Ajen @ Ajen @sh.itjust.works

Posts

1

Comments

627

Joined

2 yr. ago

None of my mobile devices are "necessary," though. Honestly, I could live just fine without an internet connection. Not that I'd enjoy it, but that's not necessary.

They need to know how they were hacked so they can fix the vulnerability. NSO broke the law when they hacked whatsapp, it seems reasonable that they're forced to share details to prevent others from using the same method.

I'm wondering on what grounds is NSO allowed to keep the names of their co-conspirators (AKA clients) secret?

"Necessary" is a little ambiguous. You could argue that wifi is unnecessary for a normal home network.

Security and efficiency make up 2 corners of an iron triangle. You generally have to sacrifice one of them to get the other (or increase the project cost/schedule).

Here's my use-case, I'm pretty sure the first 2 are pretty common (common enough to be supported by most OEM firmware):

• main LAN
• guest LAN (isolated from "main" but can access internet)
• IoT LAN (isolated from internet, can be accessed from "main"; prevents devices from phoning home)

Openwrt works great for gigabit networks with simple firewall rules and no IPS. But used 10-56gbps enterprise equipment is getting pretty cheap, and more complicated firewall configurations need more powerful hardware than the typical openwrt router.

And 56gbps on a home LAN might be overkill, but that's not important.

Of course you can upload code anonymously... Nintendo was able to sue the yuzu team because the developers made a company (Tropic Haze LLC) around it that apparently is worth millions. If they stayed anonymous Nintendo wouldn't have had anyone to sue.

IANAL, but the answer to your question would depend on the bolded part of the clause ('if applicable')...

It also depends on whether that clause is enforceable.

Are you okay?

You need your original purchase receipt to opt out? I hope that's not legal. I wonder if roku could be subject to a lawsuit over this...

The mental gymnastics it took for you to make that leap is impressive. Do you think all doctors put the same amount of effort into their work? I can tell you from personal experience that some doctors are pretty lazy and don't deserve above-average pay. On the other hand, some truly go above and beyond.

So why defend an obvious case of overpriced health care by insisting the clinic is exceptional?

Please point out where you think I was defending overpriced health care, so I can clear up this misunderstanding once and for all.

If a hospital puts even the most routine care at an inaccessible price point, I would consider that a black mark on their ability to deliver service.

The only part of my post you didn't quote was the part where I said I think all healthcare in this country is overpriced. I agree with what you said here, and I'm not sure why your post seems so hostile.

Hospitals have finite resources. The most skilled and ambitious health care professionals should be using their talents to help people with the most challenging illnesses, not spending their time on routine (but still life-saving) treatments.

I'm defending the idea that one of the best hospitals in the world would charge more than an ordinary clinic. All healthcare in this country is overpriced, but I don't see anything wrong with incentivising people to offer better services. The best doctors and nurses should get paid the most.

You're right, a RN would probably be qualified. But what's your point? Their nurses are also paid more than average, not just the heart surgeons. If you need basic care go to a basic clinic.

(Not defending the $5k bill)

Not sure what the sarcasm is about, but the Mayo Clinic is one of the best hospitals in the world. It's not unreasonable for them to charge higher than average.

I'm not saying that makes the $5k bill reasonable, just giving more context to the comment you replied to.

Their contacts are most likely protected by NDAs, but they're also written by lawyers who know how to close loopholes. There's no way a SIG like the HDMI forum would allow members to release compatible products without following the rules.

Even if it isn't covered by the contract, the other members could hold a vote to remove AMD from the forum.

No, they can't. AMD is a member of the HDMI forum, which means they're contractually obligated to follow the forum's rules. In exchange, they get voting rights on decisions like this one, the right to propose changes to the HDMI standards, technical details that are protected by NDAs, etc. They wouldn't throw that all away and open themselves up to a lawsuit just for their OSS drivers.

I'm the commenter you originally replied to. If the US military wanted unspoofable GPS available to everyone then it would be available to everyone. They only want the public to have unencrypted GPS, so that's all we get.

PKI? I assume you mean asymmetric encryption? That's been available long before the GPS system was launched. Why do you think it isn't relevant? They could have designed it into the protocol if they wanted to.