I read that. But it would still be Goldbergs signature block. So is apple so "dumb" to just take this number and assume it belongs to the email adress contact? To be confirmed with a single touch?
It is for sure a terrible design for a top secret communications system.
For a consumer platform, it makes some sense, and the prompt is supposed to be “hey you might want to do this”, and the user can decide if it makes sense. I’ve used an iphone since they came out, have seen this prompt like twice, and got it right both times. But I’m not a national security advisor or anything so maybe it’s more clear to me.
That's partly because the dominant platform for electronic conveyancing, PEXA, has a monopoly. Only licensed professionals who pay subscription fees can access PEXA. This removes competitive pressure on conveyancing fees because self-represented buyers must use a slower, riskier, non-standard paper process.
I’d say a small law firm. They don’t have a security team, they’re routinely targeted by phishers, and their data is easier to convert into money than the huge mass of (mostly completely uninteresting) data fed into ChatGPT.
That's fine if you control the endpoint and want to expose ssh on it, but WireGuard endpoints are also commonly available from VPN providers who don't provide shell access.
That is the situation that lead to me to wireproxy; I had a need to use Cloudflare Warp, and no desire to entrust their apt repository with updates to my system.
Added to that their official client has heaps of functionality I have no use for, and wireproxy does everything I want for this usecase with a comparatively tiny amount of code(5MB vs 400MB built). I started the evening with a wg-quick generated config that required root, and ended it using a simple unprivileged daemon that I can toggle easily.
> that is insane that the average american lives in a home that they own by the time they're 35. That is so far and wide not the case here in Australia.
This is addressed in the linked source, although that wouldn’t be obvious if you’re not familiar with Australian work health and safety law:
> the re-emergence of silicosis in engineered stone workers is also due to a failure of compliance with existing WHS laws … PCBUs [persons conducting a business or undertaking, who are subject to WHS laws] have not done all that is reasonably practicable to eliminate or minimise those risks, and workers have not taken reasonable care for their own health and safety and that of others [which is a criminal offence]. Finally, there has been insufficient compliance and enforcement actions by WHS regulators to drive behaviour change in the sector … A lower silica content engineered stone is not expected to result in improvements in compliance. The features of the sector that have contributed to the current levels of non-compliance remain – the sector is comprised of mostly small businesses with few barriers to entry and a lower understanding of WHS obligations.
The "ban" (proposed for July 2024 and after) is actually conditional upon the building industry getting their act together with respect to worker safety and compliance:
National Dust Disease Taskforce Final Report - June 2021
D) Commence the processes required to implement a full ban on the importation of some or all engineered stone products if, by July 2024:
– There is no measurable and acceptable improvement in regulatory compliance rates for the engineered stone sector as reported by jurisdictions; and
- Evidence indicates preventative measures are not effectively protecting those working with engineered stone from silicosis and silica-associated diseases
In short - (We recommend to) Ban this stuff UNLESS building sector improves safety AND demonstrates effective change.
> is actually conditional upon the building industry getting their act together
I don't think this is correct. The SafeWork report (recommending a complete ban) superseded this health report, and the ministers appear to have aligned on the SafeWork recommendation.
My goal was more to point out that two+ years ago a recommendation was made (as quoted above) and there's currently six months left on the clock for those changes recommended to be met.
SafeWork is likely to correct to conclude that the building industry has made no real strides in the past 24 months and won't do squat in the six months remaining.
This may also be a hammer drop intended to put the fear of lost revenue from upmarket kitched remodels into the actors and scare them into action in order to lift the ban.
That's a whole other level of real politik that sometimes plays behind the scenes .. carrots & sticks.
> So, does the defense get to subpoena the logs, and depose a programmer to explain why some random request returned a 502?
In theory yes, but you can get some idea of how it worked in practice from the transcript of the trial of Seema Misra [1]. This was one of the few cases where the postmaster pleaded not guilty and expert evidence was presented to the jury. The defence complained throughout the trial that their expert did not have adequate access to the underlying computer records. New documents were identified during the course of the trial, and the defence applied unsuccessfully for the trial to be stayed at the close of the prosecution case.
The US Code is divided into numbered titles, sections, paragraphs and subparagraphs which can link to and incorporate each other by reference. This tree structure is reflected in typographic conventions which visually distinguish operative provisions from headings, indices and editorial notes. Isn't this the same kind of "structured format" as a code repository made up of libraries, modules, source files and functions?
Goodwill refers to the part of the price that is based on "looking at the current annual income and projecting growth over a few years." It's the value over and above what you would get if you emptied the company bank accounts and sold all its other property in a fire sale. It's a perfectly sensible concept, even if the process of quantifying it by coming up with a price "based on" current income and anticipated growth (or other advantages like eliminating competition) is contestable.
