I was chatting about this with a friend. It feels like there's a real opportunity for a relatively-poor-but-democratic country to say, "Look, for real, we will pass the strongest data protection laws in the world, and we will let you build as many solar panels as you want + use as much water as you want, just sink a couple hundred billion into OUR economy."
People who build data centers. Strong data protection laws (in a relatively stable democratic country) so that customers will feel okay putting their workloads in a data center, and then low regulatory burden and cost to the inputs to making a data center work (mainly electricity and water for cooling).
There would obviously still be things that would make a data center builder feel less-than-great about locating in a developing country, but there's also a LOT of money sloshing around in the data center buildout right now, if you could get people to just try it out with a small minority of their money it could be a very big deal for some countries.
It's certainly not crazy to imagine that you could cut the costs of a helicopter-like aircraft that was purpose-made for relatively short, relatively low-speed, relatively light load duties.
The energy cost during operations is very relevant, too, which is why you see things like tilt rotor designs with wings/bodies to generate lift.
When Airbus was doing the math on these a few years ago, the pilot cost was also one of the main concerns, so it was "autonomous or bust", and they ended up investing a lot on the autonomous side (not just the aircraft but also urban traffic management, etc).
I don't think it's completely irrelevant. Can we admit some nuance where the UK's fast ramp up of arrests for previously legal speech is genuinely concerning, but also that raw number of arrests (not even convictions!) is not the only basis for comparison?
I understood the situation here to be that the same private owner owned all of the private squares in this particular area. I would assume that most private owners won't be interested in buying squares deep in the checkerboard for access reasons.
The Wikipedia user based his drawing off of this sculpture from 1711, so it seems the american continent was actually already quite well mapped back then.
The armorials of the South Sea Company, according to a grant of arms dated 31 October 1711, were: Azure, a globe whereon are represented the Straits of Magellan and Cape Horn all proper and in sinister chief point two herrings haurient in saltire argent crowned or, in a canton the united arms of Great Britain. Crest: A ship of three masts in full sail. Supporters, dexter: The emblematic figure of Britannia, with the shield, lance etc all proper; sinister: A fisherman completely clothed, with cap boots fishing net etc and in his hand a string of fish, all proper.[61]
The artifact you link shows a map of the Americas in which California is an island and either Tierra Del Fuego is huge or the bottom of Argentina is an island and the northwest of the continent trails off into nothing, and Florida is sort of a stubby nub (other maps from this period show a more accurate Florida, so this might be a small-size-of-the-object problem).
They had a decent view onto the east coast of the Americas, but after that things got quite inaccurate. It's like... I don't know what anyone's expectations are, but it certainly isn't the perfect world map that's shown in the main image of Wikipedia's article.
My experience with AWS is that they are extremely, extremely parsimonious about any information they give out. It is near-impossible to get them to give you any details about what is happening beyond the level of their API. So my gut hunch is that they think that there's something very rare about this happening, but they refuse to give the article writer the information that might or might not help them avoid the bug.
If you pay for the highest level of support you will get extremely good support. But it comes with signing a NDA so you're not going to read about anything coming out of it on a blog.
I've had AWS engineers confirm very detailed and specific technical implementation details many many times. But these were at companies that happily spent over a $1M/year with AWS.
Nah if your monthly spend is really significant than you will get good support and issues you care about will get prioritized. Going from startup with 50K/month spend to a large company with untold millions per month spend experience is night and day. We have Dev managers and eng. from key AWS teams present in meetings when need be, we get issues we raise prioritized and added to dev roadmaps etc.
Because credential stuffing relies on the user reusing a username + password from another site. If you provide the user with a username they don't select, it won't be reused.
But then they have to remember the username AND the password? This doesn't help with users already having the password re-use problem. This would only work for those with a password manager, but then they are also less likely to re-use a password.
Also, wouldn't this prevent lost password recovery? if you can't identify a user by their email?
> But then they have to remember the username AND the password?
The commenter already acknowledged that the solution has drawbacks. The only claim made was that it solves credential stuffing, not that it doesn't inconvenience the user.
> This would only work for those with a password manager
It would also work for those without a password manager, because they'd have no choice.
> Also, wouldn't this prevent lost password recovery? if you can't identify a user by their email?
They're not mutually exclusive. You can have both. A compulsory unique user ID to login, and an email based password recovery mechanism.
I haven't used it for 45 years, but my CompuServe user ID was [72175,1425]. I like that they assigned it themselves with no input from me. (I'm cursed with a good memory for useless things.)
Yes, there are clear ergonomic reasons why we don't do this "assign a username" thing. But it would stop password stuffing.
You'd presumably do username recovery the same way you do password recovery, so it would only be accessible to an attacker who compromised the user's email.
reply