Google thanks you for your data.

at a local shop

I’ve never even heard of Halti, let alone seen one in a store.

Around these parts, if you want a blank running shoe, you pay $20 at the local superstore then $200 at the doctor’s office, a few times a year each.

brb, gonna run a marathon in a pair of Oxfords

Sure, but good luck finding a decent quality running shoe without conspicuous branding at a local shop though.

Can’t wear it, if they don’t make it.

Because a shit ton of fraudulent science hasn’t come out of the US or Europe. Nope. No sir.

Sure, it’s not a bad thing and it should be standard practice, but to act like encrypted traffic guarantees privacy is silly.

If you are implying that a government wants your data, they can just buy it or request it from the company directly. They don’t have to snoop to get it. Also SSL isn’t going to stop them.

The fact that anyone thinks they have any semblance of privacy when typing into an online AI chatbot is saddening.

Of course anything you type into a externally hosted AI is going to be harvested and sold.

But sure, in this case you are also potentially exposing your queries to your ISP or someone listening on your local network too.

Enterprise adopted 100GbE networking around 2019. You can now buy used network cards for around $100 each.

Lately, military “defence” usually just means oppressing the people of other countries.

This is dumb.

Even if you encrypt network traffic, the receiving server still knows what you’re doing. All it does is prevent third parties from snooping.

Usually.

You simply don’t understand.

Far-right, ultra-conservative, and fascist are synonyms. There is no difference between these terms.

They all describe the same thing; fascism.

So… Authoritarian, and not far right… So… Not fascist.

Calling a government fascist, but not far-right is like calling Death Valley a lake. There’s no fucking water (anymore), its not a fucking lake.

Some people just don’t feel comfortable killing and eating animals. Let people live their own lives.

Anyways, less people eating animal products leads to lower prices for those who do (you).

Yeah, containerization does make it much easier to just throw away the base system and start fresh. This way, you don’t have to worry about possibly straying the recommended upgrade path and accidentally breaking something.

More code adds complexity, complexity leads to more bugs, more bugs means more vulnerabilities. Virtualization takes a lot of code. With all this extra code, it is possible that you are actually expanding the attack surface instead.

It is likely inconsequential for most people just running a couple personal services at home, but organizations are pretty frequently targeted by sophisticated attacks, where the consequences of a breach can be severe.

Yes, many of these vulnerabilities are difficult to exploit, either requiring local access or the existence of another vulnerability to achieve local access.

However, there also exists a massive market segment whose entire business model relies on selling local access to VM compute resources, cloud server providers. An attacker could simply rent a VM on a vulnerable platform to gain the needed local access, launch an attack on the host and thereby compromise the other guests on the same machine.

There have been an incredible number of flaws found and fixed (for now) in the isolation provided by virtual machines. VMware had a spat of critical vulnerabilities in 2024.

Yes, it matters.

Also, the actual isolation of container environments varies greatly, on a per container basis. Containers are far less isolated than virtual machines, and virtual machines are less isolated than separate hosts.

Neither containers or VMs will will protect from attacks on the host, see regreSSHion. You may be able to limit access to your host by using containers or VMs, but container escapes and VM escapes are not impossible.

There is much time and effort required to maintain each of these layers. With “stable” distros like Debian, It is often the responsibility of the distribution to provide fixes for the packages they provide.

Given Debian as the example, you are relying on the Debian package maintainer and Debian security team to address vulnerabilities by manually backporting security patches from the current software version to whatever ancient (stable) version of the package is in use, which can take much time and effort.

While Debian has a large community, it may be unwise to use a “stable” distro with few resources for maintaining packages.

OTOH, bleeding edge distros like Arch get many of their patches directly from the original author as a new version release, placing a lower burden on package maintainers. However, rolling releases can be more vulnerable to supply chain attacks like the XZ backdoor due to their frequent updates.

Are you trying to equate the ideology of a political regime with a minority population of South Africans?

South Africa had no right to exist as an apartheid state, and Israel has no right to exist as an apartheid state.

After apartheid ended and living conditions improved, black South Africans didn’t go and slaughter every white South African as retribution, so when Israel says freed Palestinians would slaughter all Israelites, why should we believe them?

If the occupation ended today and Palestinians were allowed to live fairly and given ample resources to rebuild, what reason would they have to seek further conflict? If treated fairly, why would Palestinians act any differently than the South Africans freed from apartheid? This conflict is ultimately the direct result of unfair treatment after all.

Why are there foreign judges serving in Hong Kong?

It is a holdover from Hong Kong’s past as a British colony. After the UK handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997, the agreement between the countries stipulated that the special territory would continue to operate with its freedoms and systems for 50 years- including its common law legal system which operates in several other jurisdictions worldwide. Currently there seven foreign judges remaining on the court– three British and four from Australia.

So, foreign judges who are meddling in HK affairs are upset that China (the inheritor of HK) is meddling in HK affairs?

If the West actually cared about HK independence, why do they wish to maintain colonial judges in HK courts? If they cared, shouldn’t HK judges be in HK courts?

While China has been heavy handed in its effort to speed up the timeline of the power transfer, in the end, the West has concluded that HK is to be Chinese territory. By the West’s own policy, these are foreign judges getting kicked out by the “rightful” new rulers, just a bit early.

If the plant tastes very bitter or soapy

brb, eating soap

That’s fair.