Youtube comments of Patrick Berry (@MundaneGray).
-
28000
-
781
-
266
-
148
-
147
-
109
-
96
-
88
-
71
-
71
-
46
-
38
-
36
-
34
-
32
-
30
-
21
-
17
-
16
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
On the subject of overheating, many people don't understand how this works in laptops. Your laptop's air intake vent is almost certainly on the bottom. The feet on the bottom provide only a fraction of an inch clearance between the bottom of the case and the surface it sits on, but as long as it's a hard, flat surface like a table, the ventilation works fine.
BUT . . . if you place the laptop on a soft surface like a bed, sofa cushion, or pillow, the intake vent is BLOCKED. This is an excellent way to overheat the machine. (My daughter killed her first laptop by doing this.) If you really want to use your laptop on a bed or sofa, get a lap desk (basically a pillow with a hard, flat top) and put that between your laptop and the soft surface. Lap desks are available for as little as $10 from places like Walmart, Best Buy, and Amazon.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Zegler is an actress, and this is her latest performance. That's all it is. She's doing what actors always do: pretend to be something she's not, in exchange for money. It's her job, and I don't blame her a bit for doing what Disney clearly ordered her to do. But none of this is genuine, and it doesn't change anything. She's still the same smug, arrogant, condescending fool who expressed contempt for the Snow White story and threw her fellow actor Andrew Burnap under a bus. She hasn't apologized for any of that, or admitted that she was wrong. So don't be fooled.
This is worse than deflection. It's gaslighting. Disney wants us to believe that the person in the Variety interview is the REAL Rachel Zegler, and all of her appallingly vain, ignorant, and insulting behavior never happened. But we're not stupid, and we haven't forgotten.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I wish there were some way we could abolish the idea of perfect safety, because it's a pipe dream. But so many people believe in it and waste huge amounts of time chasing it. In cybersecurity, the first thing you need to do is to let go of the notion that you can create impregnable defenses that will eliminate the threat of something like ransomware. You can't. Only after you accept that will you be able to actually improve your security by taking measures that reduce and mitigate the risk.
In one of my previous jobs, I was part of a multi-year project to improve the cybersecurity of the U.S. Postal Service. Our focus was not safety, but resilience. Yes, you want to reduce the risks as much as possible, but when you've done that, it's time to start preparing for the day when your defenses fail to protect you. Because it WILL happen. So you want to have a robust recovery plan in place. Instead of panicking and taking all sorts of hasty actions that don't do any good, you implement your plan to repair the damage and get your systems back up and running quickly. That's what reslience means.
Most people think of cybersecurity threats as a unique category that you have to have special defenses against, but the truth is that you're talking about having a disaster recovery plan, and it doesn't matter whether your disaster is a natural one (a fire or an earthquake, for example) or a malware attack. A good disaster recovery plan will work well after either kind of disaster. That's why backups are important, for example. It doesn't matter whether your data was lost because your computer burned up in a fire or because your files were encrypted by ransomware. What matters is whether you backed them up. If you did, the disaster is just a temporary inconvenience. If you didn't, you're probably screwed.
And Leo is right about people being the weakest link. That's why the cybersecurity organization organization I worked for had a category of risks called "insider threat," and it didn't distinguish between malicious and inadvertent insider actions. If a disgruntled employee (or one who has been bribed) exfiltrates copies of your proprietary data and gives it to one of your competitors, that's an insider threat. But so is a foolish employee who clicks links in e-mails or opens attachments without stopping to think about who sent the e-mail and why. In either case, the problem is the same: it's very hard to prevent damage inflicted by members of your own organization without making it difficult for your people to do their jobs. And a careless action by a dumb member of your team can do as much damage as a deliberate attack by a malicious insider. Intentions don't matter.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have used the "recall" feature of Outlook in a corporate environment, but it's only practical in cases where you sent a message to one person, or maybe two at the most. As the number of recipients increases, the probability that some of them will read the message immediately approaches certainty. After that happens, recalling the message means that it vanishes from the in-box of those who haven't read it, but NOT from the in-box of those who have.
