I constantly have two window air purifiers running at home. They lower the indoor CO2 and their filtration also dramatically lowers the indoor particulates. Granted, I can't run them as such in deep winter or deep summer.

Motivated by the article, I will proceed with using a continuous portable CO2 meter when not home.

If your air purifier sucks from and dumps into the same room it will do nothing for CO2 levels. Only for dust particulates.

I noted clearly that they're window air purifiers, suggesting that they intake from outside. As such they absolutely bring the indoor CO2 level closer to the outdoor CO2 level. This also happens to be a good way of capturing dust.

It was the first time for the US since WWII. Other countries have used them in combat over the years since WWII. He couldn't even get that right.

Is it not clear yet that the fossil fuel crisis is of a nation's own choice and making?

The issue with gas is Europe's own choice, which also makes this not true:

> "However, an analysis from the University of Oxford has found that maximising oil and gas extraction here would only save UK households up to £82 (€95) per year."

UK and Europe could produce a lot of gas and could then decide at what price to sell it locally, it would not have to be at international markets' prices.

It is policy not to do either in order to decarbonise. Certainly it is understandable not to encourage people to use gas, but on the other hand countries are reliant on gas and have then to import it...

Why do people still use others untrusted Actions, especially without hashes? Just have an LLM write whatever script you need to do it yourself using the necessary tools.

Granted, if the underlying CLI tool itself is compromised, then avoiding the associated Action won't help you.

It might in theory be great to have an AI bot do this for all links of known paywalled sites if a good quality free alternative is available and discoverable by the AI bot. The bot could use the web search tool of an LLM service for this purpose. If not available, it could keep rechecking every fibonacci hour for up to 21 hours.

That just gets us links from whichever SEO spam farm is best at prompt-injecting LLMs into believing they provide a "good quality free alternative".

It doesn't have to be that way. An allowlist of domains can be built over time. Also, the bot's suggestions can initially be vetted by a human. As for prompt injection, there are additional ways to mitigate the risk using domain exclusion, roles, and input validation, but I guess unimaginative AI haters will find any excuse to be haters.

It was bad enough that the Pentagon hardly shares any bad news. When bad news gets exposed by third parties, e.g. strikes on US facilities and planes, also on Iran's schools and civilian buildings, the Pentagon only covers it up with lies or censure. Any organization that is not committed to spreading the truth is not a good organization, and suppression is worse.

The best router to use would be one with a foundation-controlled active open-source firmware that works, although ideally the hardware assembly too should be open source.

Not a dupe really. Those are FCC links about a covered list, not directly about a ban. Some topics are better off being covered redundantly from multiple angles.

It's a horrific article that starts off wrong by equating specification with code. In reality, the relevance of a specification comes with substantial abstraction that its author doesn't care about. The goodness of a spec is not just from what is defined, but also from what is left out. Code on the other hand leaves nothing out, unless you get into compiler level optimizations. The two are not the same.

Exactly. They don't even have the know-how to defend themselves -- there is no hope of them getting on the offensive, at least not without extensive external help.

This has nothing to do with the reality of computer security. Not getting hacked requires doing everything right and some luck. Hacking requires some luck or doing one thing right.

The problem is to hack something you need to know the what, where, who.

Companies have a very visible what, where, who in most cases.

Hacker don't, and take extra steps to obscure it (e.g. jump hosts, bot nets etc.).

Now if it's idk. a spear phishing campaign or similar "hacking back" by giving them trapped data or reverse social engineering attacks might work.

But if it's a technical security vulnerability some one found by scanning and sneaked into using multi-country jump hosts and cleaned up behind them. Then you have little chances to find them and to do so likely requires getting information from telcoms which require judge orders to be handed over, and from multiple countries, too.

Sure though I would view that as a separate problem with the idea of asking anyone to target attackers.. Everyone is an equally good psychic some believe they are better than others.

Extending your logic, highly debatable as it is, a firm should first of all be hacking itself constantly via red teaming. This will help it discover and perhaps fix issues that external hackers can otherwise exploit. This self-offense is a means of defense.

Every company that meets modern regulations runs scanners that identify some attacks against themselves. The scanners sold to them stop there because it is liability to do anything beyond that. You don't have to be a genius to use Telegram instead of Teams you'll simply be fired for taking risks with better tools for the job than organizations and governments want to be acceptable and routine if you are in a Western regulated industry.

Announce a change that is believable and all the corporate software will change to match the utility that is no longer a liability.

It applies to more things than computer security. Best defense is offense is a very old and broad say.

it's also why Germany started WW1 and what made it easy to put all the blame on them (after WW1, WW2 is a different thing)

and also is related to common war crimes iff in a conflict combatants frequently hide as civilians (as a defense by offense will sooner or later lead to attacking random civilians due to mistaking them for hidden combatants)

so I would take that saying with a bit of salt

Guerrilla warfare strategies undercut old saying like this and are essentially what these hacker groups represent