Sure, but who knows what shenanigans the techs and pilot were trying to convince the machine to drop the landing gear.
Under normal operations, I’d agree, but I’ll bet they were putting something in a maintenance state while it was in the air, and at that point all bets are off.
Firewall redirect and masquerade.
Bitch you thought
What I want is a way to answer the phone like a fax machine. Just press a button and the call gets answered and immediately starts playing that fax machine sound.
I’ll bet that would stop calls. Surely they have something that can tell if they’re calling a fax machine over and over.
Most simply put, it’s a layer that allows a computer program expecting windows to run on Linux. It isn’t emulating anything, just sorta like translating.
Think of it like a language. Windows speaks English, so a program expects to talk in English. But let’s pretend like Linux talks Spanish. Proton translates the English commands to Spanish for Linux to understand and execute, and then Proton converts the responses back to English for the program.
Can confirm. It’s the only game I play at this point.
Finally got to Fulgora. I want that mech suit.
I’m not disagreeing with anything you’ve said?
I’m saying that just adding Mozilla’s PPA to your sources won’t change apt’s behavior when installing Firefox unless you tell apt to prefer the package offered by the Mozilla PPA.
As someone who uses Kubuntu as a daily driver, I’m well aware of the snap drama and have worked around it using the method I pasted above.
Even though it’s an underhanded move by Cannonical, I’m still glad the OS is open source since it makes the workaround so trivial.
It takes a little more than just adding a different repository to your package manager, you have to tell apt which to prefer:
echo ’
Package: *
Pin: origin packages.mozilla.org
Pin-Priority: 1000
Package: firefox*
Pin: release o=Ubuntu
Pin-Priority: -1’ | sudo tee /etc/apt/preferences.d/mozilla
‘Bricked’ in this sense meaning not that you’d just trash your OS and need a reinstall, but that it could actually stop your computer from booting at all. So the system32 analogy doesn’t exactly fit.
It’s because some motherboards implement UEFI in a way that allows important variables to be overwritten by I/O processes. Executing sudo rm -rf /* would recursively go into the EFI parameters folder where the kernel mounts EFI variables and attempt to delete things. Some motherboards allowed these delete operations to remove things in the motherboard’s firmware it needs to complete POST, thus rendering the motherboard useless.
But that’s a problem with the motherboard, not with Linux or Windows. The same damage can be caused by Windows.
I don’t think anyone is advocating for turning a blind eye to Mozilla. I think the argument being made is that a monoculture for browsers is a concern that can outweigh some blunders Mozilla makes.
I’m old enough to remember what a shit show ActiveX was for web security.
The tenants are able to live in a house that they can’t afford to buy because they don’t have credit and credentials that satisfy the bank.
So they should pay the same expenses, PLUS extra to support the landlord who could meet the bank’s criteria for a loan?
The tenants are able to move out with a couple months notice if they get a job elsewhere. They don’t have to worry about selling the house or finding a way to pay double mortgages when they move elsewhere…
They also don’t have to worry about cashing in on the appreciated value of the house since they moved in…
The tenants money is not tied up in a property, they are able to invest it in the stock market which has a higher rate of return than home ownership (which only keeps pace with inflation on average, per Case Schiller).
Funny joke. My parents bought a house for $90,000 in 1993 that is worth ~$400,000+ today. What percentage of investments could offer such a yield in the same time-frame?
The tenants don’t get constant calls from scammers claiming they want to pay your property for CASH TODAY.
I still get those same scam calls despite not being a homeowner.
Got anything else?
I’d say there’s a difference between renting out a portion of a house the landlord also lives in and purchasing whole other homes and renting them out.
Besides, no matter how nice the multi-home-owning landlord is, the reality is they don’t purchase homes and rent them out without making a profit on all expected costs, maintenance included. The better deal for the renter renting a whole home would be to own the home and maintain it, because then they’re saving the profit the landlord charges.
A nice polite leech is still a leech.
Sure, everything you purchase in a capitalistic society has profit added to it, but normally there’s also added value. You pay more in the brick and mortar store vs buying online because the added value is getting the item immediately. You pay more for the car part at the mechanics shop vs doing it yourself because having a professional install it adds value.
What value does Jim-bob owning 5 homes and renting them out to make a living add to the tenants?
Betty and Bob are in an unfortunate situation, but they’re taking a thing of value and charging money to cover all costs, and make a profit. The tenant is therefore paying the mortgage and all repair costs, and then even more to support what amounts to a leech.
It might be a good arrangement for Betty and Bob, but it makes living somewhere more expensive.
Which is the general point. I can be sympathetic to Betty and Bob, but landlords buying houses leaves less houses for everyone else for a ‘job’ that doesn’t add any real value to society. It just props up someone with the economic means to buy multiple houses and make them a living while hanging the rest of us out to dry.
I feel like this is missing a big point of the article.
The vulnerability that the xz backdoor attempt revealed was the developers. The elephant in the room is that for someone capable of writing and maintaining a program so important to modern technical infrastructure, we’re making sure to hang them out to dry. When they burn out because their ‘hobby’ becomes too emotionally draining (either because of a campaign to wear them down intentionally or fully naturally) someone will be waiting to take control. Who can you trust? Here, we see someone attempted (and nearly succeeded) a multi-year effort to establish themselves as a trusted member of the development community who was faking it all along. With the advent of LLMs, it’s going to be even harder to tell if someone is trustworthy, or just a long-running LLM deception campaign.
Maybe, we should treat the people we rely on for these tools a little better for how much they contribute to modern tech infrastructure?
And I’ll point out that’s less aimed at the individuals who use tech, and more at the multi-billion-dollar multi-national tech companies that make money hand over fist using the work others donate.