Here is what my gut is telling me, this company Binace or at least this engineer f'd up security wise. When your dealing with other peoples crypto you aught to be going to some pretty extreme lengths to protect it.

"The world's largest crypto exchange initially said the hack may involve 'a compromised DevOps engineer's laptop, which allowed an attacker to gain access to a service container and submit unauthorized withdrawal transactions.' However, Co-CEO Richard Teng later said the attack involved a more complex process rather than the misuse of a single engineer's permissions. "

I'm not sure any company today is taking what I'd consider to be reasonable steps security wise, but ...

There seems to have been a lack of hardening, development, test, and production systems in place.

Developers shouldn't be using the same systems they use to check their email for development. They certainly shouldn't be executing random code or applying for jobs at other companies with a development box either.

We don't know if that is what happened, but if it was North Korea that is one of the means by which North Korea has been utilizing to gain access to developers boxes.

Regarding the Binance crypto losses:

"NBC News reports that the FBI blames the breach on a North Korea-sponsored group known as TraderTraitor"

What about the parties primarily responsible for it????

Binance itself for starters, but I will credit the company for having appropriate procedures in place to be able to resolve their customers situation even if they partially failed it would seem on the security side.

And of course their customers who stored cryptocurrency on the exchange in the first place.

Those using cryptocurrencies to scheme their way to riches is part of the problem.

The other half are people making excuses like the FBI for the losing party.

All persons *SHOULD* know and there is unlikely to be a single person on the internet that doesn't understand that the government DOES NOT HAVE POWER EVERYWHERE.

Law enforcement and the US supreme court has repeatedly stated the government has NO OBLIGATION to protect you too.

So then why on earth would you be so negligent with your assets??? And if you are why should anyone else be blamed?

What ?North Korea? may have done isn't exactly the moral thing either, but you as a loser in this situation have no excuse here either. Governments don't do what is moral to start off with, but when you factor in that there are 200+ national governments on this planet and the only universal law is effectively treason then why on earth do you think anyone other than you is responsible or could protect you from your mistakes???

Yikes, talk about socialists bankrupting a country:

"French Lawmakers Back Per-Gigabyte Internet Traffic Tax"

"The latest amendment, introduced by socialist lawmaker Laurent Lhardit, could see content providers pay €0.055 (roughly $0.06) to the government for every gigabyte of content distributed to French users."

If I did the math right that's going to add about US $18 per month to subscribers bills.

I'll admit I don't know what they currently pay, but there are internet connections that cost just a bit more than that meaning in some instances it might be doubling the cost of an essential service for French households.

I get it, you don't like Meta's "pervert glasses", but what human rights and safety concern could possibly exist???

"are requesting that Meta provide more information before Thanksgiving on whether it conducted detailed human rights due diligence and safety testing"

Get ready for things to start failing in crazy and unanticipated ways left and right:

"Krishnamurthy reckoned he could rewrite Cisco's legacy code with a two-person team. Patel says even the most AI-forward people on his own team weren't thinking that way. So he has given himself four weeks to prove it, with the final goal of rewriting 98% of Cisco's legacy code within 24 months. Now, he's on the hunt for more Paddys: young hires who will 'challenge the system and the status quo,' or, as he puts it, be 'an energizer bunny that just goes out and kind of revs everyone up.'"

Legacy doesn't equal bad, and an AI re-write doesn't equal good either.

I can't say for sure given I have no idea what the code base they were referring to was, but I suspect someone aught to call bullshit on this one.

You still need to validate the code after the rewrite and it's not the writing of the code that takes forever. It's the decades of testing and QA that went into it that has value.

When your system collapses because you didn't do sufficient QA.... well...

"Gen Z can't catch a break. Entry-level jobs are vanishing; some 40% of bosses say they plan to hire fewer grads because AI can do the job cheaper, and young workers are routinely slammed for showing up late and refusing to put in overtime for free."

It's worthy of pointing out that this is or was the difference between a salaried employee and an hourly employee.

If you are salaried you work when the boss tells you to work and you get a higher fixed salary.

If you are paid by the hour than your getting a lower hourly salary and overtime for any additional hours over 40 that you work.

Your not putting in overtime for free, you're already being paid for it. It was part of the deal when you took the job.

As far as not showing up for work on time~ that's totally unacceptable at pretty much any job and aught to get you fired almost immediately. 3 no calls or late shows ~15 min or more without a call. No doubt that there may be some leeway with the boss when you work retail, show up at 7AM when the store opens and they've put you down for 6:30AM... because well they don't actually have anything for you to do between 6:30 and 7:00 AM anyway... but...

"Looks like OpenAI CEO Sam Altman wants to own all the computing resources and rent out terminals to the world as a way of propping up his business plan,"

... aww no shit... his intentions never been in your interest.

But the humorous part of it is he's actually got a genuine argument as it relates to running AI models at the moment as on ones personal computers require a lot more ram than those who don't run AI models on their personal computers.

Basically from an efficiency argument he's right within the context it sounds like we're talking.

"Then he explained why that's a bad idea: 'From a global allocation perspective, actually, it's quite terrible to have everybody have a bunch of the world's limited supply of DRAM sitting in their own computer and being used 5% of the time,' Altman said. 'You want maximum utilization in the cloud if you're trying to deal with this very supply-constrained environment.'"

And now the part I take issue with:

"'And somehow many people's intuition is the opposite of that.'"

