cplex's comments

On: I Bond’s variable rate will rise to 9.62% with the May reset

[cplex]

“Not a whole heck of a lot” but at virtually zero risk. This is for the portion of your portfolio that you don’t risk at all.

On: Who's Attacking My Server?

[cplex]

Also with https://www.greynoise.io/ api you can determine if these IPs are scanning the internet or targeting you specifically.

[klausagnoletti → cplex]

Same thing is possible using https://app.crowdsec.net/ (just create a free user account and use the search feature) - and if you install the accompanying agent, those bad actors already known will be blocked automatically (just as those that attack you will be shared to all other users). This is collaboration that makes sense!

[Pseudomanifold → cplex]

Wow, did not know that this existed. Thanks so much!

On: YouTube is banning anti-vaccine activists and blocking all anti-vaccine content

[cplex]

Something I heard from Shepard Smith cleared this up for me the other day- when talking about a potential shortage of “medical professionals” in NY due to the vaccine mandate, he also provided a statistic that 98+% of doctors and 95+% of nurses are vaccinated. This is a breakdown that I appreciated, as I value the health-related decisions of doctors more than the entire category of “medical professionals”.

[swivelmaster → cplex]

Good point. When there's already kind of a shortage, losing 2-5% is a massive blow.

On: The SEC has told us it wants to sue us over Lend. We don’t know why

[cplex]

I mean, maybe? It’s quite clear to most people at casinos that they can lose all their money. Is it just as clear to people who “lend” uninsured money to a company?

[qwertox → cplex]

A casino is similar to a lottery, you expect to lose some, but also to have the (small) chance to win a lot.

Coinbase is promising a fixed 4% earning. If they are to be taken serious, 4% does not mean the risk of losing it all, like in a casino.

On: Juniper breach mystery starts to clear with new details on hackers and U.S. role

[cplex]

Question- wouldn’t the change made by APT5 have been eventually obvious to whoever was originally using the back door? It would stop working for whoever expected the original value to be used, right? How did that go undetected for years?

[largbae → cplex]

Optimistic theory: it really was just for emergencies and was not in active use. Pessimistic theory: the NSA had already moved on to bigger and better exploits, but couldn't be bothered to tidy up.

On: Larry Page: “I think we should look into acquiring YouTube” (2005)

[cplex]

The second sentence. Sounds like you maybe missed the first screenshot?

[ineedasername → cplex]

I did miss it, thanks. I avoid Twitter, so browsing it on a phone makes it easy (for me) to miss how they stacked the images.

But that doesn't change much about this story: what does it matter that they note features-- already on Google's roadmap-- when they then, as their stated reason for actually buying YouTube, is as a defensive move?

Basically: "YouTube has some nice features but we're already building them and just want the company so Yahoo can't have them."

That doesn't make this picture look any better for Google.

[PaulDavisThe1st → ineedasername]

> Basically: "YouTube has some nice features but we're already building them and just want the company so Yahoo can't have them."

That's not what it says. If you want to go that basic:

"Youtube is doing better at innovating here than us, but we have some stuff they don't, and if we acquired them we'd get the best of both worlds and deny it to Yahoo"

[nl → ineedasername]

> That doesn't make this picture look any better for Google.

Even if you make the case this only anti-competitive there is nothing wrong with that behaviour by 2005 Google. It's not illegal or even significant in anyway.