> A large portion of America Pac’s output focuses on attack ads against Democratic candidates such as Talarico, often accusing them of being radical socialists or targeting them over supporting transgender rights. The Pac has spent $28m on anti-Talarico content, including between $300,000 and 350,000 in October on a single Google ad targeting the Texas Senate candidate.
“James Talarico supports parents being charged with child abuse if they do not support transitioning their children,” stated the ad, which was shown more than 10m times over an eight day period.
It’s the win at any cost mindset with the post hoc rationalization that intelligent people can do with politics being utterly corrupt to stop this mess. We should really get money out of politics. SV is the new iteration of “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. These tech guys have way too much money and power. You’d think they cured cancer or something instead of capturing attention and showing ads.
More like the people in power protecting his ass are about to be replaced and he is scared. See Circulation of the Elites. There is always some group somewhere trying to co-opt the system. Short term buying ppl works. Long term it doesnt. Through out human history.
It is always cracking me up when Republicans are pointing on anyone left from the center like a guy is some kind maosist about to seize the means of production. And then they will turn around and offer you 5000 USD per vote if they win.
Not even the thickest european left wing populists would dare to say anything like that...
Several of those exact laws are on the books in blue states. Is it an inaccurate characterization of the platform, or are you outraged light was shone on it?
I'm increasingly convinced that awful public restrooms are mostly a North America thing. Travelling in Iceland a few years ago I was shocked at how nice the restrooms at the major gas stations were (N1 stands out). Full-height doors and stall walls, meticulous cleanliness, no weird smells.
At a gas station off the ring road in the middle of nowhere.
> 1. The original and locally preferred view is that Iceland, Finland, Faroe Islands, and Greenland are all countries considered to be part of the Nordics, but not technically part of Scandinavia (which would only be Sweden, Norway and Denmark in this case).
> 2. The international and more commonly preferred view is that the Faroe Islands, Finland and Iceland are part of both Scandinavia and the Nordics, leaving Greenland as the only non-Scandinavian country in the Nordics (along with the Norwegian territories of Svalbard, Jan Mayen and Bouvet Island).
I don't think it the more common perspective outside of Scandinavia either. It is common, but lots of people from outside the Nordics are perfectly aware that it annoys us.
In the Nordics the terms are not just "preferred" but unambiguously used this way.
The word I used, "Scandinavian", can be used both to mean "part of the Scandinavian peninsula" and "part of or relating to the culture originating on the Scandinavian peninsula". Calling Iceland Scandinavian easily satisfies the second definition.
You're right, in that Scandinavia is a peninsula and Iceland being a far off island is not part of it.
English is a weird and inexact language where there are a lot of different things words can mean. Seizing upon a single obviously-incorrect definition is not the whole story.
I'm sorry this bothers you; however I fear that you face the same battle as would a German trying to get Americans to call their country "Deutschland" instead of "Germany".
The term Scandinavia includes Denmark, which is not on the peninsula.
The use to include any country other than Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, is something that will tend to really annoy Scandinavians, as we're generally consistent in that use and it's foreigners trying to tell is what names to use for ourselves.
It may be a losing battle, but it's not one we'll give up on.
In Scandinavia or categorically always includes Denmark.
Only English speakers ignorant of the history of Scandinavia sometimes excludes it.
Tjere is no English language authority that has any business redefining what Scandinavia means at all. It's just insulting when English speakers believe they get to decide to redefine the names of regions that don't belong to them. It's rude.
> Tjere[sic] is no English language authority that has any business redefining what Scandinavia means at all.
Right, and none exists.
> In Scandinavia or categorically always includes Denmark.
> Only English speakers ignorant of the history of Scandinavia sometimes excludes it.
These two sentences are contradictory.
Maybe this is a translation error for you where what you mean when you say "Scandinavia" and what others mean when they say "Scandinavia" don't match up, and this upsets you?
Like I said above; what you're doing is tantamount to a German fighting to get English speakers to call their country "Deutschland". Who are we to redefine them as "Germany"? The difference here being that the English word in the "Scandinavia" case actually does have a slightly different meaning than your own native word, but this is upsetting to you because unlike with "Deutschland" it is pronounced the same.
"Scandinavia" is an English word as well despite its resemblance to words in your native tongue. Who are you to tell English speakers what their own language means?
