mlfh

It would be enormously easier to track Taylor Swift on a random flight in business class, because the moment people saw her on their random flight in business class it would turn into a social media frenzy.

Can't beat an X230 with an i5 for that use case, and you can still find them for around 100 bucks. Swap in an X220 keyboard, maybe a new battery, coreboot it, and in my opinion you've got the perfect laptop. I've daily driven that setup for the last 5 years and it's been great.

This is just an attack that attempts common username/password combinations on ssh, and the article even states that the worm is dime-a-dozen. Unless you have both password auth enabled and an available account with an easily guessable password (and if you have either you should change that), this is nothing to worry about, even with sshd available to the internet.

Sensationalist title.

Without an argument, the -j option will start jobs with no limits - depending on the project, this could be thousands or tens of thousands of processes at once. The kernel will do its best to manage this, but when your interface is competing for cpu resources with 10,000 other cpu-intensive processes, it will appear frozen.

Make's -j option specifies the number of concurrent jobs to run, and without an argument doesn't limit that number at all. Usually you pass an argument to it with the number of cpu cores you want to utilize. Going over the number of cores you have available (like it does without an argument) will be slower or even freeze your system with all the context switching it has to do.

Altruistic behavior in social creatures improves the fitness of the group, and has positive evolutionary pressure. Strong, cohesive groups pass on their genes, so actually pretty probable!

Aside from the beautiful keyboard build, your website design is just.. perfect 🥲

I'm with you there. It's all layer upon layer of vulnerability and false security, and then at the bottom of all of it lurks the Ken Thompson hack.

Still bad advice to tell people it's okay to use an explicitly vulnerable OS, I think.

Would you advise your enterprise clients that running Windows unpatched is 'not a big deal as long as you have patched web browsers and AV'? Of course not. Because that's dangerous advice and could even open you up to legal liability.

So why would you advise otherwise to home users, who are often more vulnerable in the first place?

Not having security patches on a system you do things like go to your banking website on is actually a pretty big deal, and I don't think it should be dismissed lightly. Also AV is mostly snake oil, and is in no way an adequate substitute for a properly patched OS.

Any proclaimed prioritization of privacy or privacy improvements in stock Android serve only to bring your data more directly under the control of Google at the expense of other entities, so that those other entities must pay Google as a middleman to your data. On stock Android, there is no privacy - Google has access to everything, always.

In my opinion, one step that could reasonably be taken to improve the situation is for Google to go fuck itself, lose every anti-trust suit brought against it, and die.

It's still right to complain and protest about something that is unjust, even when ways to circumvent it exist. Because the next logical policy step is to ban VPNs, as many countries already have, and the solved problem becomes unsolved again.