The dude in charge wasn’t even a billionaire. He was just some founder whose company wasn’t doing all that well, financially. I think his peak net worth was something like $25 million, and that was mostly in stock in his doomed company. $25 million is nothing to sneeze at, but it’s also not quite enough money to explain the dude’s arrogance.
Virtually all marine vessels are certified by organizations such as the American Bureau of Shipping, DNV, or Lloyd’s Register, which ensure that they are built using approved materials and methods and carry appropriate safety gear. It has been widely reported that Rush was dismissive of such certification, but what has not been made public until now is that OceanGate pursued certification with DNV (then known as DNV GL) in 2017—until Rush saw the price. “[DNV] informed me that this was not an easy few thousand dollar project as [it] had presented, but would cost around $50,000,” he later wrote in an email to Rob McCallum, a deep-sea explorer who had also signed Kohnen’s letter.
Later in article:
Reality was more prosaic. Like most startups, OceanGate was in constant need of funds. Rush was trying to save money wherever he could. Interns, who made up around a third of the engineering team, were paid as little as $13 an hour. (When a manager pointed out in 2016 that Washington’s minimum wage was just $9.47 an hour, Rush responded, “I agree we are high. $10 seems fair.”) Rush also downgraded the sub’s titanium components from aerospace grade 5 quality to weaker and cheaper grade 3, says one former employee.
I knew they were being cavalier about safety, but didn’t realize they were penny pinching to this degree.
Oh don’t worry, malicious .exe files were all over the forums back then.
A private equity firm bought them to naked short the stock
You just like throwing around words regardless of meaning?
They owned equity, so they were long, not short. They owned a stake so they weren’t naked.
What they did was a simple extraction of value from something they owned, destroying it. It has nothing to do with short selling, and has nothing to do with manipulation of stock trading (after all, they took it private so that it wouldn’t be publicly traded, so there were no public traders to manipulate).
Um, nobody is talking about chemically converting the released carbon dioxide back into chemical compounds with stored chemical energy, like hydrocarbons and graphite. They’re talking about physically sequestering CO2, or binding the carbon into materials that aren’t combustible (like calcium carbonate).
Put another way: if I burned some hydrocarbons in a fireplace and put a balloon over the flue, I’d capture some carbon dioxide (and probably some water) in that balloon, and the carbon in that balloon would’ve cost me less energy to capture than was released in burning the hydrocarbons to begin with. So long as I could keep the balloon from leaking or deflating.
Unless you can capture 1 ton of carbon using less energy than is extracted by burning 1 ton of carbon, you can not capture carbon.
Is this not already the case that these processes are net negative in carbon released? How much does it currently cost, in energy, to capture carbon at these smokestacks?
GNU’s
Not
Unix
A lot of NIL money during the off-season is booster money, yes. That’s money that basically will only go to athletes signed with a particular school.
But there’s also a lot of NIL money for actual big budget TV/print advertising from national corporations for ads produced by major ad agencies. That’s money that follows the athlete.
Not all of it will follow the athlete to the pros (and not every athlete goes pro), especially since the WNBA seems to have lower viewership than NCAA women’s basketball. But if anyone is gonna be making good money on sponsorships in the WNBA, it’ll be Caitlin Clark.
A zero day is an exploit that has been identified by someone but not yet used.
I’ve always understood that the counting of days comes from the vendor’s knowledge. So any exploit from before Google was aware of the vulnerability would be a zero day.
It wouldn’t make any sense to refer to the days counted from when an attacker first discovers the vulnerability, because by definition any vulnerability in active exploitation wouldn’t be a zero day.
disclosed active exploitation
So, not a fucking zero day.
I’m confused. Isn’t an active exploit that hasn’t been patched yet, by definition, a zero day? So the release of a new patch that closes an actively exploited vulnerability patches a zero-day?
I wonder how much the placement of the uppercase L stems from Randall Munroe’s own memories of Far Side comics with the “Larson” signature.
I’ve seen it for keypads that have to send a signal to an actuator located elsewhere, but I think the typical in-door deadbolt (where the keypad is mere millimeters from the motor itself) wouldn’t have the form factor leaving the connection as exposed to a magnet inducing a current that would actually actuate the motor.
Most of LPL’s videos on smart locks just defeat the mechanical backup cylinder, anyway. I’d love to see him take on the specific Yale x Nest model I have, though.
Yup. The backup for battery failure on this model is that the bottom of the plate can accept power from the pins of a 9V battery, held there just long enough to punch in the code.
Things might be different by now, but when I was researching this I decided on the Yale x Nest.
It’s more secure than a keyed lock in the following ways:
It’s less secure than a physical traditional lock in the following ways:
It’s basically the same level of security in the following ways:
Overall, I’d say it’s more secure against real-world risk, where the weakest link tends to be the people you share your keys with.
This meme format works best to absurdly overstate the uselessness of something you find mildly annoying. That’s when it’s funniest, because the criticisms are grounded in something real, and the low-stakes controversy makes the aggressive tone funny in context.