Now you've made the situation worse, because the people who don't receive the message will hear about it secondhand from those who do, and they'll wonder why you excluded them. If you were trying to cover up something, then (as Leo pointed out) you have only succeeded in calling attention to it. You may be asked to explain what the hell you are up to. At this point, you probably wish you had just let the e-mail go to everyone and dealt with the consequences of that. It would have been easier to pass that off as a simple mistake.
As numerous people have pointed out, it's far better to avoid sending an e-mail that you regret. But that's easier said than done.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I should also mention that in Outlook, even in cases where you send a message to only one person, and you successfully recall it before they read it, they may still be aware that you sent it. If it arrives in the recipient's in-box, they can see the identity of the sender and the subject line without opening it. Windows may also pop up a notification with the same information. If they use the preview pane, they can even see the first few words of the message without opening it.
At this point, if the message vanishes from the recipient's inbox, there are two possible reactions. If the recipient doesn't know about the recall feature (most people don't), they're going to be very confused. If they DO know about it, they're going to realize that you yanked the message back (and you think they never saw it). Either way, they're probably going to ask you for an explanation, so you'd better have one ready.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I was rear-ended in a '76 Pinto hatchback, and I not only survived it, I got a good story out of the experience.
It was late at night. I was stopped at a red light on a deserted street in Charlotte, NC. No other cars or people around, just me. In my rear view mirror, I saw the headlights of an approaching vehicle. It came up behind me and slowed down, but didn't stop soon enough. The car hit me from behind.
The driver had to have been drunk. There's no other way you could fail to stop behind a vehicle that was sitting still at a red light. And the drunk driver must have panicked, because the other car backed up, swerved around my car, ran the red light, and took off at high speed. Hit and run.
There didn't seem to be anything to do except assess the damage. I shut off the Pinto, got out, and walked around behind the car to take a look. There wasn't a mark on the Pinto -- not even a scratch on the bumper. But the other vehicle wasn't so fortunate. The road was littered with pieces of its plastic front grill.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Adam, the philosophy about failure that you're expounding is what I would call "resilience." I was introduced to the concept when I spent a couple of years working for a large cybersecurity team developing strategies for a U.S. government agency. Their view, which I agree with, is that it's foolish for you to set as your goal the total elimination of risk. You'll never achieve that, and if you convince yourself that you have (that you have made your systems impregnable to attack), you will only make your organization brittle. You'll be complacent with false security until your security measures fail, and then you'll panic because you don't have a plan for dealing with it. (Why would you plan for something that you believe CANNOT occur?)
So the wisest approach is what you described: identify all of the failure modes you can and prepare for them. Yes, take whatever measures you can to prevent those things from happening, but expect that some of them will anyway, and develop a detailed recovery plan for each one. When that day comes, you'll be ready, and you'll know what to do because it's all been worked out in advance. That is resilience, and it works not just for cybersecurity, but for any kind of disaster preparation and recovery.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Puschit1 Four Star Trek movies, The Abyss, The Last Starfighter, Battle Beyond the Stars, Dune, Flight of the Navigator, Young Sherlock Holmes, Flash Gordon, They Live, Predator, Wargames, Alien Nation, Enemy Mine, The Thing, Escape from New York, Spaceballs, Willow . . . the 1980s were a freaking Golden Age of science fiction and fantasy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Samsung Blackjack II. I chose it for all of the wrong reasons. I was a Windows user on the desktop, and the Blackjack ran Windows Mobile, so I figured that would be easier to learn. Also, I wanted a hardware keyboard. But I was never happy with it. The screen was too small, and there was no pointing device (like a stylus or mouse).
I should have known better. I had been using Palm devices for a decade, and really liked them. When I decided that I needed to replace the Blackjack with a touchscreen phone, my first choice was the Palm Pre -- Palm's last smartphone, and the first to run the new WebOS. But my carrier didn't offer or support it. My second choice was a Google Nexus, because I used Gmail and Google Calendar, and I wanted a phone with good Google integration. But my carrier didn't offer or support that either. Reluctantly, I settled for my third choice, which was an iPhone 3G.
But that worked for me. The iPhone's Google integration was pretty good, and the touchscreen gave me the pointing device I wanted (my finger). The user interface wasn't difficult to learn, and actually resembled PalmOS in some respects. So the iPhone became my new Palm, and I've been an iPhone user ever since. But I wish I had given the Treo a try, back when that was still possible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
37 has been my favorite number for half a century, for reasons that seem random to me. In middle school, I played on a soccer team for a couple of seasons. At our first practice, we were all given jerseys with 2-digit numbers. These were handed out randomly, and I got the number 37. I didn’t think anything of it at the time.