As an English speaker, just stop you're embarrassing us. You didn't know Scandinavian meant what it does. That's ok, just learn. Don't make it like nonplussed, where Americans gave it a new meaning out of stubborn ignorance, just learn
> Don't make it like nonplussed, where Americans gave it a new meaning out of stubborn ignorance
I do believe you are mistaking how the English language works for stubborn ignorance.
There are many dialects of English, and the way I speak mine doesn't change how you speak yours.
It's very colonial of you to think that your way of doing things is the best and must be forcibly pressed upon others. That you feel embarrassed by the (correct!) use of a word in a different dialect means you have some work to do on yourself.
Okay, but ignorance on whose part? Because as has been repeatedly shown via links to dictionaries, wikipedia, etc by both myself and others, using "Scandinavia" to refer to Iceland is not incorrect.
Britannica lays it out for you, and yet you tilt at someone that lives there (vidarh) telling you the same?
> Scandinavia, part of northern Europe, generally held to consist of the two countries of the Scandinavian Peninsula, Norway and Sweden, with the addition of Denmark.
You've been found wanting in your claims.
> Some authorities argue for the inclusion of Finland on geologic and economic grounds and of Iceland and the Faroe Islands on the grounds that their inhabitants speak North Germanic (or Scandinavian) languages related to those of Norway and Sweden. Typically, when these other areas are added to Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, the group is called the "Nordic countries.”
The second quote you posted appears to directly support my stance, and that you think it shows my claim wanting throws your comprehension of the discussion into question.
Britannica is not authoritative, it is one view. It attempts to promulgate One Answer, not to capture the breadth of all English usage in all countries. It hedges itself with words like "generally".
I've never argued that the Britannica interpretation is invalid, just that mine is also valid. Nothing you posted contradicts that.
This all is like a French person getting annoyed at a Quebecois because they're using a different word. Or a Spaniard getting annoyed at an Argentinian. Different places use different words differently, and thinking it isn't so is simultaneously arrogant and ignorant.
Speaking of comprehension.. do you feel that Typically, when these other areas are added to Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, the group is called the "Nordic countries.” supports your claim and not that of the person you're fighting with?
You argued people weren't bringing sources. Now you're arguing your sources are infallible while any that refute you are open to interpretation?
I wish Americans would stop conflating some small part of Europe with the entirety of Europe. Scandinavia is of course within Europe, btw. Things may be handled vastly different depending on where you are in Europe. One small part of it does not define the rest of Europe. This is why you can't really compare "the EU" to "the USA" (Norway, while being part of Europe, is outside the EU btw). Not directly, anyway. Maybe some day, Europe will be much more homogeneous, but for now it's a pretty culturally, politically and economically diverse continent. Some European countries have epic public toilets. Others, not at all. It all depends on which country or culture you visit.
My conflation comes from the fact that in Canada, you're almost guaranteed to have terrible washrooms at gas stations (and frankly, in most public venues outside of really nice hotels and restos) coast to coast to coast.
A washroom at at an Irving in rural New Brunswick will have the same weird smells and nonspecific grossness as a Petro in North Vancouver.
Granted, I also haven't visited most of Europe since being a kid, though at that time I remember a few Orlans in Poland and Elfs and Mobils in France having a much cleaner vibe than the gas stations back home.
Gas station restrooms in Germany are possibly bearable, but annoying since you need to ask for keys - I have used them about twice in 25 years of driving. Autobahn restrooms are either pretty disgusting or paid.
Awful everything is an American thing. We are cheap and boring in the name of lining some rich wackos pockets. It’s pathetic how gross most of the bathrooms are at national and state parks. These are the Crown Jewels of outdoor areas and we have disgusting, under maintenanced toilets with single ply (if you’re lucky).
Free market is something America will never see nor know what it is except as funny term people throw around (along with many other “free(dom) _____” but especially market
Defintely not. Good toilets are a rarity. In NZ they are not fancy, but ALWAYS has toilet paper and generally aren't trashed.
In Eastern Europe almost always stinky (aka people don't clean up after themselves nor does regular cleaning happening) and occasionally have a toilet attendant for whatever insane reason.
Paid toilets in western europe also sounds insane and doesn't help with people thrashing them.
IMO toilet culture is simply a reflection of society - are you able to keep things clean or not.
