due to increased ozone and airborne particles from the wildfires and heat wave

This isn’t directly due to industrial air pollution, but rather is the much harder to solve downstream impact of climate change.

Sigh, clickbait at its finest, why else would we click

I would look at CISA’s Logging Made Easy project, which is based on Wazuh and Elastic with Kibana for visualization and dashboards.

https://github.com/cisagov/LME

Curious if this is so broadly true without bundled resources; obviously screens are higher DPI, so even buttons are now designed for at least 8K resolutions, even if most consumers are still on 1080p.

Orders of magnitude beyond 640x480 or pre Windows 3.1 resolutions.

A failed sealing ring… caused coolant to go where it shouldn’t. Saved you a click.

Explain your thought process here, how did you arrive at the larger bottle being 90% more detergent? It’s EXPLICITLY clear that the concentration is higher in the smaller bottle.

You could complain about the form factor or lack of precision in dosing loads using the higher concentration, but “detergent” is mostly water, which they clearly said they reduced by 75% (same solute, with less water/solvent = higher concentration).

Quick search and going by what it says on the label, the cost per load has not significantly changed, a little more than half a penny’s difference:

Ultra Concentrated (left) $15/60 loads = $0.25/load https://mrsmeyers.com/collections/laundry/products/ultra-concentrated-laundry-detergent-rain-water?variant=50673207640338

Standard (right) $18/74 loads = $0.2432/load https://mrsmeyers.com/collections/laundry/products/ultra-concentrated-laundry-detergent-rain-water?variant=50673207640338

You definitely should bump it up the list, especially if you can handle ray tracing, though the raster lighting is also good.

BE WARNED. These extensions are a prime target for purchase and/or hijacking by malicious threat actors, who then use them to gain persistence on your browsers and steal data. There is no reason to increase your browser attack surface for this feature when better alternatives have been posted in this thread.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/chrome-extensions-with-14-million-installs-steal-browsing-data/

https://arstechnica.com/security/2025/01/dozens-of-backdoored-chrome-extensions-discovered-on-2-6-million-devices/

There are dozens of these articles dating back the last five years or so.

It is not on Steam; lead developer is apparently adamantly against the Steam monopoly and 30% cut. They literally proposed distributing via torrents and discord.

https://discord.com/invite/kittenspaceagency/

Re:Zero, Konosuba, Overworld, and That Time I Got Reincarnated as a Slime are some of the best, alongside SAO which started the modern version of the genre.

Shouldn’t be this hard to find out the attack vector.

Buried deep, deep in their writeup:

RocketMQ servers

• CVE-2021-4043 (Polkit)
• CVE-2023-33246

I’m sure if you’re running other insecure, public facing web servers with bad configs, the actor could exploit that too, but they didn’t provide any evidence of this happening in the wild (no threat group TTPs for initial access), so pure FUD to try to sell their security product.

Unfortunately, Ars mostly just restated verbatim what was provided by the security vendor Aqua Nautilus.

Only the cyber truck. Model S and 3 refreshes are still on the legacy platform, with a lithium ion 12V.

This server, maintained by Internet carrier Cogent Communications

Found the problem!

So the article repeats, several times, “waymo relies on remote operators”. I don’t think the author knows what “self-driving” means.

Yahoo search is just reskinned Bing, if that matters to you.

Possible? Yes. Likely? Not at all.

To perform a zero knowledge proof, you’d have to have structured data to support the claim, which most whistleblowers would not have. If a whistleblower already had the hard evidence in hand, e.g., serial numbers and timestamps, they could have just provided those anonymously, and someone could follow up. The problem is, you can’t always get a copy of the hard evidence without revealing your intent to the employer, or at least, other employees.

Presumably most whistleblowers are making unsubstantiated claims that something happened, or maybe with light evidence. Based on who they are, a journalist or investigator may then elect to follow up and dig up the hard evidence to support the claim. This requires revealing your name and position/relationship to at least one person. Rarely, they would be willing to put themselves out there to provide an affidavit under oath, which itself is not enough to pursue criminal charges (though it could help build a case around intent or willful neglect, or help support a warrant or discovery).

It’s illegal, but not unheard of, to try to force journalists to reveal their sources, but the same protections are not universally in place if you reported a finding to a company’s internal affairs, for example. But unlike attorney-client privilege, or shield law protections, the risk in signing an affidavit is, as we’ve seen in recent US trials, that records will not stay sealed, and your name will be revealed to the defense and/or public.

The Model S Plaid, MG, Rimac Niverra, etc are increasingly limited by regulations more than anything. Quite literally, they are at the limits of rolling friction for street legal tires, which is why you’re not seeing a lot of variance at the top of the market.

As far as people I’d trust to not just make shit up, I’d say Librarian, aka, professional fucking researcher is high on the list.

For encryption, the client and server need to share their private keys.

This is incorrect, for asymmetric (public-private) encryption. You never, ever share the private key, hence the name.

The private key is only used on your system for local decryption (someone sent a message encrypted with your public key) or for digital signature (you sign a document with your private key, which can be validated by anyone with your public key).

For the server, they are signing their handshake request with a certificate issued by a known certificate authority (aka, CA, a trusted third party). This prevents a man-in-the-middle attack, as long as you trust the CA.

The current gap is in inconsistent implementation of Organization Validation/Extended Validation (OV/EV), where an issuer will first validate that domains are legitimate for a registered business. This is to help prevent phishing domains, who will be operating with TLS, but on a near-name match domain (www.app1e.com or www.apple.zip instead of www.apple.com). Even this isn’t perfect, as business names are typically only unique within the country/province/state that issues the business license, or needed to be enforced by trademark, so at the end of the day, you still need to put some trust in the CA.

deleted by creator