A year later, at the beginning of my second season, new jerseys were handed out. Once again, purely by the luck of the draw, I received the number 37. At that point, I decided that it was destined to be MY number, and that connection has stuck with me ever since.
Was this really random, or was the distribution of jerseys biased in some non-obvious way? I have no idea.
1
-
I encountered the opposite problem a few days ago: if your touchpad is disabled and you discover that you don't have a working mouse, how do you re-enable the touchpad using only the keyboard? Here's how I was able to do it on a Windows 11 laptop:
1. Press the Windows key. The Start menu is displayed.
2. Start typing "touchpad". The text you type appears in the search field.
3. After you have typed a few characters, "Touchpad settings" appears under Best Match. Press Enter to select it.
4. In the Touchpad Settings dialog, use the Tab key to select the Touchpad on/off switch.
5. Pressing Enter doesn't toggle the switch as you might expect. Instead, it expands or collapses some additional settings below that. Make sure they are expanded.
6. Use the Tab key to select the Reset button next to the words "Reset Touchpad settings and gestures to defaults".
7. Press Enter. The Touchpad settings are reset. The touchpad is now enabled.
If you're wondering how I got myself into this predicament, I normally keep the touchpad disabled because I don't like it and never use it. Last week, I traveled to visit my mother in another state, and I took my laptop and mouse along. After I got there, I found that I had left the transceiver dongle for the mouse behind. (It should have been plugged into the laptop directly, but I had stupidly plugged it into a hub that I didn't need for the trip.) After reactivating the touchpad, I was able to use the computer. But I still don't like the touchpad, so I ended up borrowing the mouse from my mother's Chromebook, which she rarely uses. If that hadn't been available, I probably would have gone to Walmart and bought an inexpensive mouse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This happens to me all the time. But Leo didn't identify the true cause: failure of websites to do basic email verification. The correct process is as follows: when someone enters an e-mail address to create a new account, the website sends an e-mail to that address, asking the owner of the address to verify that they are creating an account. The account is only created if the recipient of the verification e-mail responds to confirm the creation request. If the person trying to create the account entered the wrong email address, the verification email goes to the wrong person, who can simply delete it. No account is created. THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT.
But many websites don't bother with email verification, because they're lazy or incompetent. They let people enter any email address they want, whether it belongs to them or not, and make no effort to check it. I have no sympathy whatsoever for companies that behave this way. When I receive their misdirected emails, I use the "unsubscribe" link if one is provided. If not, I just mark the email as spam. From now on, their attempts to contact their customer will simply vanish. That's unfortunate, but it's their own fault.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I can confirm what JP says about gun owners being serious about gun safety. My introduction to gun culture was through the competitive pistol shooting sport, when my teenage son was invited by friends to attend IDPA pistol matches as a spectator and I went with him. Over time, he become more interested in the sport and began competing, first with borrowed guns and then with one that I bought for him. I attended many of the matches, and also went out to dinner with groups of the competitors afterward to get to know them.
Every match was preceded by a safety brief in which the range safety officer reviewed and explained the rules of gun safety. Attending the brief was mandatory for every participant, even though most of them knew the rules by heart. During the match, each competitor was watched closely by the safety officer (SO), who would call out warnings or stop the match if a safety violation occured. These included things like having your finger on the trigger while moving, or allowing the muzzle to point uprange even a little bit.
Minor infractions would result in a penalty on your score, but for anything serious, you would be disqualified from the entire match. That would happen automatically if you swept your own body or anyone else's with the muzzle, unholstered or handled your gun except when you were actually shooting a stage, or loaded your gun except when directed to do so by the SO.
It's because of attending those safety briefs that I can now recite the rules of gun safety from memory, despite never having competed myself.
My son is now in his thirties and still an active competitor, although being a husband and father limits his time for such things. (He and his wife met at the range.) He switched from IDPA to USPSA, and by practicing diligently, improved his scores and advanced through the ranks until he reached the highest classification, Grand Master, a few years ago. Needless to say, I'm proud of him.
1