragmenting differently.
Thanks for the correction. I’m from California and never heard it before. Do you think the author of GOT was paying homage to the Southern usage for a reason?