The people arguing against cloud computing in the context of AI in particular is not an efficiency argument. It's a privacy argument. Their intuition is correct, but your intentionally misreading what people are saying or thinking as they're not concerned about efficiency much at all. Maybe a few people are concerned about the environmental impact... but it's more the noise, immediately impacting pollution, not pollution more generally speaking (no one cares if it's polluting China or Africa or Asia or whatever, but they do care if it's in their backyards).

Part 2:

"The Justice Department has charged five people in a crackdown on 'ghost student' loan fraud,"....

And the problem as I surmised without having even read the story:

"If accepted, student aid is distributed first to schools to cover tuition and fees, but any leftover money is deposited into bank accounts controlled by the fraudsters."

And then the part that gets disturbing because of the assumptions being made about those receiving the money into their bank accounts:

"Dozens of Americans have opened bank accounts to act as money mules for fraudsters, the DOJ said."

... so someone receiving money into their bank account doesn't necessarily know the source of the funds. They just know they've been paid and will assume it's for whatever the scammer tells them. In other words someone selling the scammer cryptocurrency won't know they're being used to launder ill-gotten gains. They are at least potentially a VICTIM unless a scammer has for reasons unknown told them the truth about the source of the funds. That seems unlikely and it's all the more reason I find what the DoJ does absolutely disgusting.

The DoJ is contributing to the problem while convicting, prosecuting, or convincing innocent people just trying to get by to take a plea deal in exchange for testimony against folks who also may or may not be the scammer.

The scammers are often overseas and outside the reach of law enforcement so it's often the case the people arrested aren't even the people doing the real harm.

The government literally testified during the Crypto6 case as a perfect example that the agent whose sole job it was to go after scammers HAD NEVER CAUGHT A SCAMMER IN HER 20 or 30 year career (I forget now if she said 20 or 30, but you can look it up either way).

"The Justice Department has charged five people in a crackdown on 'ghost student' fraud, in which scammers allegedly use stolen identities and AI to enroll fake students in colleges, complete coursework, and collect federal student loan funds."

I'd really like to know how charging 5 people in 'ghost student' loan fraud is doing anything to resolve the issue of 'ghost student' loan fraud.

All that is happening is we're being bilked twice. Once by the 5 people charged presumably assuming they even did the deed and once by the DoJ.

The impact of charging 5 people over something so much more significantly being done at scale isn't going to leave even a slight dent in the problem, but what it does do is deceive the public that the DoJ can do something about the problem. When will the DoJ charge itself with fraud????

"Meta Settles Another Social Media Addiction Case Just Before Trial"

Ohh please, and this is the "social media" companies fault how??? Where were her parents? Who bought her the phone? Who subscribed to the internet? And most importantly teach your f'ing kid some self control. Seriously. When kids have responsibilities and aren't treated like babies cause of helicopter parenting they build important skills like personal responsibility and learn about things like consequences.

"The lawsuit was brought by an 18-year-old woman from Mississippi known as K.D.B who, according to Reuters, has 'described staying awake for hours scrolling social media, losing focus in class and engaging in self-harm using methods shown in social media videos.' Jury selection kicked off earlier this week in Los Angeles."

"Apple Is Entering Its Slop Era "

" My ears perked up when I heard Apple's new foldable phones were cracking. I licked my lips when the company announced it's releasing a touch-screen laptop. This was a company that once charged $19 for a polishing cloth, asked $200 for a VESA mount, and sold $700 wheels for the Mac Pro. Now it's borrowing tired ideas from its competitors and launching hardware its previous leaders rejected."

It's Apple, I mean what did you really expect???

The only reason the corporate world does anything is they think they can make more money. Whether it's selling data it gleans from spying on you, shilling AI to investors to bring in more money, to selling $19 pieces of cloth.

If you don't like being taken advantage of stop using their platforms, their products, their services.

I will be the first to point out we don't actually have a free market, but the idea behind a free market is there is competition and you as a consumer have a choice including not purchasing or using a particular companies products or services if they're doing something that isn't in your interest.

The system may be far less than perfect or a free market, but there are still at least *SOME* things you can do.

Instead of just complaining stop contributing to the downfall of all of us.

"Notice that a ban on children becomes a defacto 'get carded at the door" for all adults in the UK to participate in the town square. This is the most authoritarian government the UK has had since Thatcher.'"

Some random persons response whose probably arguing in favor of it:

"Facebook is not the town square. It's the private event venue full of ..."

Umm doesn't that make it all the more disturbing though?

I mean in the United State they argue for FCC-style no curse words style regulation based on the idea radio and TV are accessible to anyone over the airwaves. Now cable networks get a free pass because you don't have to subscribe.

That begs the question then if the internet is in the same boat as cable television shouldn't it also be hands off. Those who don't want their kids on the internet or on social media can simply choose not to subscribe or otherwise block those sites/services/etc utilizing the same sorts of tools that parents have had available to them since the 90s.

Ultimately kids are smart and no regulation or law, school, or parent will be able to keep their 'child' off the internet forever. At some point a 'normal' youngster particularly given the ages we're realistically talking is going to be able to get around these bans.

Maybe you can keep your ~0-10 year old off the internet, but good luck with that for older 'kids' short of being a psychotic lunatic of a parent today.

If kids can get other products like eSmokes or whatever they're called despite humans checking ID and effectively so there is no way your going to be able keep a 'normal' IQ 'child' of 11 from figuring out how to acquire an inexpensive device and getting online~ and then getting around the blocking and/or regulations (ie use non-UK non-compliant sites).