tpmoney

64 ms·

661.
by tpmoney 2y ago
People have been saying this every Apple announcement since the first iPod. It's replaced the classic "beleaguered Apple" line that was so popular in the press before they were as massive as they are now. I'm not sure an
662.
by tpmoney 2y ago
The S24 still has a dot right in the middle of the upper part of the screen where the iPhone "notch" is[1]. When they play full screen video, don't they black out that part of the screen too? Or do they just leave a dot float
663.
by tpmoney 2y ago
>although it is obvious Apple tries to frame the newer models as large upgrades, they haven’t been that for the past 5 or so years It does feel like there's a small degree of "they can't win" here though. They caught
664.
by tpmoney 2y ago
Ridiculous, iPhones are getting cheaper all the time. Yesterday a base model iPhone 15 was $799, today it's $699. In 2022 a base model iPhone 14 was also $799, today that same phone is $599. Sure today the iPhone 15 is no longer the to
665.
by tpmoney 2y ago
> It really wouldn't kill you to remove an airpod (or any headphone) if you are in public initiating interactions with someone, for just a few moments. Actually, I've found this creates more social friction, not less. I spent a
666.
by tpmoney 2y ago
At what point are people responsible for their own actions or ignorance? Apple hardly makes the battery replacement option a secret, and there are plenty of 3rd party retailers that advertise them too. Anyone who bought a new iPhone because
667.
by tpmoney 2y ago
Her analogy is in the context of her larger topic of systems of computers, and I think history has largely proven out her advocated approach. She highlights a case of trying to cram a multi-user time sharing system, security system, databas
668.
by tpmoney 2y ago
Sure, but my larger point is that I believe people should strive for free speech maximalism even in their private dealings, and even within the private dealings, we should strive to make the consequences we impose minimally "dangerous&
669.
by tpmoney 2y ago
> That is the ONLY purpose of “free speech” - that governments and their institutions cannot prevent you from speaking freely. I'm not sure I look forward to an America where the social norms, when the "Republican Party becomin
670.
by tpmoney 2y ago
And one should have that right, but whether one should exercise that right is another matter. A thought experiment: If you could pick any point in history and make it so all people expressing socially unpopular views were permanently cast o
671.
by tpmoney 2y ago
Freedom of speech at its minimum is freedom of reprisal from government institutions. But it is also (or should be) a set of social norms, and a goal to aspire to. A freedom which is only enjoyed against the government is useful, but with
672.
by tpmoney 2y ago
>Robotics is way too hard and they should look elsewhere IMHO. >Software has this beautiful property of being magical: if you can imagine it, it can be written, given sufficient effort. >The physical reality puts constraints that y
673.
by tpmoney 2y ago
I imagine at least some part of it is that acquisitions are difficult, time consuming and rarely work 100%. There are almost always seams after the fact and problems with culture integration. Cash on hand also gives you the option to respon
674.
by tpmoney 2y ago
The parent wrote that the "main problem" was that they put the security at the end of the budget list. My argument is it doesn't matter where it is on the budget list, it will always be subservient to the actual business of t
675.
by tpmoney 2y ago
> In short, what you and OP commenter describe is incompetency, it should not be taken as the default, those are not defenders, those are mismanaged organizations. We're in 2024, every exec should know better. Everything in life is
676.
by tpmoney 2y ago
No, it's not. Cloud provider's raison d'etre is selling access to compute resources. That confidentiality and integrity are resources they can also sell does mean that they might spend more on those things than would otherwis
677.
by tpmoney 2y ago
> But that's false equivalency. The attackers also work for organizations. You've missed my point or I wasn't clear enough. It doesn't matter that they're part of a larger organization. That organization's g
678.
by tpmoney 2y ago
> I'm pissed this is accepted as normal for the IT sector, while in railroad engineering and aviation (where human lives are at stake) you'd get your licenses and certificates revoked. Therac-25 something. You're confusing
679.
by tpmoney 2y ago
Sure, the final business goal is selling access to the resources gained by the attack, but ultimately the attacking IS aligned with/directly enables that goal. Defense in cyber security is almost always at odds with the goals of defend
680.
by tpmoney 2y ago
> Replace "security" with "safety" for, IDK, space engineering or nuclear power. Does it still make sense? Here's a question: Why do most safety regulations require the force of law to get companies to enact, but
681.
by tpmoney 2y ago
> Ah, that makes more sense! I do think tpmoney was quite clearly talking about truly airgapped systems, however. Very much so. My point being that a truly air gapped system is objectively more secure than one that is networked, and yet,
682.
by tpmoney 2y ago
My point is that the vulnerable points, regardless of where they come from, are ultimately there because the purpose of the Defender is not to have perfect cyber security, but to use computers and technology to enable business. Or as you sa
683.
by tpmoney 2y ago
Even if they put it near the top, it's still going to be reduced in effectiveness by the actual needs and goals of the organization. Any company that has a VPN and remote employees is objectively and inherently weaker from a cyber secu
684.
by tpmoney 2y ago
> Yes, it is. Obviously! > I'm sorry, but what else are defenders trying to do that isn't defense? are all defenders completely incompetent then? You've misunderstood me. Defenders aren't the "cyber security t
685.
by tpmoney 2y ago
Not at all. The attack is directly inline with the goal of getting to whatever is at the other end of the attack. By contrast, nothing about SSL certificates, forward secrecy, encryption at rest or authentication and access controls is inli
686.
by tpmoney 2y ago
Yes, but that purpose is accomplished by way of attacking the system. By comparison, most cyber security defense gets in the way of the purpose of the defenders. We know this, and even joke about it openly. The ultimate secure system is a c
687.
by tpmoney 2y ago
I feel like this goes too deep. Or maybe it hits on the right reason, but the wrong cause. The defender’s job isn’t defense. Cyber security isn’t a sportsball game where there are clear even goals and objectives with alternating positions.
688.
by tpmoney 2y ago
I think the mistake often made is people think that "filling in the gaps" isn't a core competency in which one can dive deep. I once had the pleasure of working at a position with a "SME" type person who was the sor
689.
by tpmoney 2y ago
An unfortunate consequence of the highly metric driven world we live in is that the big picture people seem to only have a big picture with respect to the metrics. I worked in Apple retail way back when, and had a co-worker who was the abso
690.
by tpmoney 2y ago
In context they're very clearly talking about blogging/write-ups/presentation of technical things. A lot of the material about making / fixing things we're presented with in life are finished products, the results c

More ›