> I'm increasingly convinced that awful public restrooms are mostly a North America thing.
There used to be a fairly robust rest stop program here, but it's been basically replaced by exits with large gas station chains and fast food.
US and Norway seem to have roughly the same number of government rest stops per mile, not including the more common "commercial exit" I guess you could call it.
Isn't this a private gas station? Certainly some brands differentiate on rest room availability and cleanliness (I'm partial to Love's when traveling) but I believe parent was referring to state run rest areas.
Yeah, service areas between between PA-NJ-NY were always pretty good, I miss those today driving here in FL today, where its mostly shitty gas stations where you have to ask for a key to use the restrooms.
You don't get the Norway views but its also not a complete mess.
> While I had some bills to cover — being a type 1 diabetic, I had to purchase insulin — living in Canada meant that I didn't need to worry about the risk of extraordinary costs from a hospital stay. Had I been living in the USA, I would have needed to prioritize seeking employment and medical insurance and likely would not have been able to discharge the duty which fate had thrust upon me.
It varies by state. Many states by now have programs capping it at 35$/mo, but I believe that often entails being insured under their state public insurance or another plan operating in that state (and so may not count as “uninsured cost”).
Your initial implication is that left wing accounts get banned while right wing accounts don't (an already spurious point), despite right wing accounts being notorious for botting.
That implies that left wing accounts shouldn't have been banned because they are not notorious for botting.
With the next reply, you hedge and say that the right "outbots" the left. That weakens your initial point that the left wing account bans are unjustified.
However, my initial reply was in response to the claim that it's "widespread knowledge" that the right outbots the left. That is not knowledge I consider to be self evident and I was assuming/asking that you got that knowledge from left leaning sources.
In a prior role, we realized something similar with outages. For our particular product, we AWS went down - we went down. We freaked out the first time, but after it was done we realized not a single customer had inquired. This felt unusual since we were getting emails quickly if we have a self-inflicted outage.
Turns out, when a major provider went down all of our users were too busy fighting their own fires. When they do notice, it's on a day when ALL of their vendors are struggling so we don't get singled out as a bad apple.
Imagine the PR when you are the only / one of few vendors who are still up, while rest is in shithole. That has its weight too, in certain situations at least.
Azure (and AWS) offer Gov clouds, and probably on prem air-gapped deployment of their full stack of Fabric for that type of NEED security customers who can pay for it.
It is trade-off between risk and access/productivity with a cost dimension always.
Depending on your threat model you could go to typewriters /paper as some Russian department did famously few years back too.
AWS (and others) have ladders of this was my point. GovCloud is just the one end of the this AWS also regions for Secret and Top Secret work which are reported to be air-gapped. There are probably programs beyond that where the customers are operating the stack fully on their own and so forth.
Yeah, if Exchange goes down, you get a day off. If the little boutique email provider you chose goes offline, you get a day in calls with everyone yelling at you.
With a lot of PaaS type vendors you are effectively exposed to both the vendor themselves and the public cloud they run their stack on top of.
Broadly I think you're much more likely to be the victim of a platform-level breach involving an immature startup PaaS than a hyperscaler cloud, however I think for small teams the alternate risk you take on is that AWS/GCP/Azure are full of landmines and extremely easy to misconfigure in insecure ways if you don't know what you're doing. Especially if you have AI telling you confidently wrong things.
Unquestionably. They have top tier security operations that are well funded. They follow (or set) security best practices, they are audited, and they fix them quicker than you can. They have inside industry knowledge that is only shared among top organizations in this space, including government cyber ops. This gives them the ability to fix things before they are even publicly known.
You can get close if you have either:
1. the ability to spend hundreds of millions on security operations yourself
or 2. the ability to airgap the systems you are securing
When I was at Microsoft we took security cripplingly seriously to the point we could not deliver features and our competitors could because the security process was convoluted and had multiple reviews and approval steps.
Having crippling bureaucracy does not correlate with good security outcomes, except maybe negatively. However, having a history of unending egregious security failures, like Microsoft, does correlate with poor security outcomes. For that matter, having a present of unending egregious security failures also correlates with poor security outcomes.
Having crippling bureaucracy does have better correlation with security outcomes than the “move fast, break things” philosophy that most of the software industry lives by.
