Stein summed it up, saying, “An American official said, ‘If you don’t hit targets A, B, C, we will provide you with diplomatic protection and an arms package.’”
“Israeli officials responded saying, ‘We consider the United States and listen to them. But we will do anything and everything we can to protect the citizens and the security of the State of Israel.’”
Jesus fucking Christ
That’s an interesting one. I know it depends on configuration, but in the run-of-the-mill case, does connecting through VPN stop local services to listen on local IPs? I know our corpo VPN kills local LAN access but I’m curious what the default for OpenVPN/Wireguard might be.
The OS interfaces provided to apps (generally POSIX) have no idea what HTTP is. They’re much lower level than that. If an OS is to control what protocols are used by apps, it has to offer some functionality that does HTTP for the apps and apps have to use it. Unfortunately the only way to force that would be to disable the general OS interfaces so that apps can’t just use existing libraries that use those. If you did that your OS would become useless in other ways that rely on the basic interfaces.
The other way the OS could do anything about it is to inspect network traffic going over its network interfaces. That would be a significantly different can of worms and it’s not free in terms of processing power and therefore battery. Then you’d have the screams of privacy people that Android or iOS is looking at all network traffic.
So all in all, the OS isn’t very well suited to police application level protocols like HTTP. At least not on devices whose primary purpose isn’t network traffic related.
And they package drives correctly.
I don’t know if SPD ships to where you are but a manufacturer recertified 16TB from them goes for ~$160. I have 7 drives from them so far, 5 in continuous use since spring, no issues so far.
Oh nice. Just gotta dress em up like Unifi or Aruba then stick em up on the ceiling.
Apps don’t use the system browser to connect to REST endpoints. Neither do they use the OS. Apps typically use a statically linked library. There are use cases for HTTP-only connections so it’s unlikely that those libraries would mess with forcing or even warning its users that they’ve used HTTP instead of HTTPS. Point is Google and Apple can do little in this regard. Unless they scan apps’ source code which could be possible to some extent but still difficult because URLs are often written in pieces.
Yup. You can grab any unencrypted data passed between the user’s browser and a server literally out of thin air when they’re connected to an open access point. You sit happily at the Starbucks with your laptop, sniffing them WiFi packets and grabbing things off of them.
Oh and you have no idea what the myriad of apps you’re using are connecting to and whether that endpoint is encrypted. Do not underestimate the ability of firms to produce software at the absolute lowest cost with corners and walls missing.
If I was someone who was to make money off of scamming people, one thing I’d have tried to do is to rig portable sniffers at public locations with large foot traffic and open WiFi like train stations, airports, etc. Throw em around then filter for interesting stuff. Oh here’s some personal info. Oh there’s a session token for some app. Let me see what else I can get from that app for that person.
I was pretty surprised to learn that Interac e-transfer or equivalent isn’t commonplace everywhere.
Found the Canadian.
Late on Friday night, the Israeli army issued a statement alleging that Hezbollah was using medical vehicles to transport fighters and weapons, warning that it would strike any vehicle it suspected of being used for military purposes.
Let’s see how long is this line gonna work.
PFAS, microplastics, airborne plasticizers, and more. You are guaranteed to win the chemical lottery. Not that I’m anti-chemical, that’s silly, but I’m talking specifically about dangerous chemical pollution of the environment.
I haven’t seen any report of missiles targeting populated areas. Only military targets. So I think we can scratch that from the equation. Either they let everything that was targeting the base fall or they were defending it and some got through. Doesn’t make sense that they intentionally let some hit the hangars and runways if they were defending the base. I doubt they can tell exactly where every projectile is gonna fall. It’s possible that they focused more on the other base that was being targeted. But I find it unlikely that they didn’t defend this base given they use it for their F35 fleet. At the very least there could have been enough damage to put it out of service for a while.
It’s still only a few reps.
So it seems Iran overstated the accuracy of their missiles and Israel understated how many got through.
“Create an Haitian cooking a tabby cat in a spit fire, the background should look like a typical Ohio town”
It might also save it from shit controllers and cables which ECC can’t help with. (It has for me)
Posting this further up for visibility.
Maybe I’m stupid but there’s this table:
It seems like they’re not just counting the combustion emissions in that number.
Then there’s also this, which explicitly talks about fuel development emissions:
The carbon-dioxide emissions just from combustion are substantially greater for coal, 99 g CO2/MJ versus 55 g CO2/MJ for LNG. Total carbon-dioxide emissions from coal, including emissions from developing and transporting the fuel, are also greater than for LNG, but the difference is less, 102.4 g CO2/MJ for coal versus 83.1 g CO2/MJ for LNG (Table 4). This is because of greater energy costs and, therefore, higher emissions of carbon dioxide for developing and transporting the LNG compared with coal. Methane emissions for LNG are substantially larger than for coal, 76.5 g CO2-equivalent/MJ for LNG compared with only 17.3 g CO2-equivalent/MJ for coal (Table 4). As presented in Section 2, this result for methane emissions for coal is quite robust across regions, including China and Poland.55, 56 Consequently, total greenhouse gas emissions are 33% larger for LNG than for coal for the cases of average tanker-cruise lengths, 160 g CO2-equivalent/MJ for LNG versus 120 g CO2-equivalent/MJ for coal (Table 4).
Did you look at the paper or am I grossly misunderstanding something?
Unless Iran can pull a nuke out of a hat this Wednesday.