I thought this was a sarcastic reply, so I checked the facts myself. I was stunned. You are spot on.
For those unaware, the submarine is Virginia-class[1] and is powered by a 210MW nuclear reactor called the "S9G"[2]. And yes, as of 2019 prices, each boat cost 2.8B USD. There are 28 of these subs active in the US Navy. This isn't some new, experimental reactor design. The US is pumping these out of their shipyards. Sheesh. 5B+ USD for a measly 300MW reactor... (without the nuclear sub!) looks way too expensive. What am I missing?
You're missing the fact that a submarine tends to be submerged in the ocean, and that it is fueled with highly-enriched uranium.
Naval reactors and civil reactors look roughly the same at first glance, but as the folks at Three Mile Island found out the hard way, there are some rather crucial differences.
Weirdly, the "submerged in the ocean" part could be good for SMR to deflect the effects of a tsunami. This part is the most important: "it is fueled with highly-enriched uranium". Really, it makes me think, if the US military allowed it, what is wrong with a bunch of SMRs built in a low population density area using highly-enriched uranium? (For other readers, normally commerical nuclear reacors use low enrichment uranium: 3% to 5% uranium-235.)
On the other other side, a lot of content is unavailable in more permanent forms, so if you want to watch something again, you're entirely at the mercy of the content provider. e.g. The Norsemen on Netflix. If I ever want to watch that in the future, I need to subscribe to Netflix and hope they still have it in their catalog. I can't find a blu-ray or dvd.
I've yet to find instances where electrical tape comes off of its own accord when wrapped. Even the electrical tape submerged 24x7 on my well pump had to be unwrapped.
You should also never name your faulty/flaky Dell server Bob when Bob is also the name of your company president (though the president came after the server).
Calling Bob (the server) a piece of shit ("Bob is a piece of shit") because it crashed again was a very risky move that we often didn't fully think through.
Maybe it's just me, but the explanations of the cause don't align.
One clue was that during corruption incidents, our metrics showed that SQLite would report copying more pages from the WAL file than were actually available. If there are 10 pages in the WAL file and 20 pages get copied to the database, something is clearly wrong.
vs
it thinks some of the pages have been copied from the WAL into the main database file, but they haven’t. Those pages never get written to the database file, and that data is permanently lost.
The first says "more were copied than existed" but the second says "fewer were copied than should have been."
Like I said, it's probably just me interpreting something incorrectly.
I haven't looked into the actual code fix, but given the "reset" name I have to think it has to do with SQLite "thinking" it has copied more pages than it actually did.
i.e. The checkpoint starts, and a write hits after the modifications to data structures have been done but before the data has actually been put in the database. The process starts over again, but doesn't undo the changes it made to indexes etc. Hence the db thinks it holds pages that don't exist.
Those seem consistent to me. Some pages weren't written to the WAL (yet?), but something else referenced them or otherwise indicated they existed, so then the other process tried to read them, resulting in the issue in the first quote.
Same bug, two angles. Nothing really copies 20 pages, the "20" is just a broken counter. SQLite's internal tally of how many WAL pages it already saved to the main db gets corrupted and reads too high. Since it trusts that tally, it assumes those pages are already saved and skips writing them for real, so when the WAL resets they're gone. The "copied more than existed" number is the bug showing in your metrics; "pages never written" is the actual damage.
Our idiots decided to conduct phishing tests by allowing KnowB4 to send "official" phishing emails. The kind that Outlook/Exchange don't flag as "outside your organization." So now there's no real way to tell what could be a legitimate email from illegitimate.
Also, the Knowb4 phishing tests include some Knowb4 headers, so it's trivial to pass the test (though they're usually so stupidly obvious that you'd never need to check).
FWIW, they put a header in the message that you can spot from a thousand miles away. That is how they get past the filters.
I used to work for a company y that used them, and this trick was passed around between engineers as a way to tell. They didn’t bother checking the results of whether we flagged them as spam, so ultimately we found that we could just ignore them completely.
It’s compliance theater. No real security is gained, but it checks all the boxes.
At my company they started placing the emails in your inbox in a way that rules looking these headers didn’t flag them. Except that only seems to be true in Outlook and other email clients flag them just fine.
Someone here recently asked whether cyber-criminals could land cushy consulting jobs, and the late Kevin Mitnick was no exception. He served as "Chief Hacking Officer" at KnowBe4, among other cushy consulting roles.
reply