I’m not even blaming Zuck for that, he didn’t really invent it, though he certainly popularized it — he just made an astute observation of the dynamics in software and turned it into a company motto.
Neither is correlated with good security outcomes against the prevailing threat landscape of profit-motivated, commercial, professional attackers with tiny budgets of a few million dollars. The standard is not "better", it is "adequate".
Correlation is not an absolute measure here, it’s relative. As is the entire concept of security.
As is what constitutes the standard of “adequate.” Which BTW is the standard in ALL engineering (not just security or software) because we live in a world where economic pressures apply and costs must be managed. Trivial example: bridges only use an “adequate” amount of steel and concrete because they are not free. The word “adequate” fundamentally involves the concept of tolerances. There’s a reason we consider over-engineering a bad thing.
So which development approach would you say is better correlated with good security outcomes?
Adequate is making it uneconomical, or cost ineffective, for threats to your organization to attack you either deliberately or indiscriminately. Absent a specific organization, we can use a profile of commonplace, prevailing threats as a proxy. A profile of commonplace threats is, as I said before, a profit-motivated, commercial, professional group seeking a multi-million dollar payout and thus being profitable at a cost of a few million dollars per commercial target. That is "adequate" in the prevailing threat landscape if you are the "average" organization.
That is a great definition of adequate for security! My point is that at scale, bureaucracy is a necessary (though not sufficient!) condition for achieving adequate security.
Another way to look at it is, bureaucracy is an aspect of the corporate culture, and lasting security comes down to having the right culture. At least in that respect Microsoft is doing something right. Doubtlessly a lot of that bureaucracy is ineffective, but it's a signal that the cultural intention exists.
As a relevant counterexample, we've never heard of these kind of processes at Meta and so you get Cambridge Analytica.
My perspective is skewed by my experience being on a security-adjacent platform team for years. Our biggest challenge was not external threats, it was internal teams seeing us as friction on their productivity, to the extent that it regularly led to escalations.
So when Cambridge Analytica happened, I played it up for all it's worth; Meta may move fast because they didn't have our "bureuacratic team", but look where it got them! Unfortunately the $25B penalty happened just last week... I'd have gotten infinite political mileage out of that.
I do not see how that is relevant. Are you saying that trivial cross-tenant compromises are not egregious security failures demonstrating their systems are unfit for purpose because other companys make products that have even more egregious security failures that are even more unfit for purpose?
My bridge that collapses is adequate and acceptable because other people make even worse bridges that collapse even easier? No, the bridge still collapses, everybody gets a F.
Practically every software security firm in the country was a vendor to Microsoft in the mid-late oughts and I know the Microsoft you're speaking about, but the vibe I've got lately is that things are different there now.
when i look for truth, if i dont find it myself through work, most people eager to hand it out had self-serving interests
security is proven through resilience? maybe. i guess i'd set up a box and try attacking it myself to know its secure. until someone else comes along and trips over it :)
but pretty much every "everyone else said I was wrong" story ends with "and I was wrong".
Of all the conspiracy theories you have heard of, or can conceive of, anyone who comes to believe one would say that - and almost all of those people would be wrong. Same for almost any fringe idea, almost any revolutionary discovery or invention, medical cure, chemical transformation.
Yes and no. They (or anybody else) are not guaranteed to be secure, of course; see all the compromises regularly found in cloud providers; Azure especially has had so many cross-tenant vulnerabilities (there’s one on the front page right now!) that I’m amazed the concept of public multi-tenant clouds still exists.
But they are also very highly incentivized to be more secure. They have millions of customers (hence a correspondingly higher expectation of trust) and billions in revenue from the trillions in economic activity happening on those platforms (hence a correspondingly larger target on their backs.) This means exponentially higher liabilities. And that probably matters more than any other factor.
Adding on to it, even though they may be using AI as well. This could very well be a placebo and deniability factor but the fact remains that they have many many qualified employees and the chances of bugs passing through that are much less compared to other systems. Also it's that the systems are very severely pen-tested and have years of bugs removed out and the incentive of billions of dollars at stake that you mention that they have for the trust premium.
They will still make mistakes but they have the resources to make them less.
I doubt that such intense level of thorough testing can occur in a smaller company.
I still love small VPS providers and use them myself but it is worth knowing why enterprise is willing to pay a premium over those to these hyperscalers (it is a trust premium)
reply