Also frequency re-use. They will talk on the same frequency to multiple ground terminals, but pointed different directions from the satellites perspective.
> edit: and for the record if your messages on a dating app are not E2E encrypted then you are making a terrible mistake. I can't believe anyone would voluntarily make this decision.
Reality goes something like this: You roll out your E2EE dating app, it gets successful, you're winning bigly. Then cops show up with an order from a judge demanding you hand over information regarding user #890202 because they are suspected of using your platform to entice minors into sexual activity. This is usually where the E2EE worship falls flat, for legitimate societal reason.
If you want E2EE you need to use a dedicated app specifically ONLY for that (Signal, WhatsApp, etc). Any time you bolt on other business or incentives and then use E2EE as the messaging platform you will discover a world of pain in my opinion.
it's always that isn't it? They could go raid the guy's home perhaps. Alternatively you sent embarrassing messages to a woman on a dating app, you have a weird fetish you discussed with someone on there, you're cheating on your wife, or maybe some nation-state actor wants some blackmail on you. A hacker or disgruntled employee has dumped a database of all the messages and journalists and Twitter users are going through it right now. Or maybe you don't trust Bumble. They seem to have an axe to grind anyway.
Not that the issue of minors isn't a problem but I don't think that should always override people's privacy. And FWIW there is plenty of space for people to share compromising messages on the dating app before they can manage to convince a stranger to download Signal and continue the conversation there. That's if you're lucky enough that she doesn't immediately think you are a scammer of some kind.
I am on the side of privacy extremists but a lot of people find that to be a nonstarter so to each their own. I wouldn't dare go on a dating app that didn't have E2EE though or at least a way to anonymize yourself so no phone # required. ;)
I think privacy-first is the the correct mental model to have. I've had to explain to some people that the usage of a certain platform by drug dealers, pedophiles, and organized violent crime isn't a defect, but really a feature in theory. If the tech or platform sucked/was-compromised, they wouldn't gravitate towards it. It is a weird conversation, but most people do seem to grok it in that sense.
Ah there it is. The usual doomer mentality that is so common I want to vomit when I see it. A mixed-market economy is not "Crony Capitalism". Stop exaggerating for upvotes.
Doomer? When did being honest and realistic become doomer?
It's as if you missed the college debt forgiveness. What was that? First, the gov stepped in, manipulated a market, increased demand, etc., and that eventuallyt went sideways.
And then it stepped in to pull the plug in that mistake. The POTUS promises the forgiveness program will make buying a home more afford...because the demand he created won't result in higher prices. Huh?
The only doom comes from those who can't face facts and keep their heads buried in the sand.
> It's as if you missed the college debt forgiveness. What was that? First, the gov stepped in, manipulated a market, increased demand, etc., and that eventuallyt went sideways.
No one with a fucking brain thinks that was a good idea. But that's what Democrats do.
50 cents of every dollar earned by farmers in the US is paid by tax dollars buying excess food at fixed, over market prices. Lookup the strategic cheese reserve.
Does the government pay half your salary? They take half of mine.
At first, half sounds like hyperbole, I'll give you that.
But then think about all the various taxes we pay directly (e.g., gasoline, internet and phone services, etc.). Then add on the taxes that are embedded in the costs of any of the other goods we buy. It adds up.
Finally, if you consider The Fed a government agency, any time The Fed devalues your money (i.e., "prints" money and creates inflation) that's also all but a tax. That is, we have less to spend.
It might not be half, but it's certainly significantly more than your income tax rate.
If you live in a major metropolitan area, or own a home that has rapidly appreciated, well, it all adds up quickly.
Also consider: import taxes raise the price of goods, and thus are a wealth transfer from consumers to producers. Sugar is the classic example: import tariffs increase the effective tax burden of the lowest income quartile substantially, as they spend a larger percentage of their income on food. Anything with high fructose corn syrup, sweetener, or sugar is more expensive. And the corn farmers get that money.
> (Aside: why do you even think the president is in that convoy? They may well be elsewhere, moved into the third suburban at the last possible invisible moment.)
Unless they are actively repelling an attack, I can guarantee you that the President is absolutely not anywhere except the Beast. All of the other vehicles in the motorcade are less armored, and do not carry the critical items the President may need, namely his blood. The standard operating procedure if the President's motorcade is attacked is to exfil the President while the CAT (Counter Assault Team) lays down massive amounts of suppressing fire. To that goal, the Beast is the safest vehicle for the President to be riding in.
I really wish people would stop conflating reducing the attack surface with safe software default configurations. They are not the same. There is value in hiding your listening sockets/ports from the world. Anyone who does not believe so frankly has never been responsible for security beyond their laptop and maybe some random VM in AWS they SSH into.
Have you ever been responsible for security in a professional sense? Hiding attack surfaces is standard operating procedure. No one with a triple digit IQ seriously thinks any piece of software is going to be secure to infinity.
While I am sure you are competent like most folks on here, I will say this: I have met a good number of people who claim they can "get in and get out un-noticed". In retrospect, I think rarely did they consider the possibilities of observation beyond the actual target system.
My point is this: There is no defense against 0-day/X-day exploits in the wild. But the second best thing against being patched is logging and properly tuned alerting. In my 20-ish years of working in this field I've caught half a dozen attackers/intruders via logs and anomaly alerts. Without those 2nd best things in place the entire network(s) would probably have been compromised.
The one note I will mention about SpaceX and caring about HW/terminal security is the subsidized cost. SpaceX is retailing the terminal I bought for $500, while I understand the hardware all-in is north of $2000.
In these scenarios you will usually see the vendor default to locking down the platform/hardware, if for nothing else to prevent people from buying it and re-purposing it due to subsidized components included.
Regarding the security clearance, while you are not technically wrong in theory, in practice things are heavily compartmentalized at an individual human level by "need to know" practices.
It kind of opened my eyes to how much a maze the IC is regarding classifications and data restrictions. We may both have TS clearances, but I may have access to wayyyy more crazy stuff than you do, based on what I am officially working on. However, on paper we may have the same levels of "trust" from the system's perspective.
> After promising "no new taxes" during his campaign, he later agreed to do the fiscally responsible thing and raise taxes in order to offset spending increases.
That is an extremely charitable parsing of the events. The more accurate (realpolitik) version is Bush said the no new taxes quip, and Democrats subsequently laser-focused on making him (slightly) raise taxes, showing he is a "liar".
My take away is to learn not to promise overly optimistic outcomes when your political rivals have a significant stake in seeing you either be a success or a failure.
Edit: Not sure why this was flagged. Did not mean to come off as hostile or aggressive. Anyways, cheers.
> The more accurate (realpolitik) version is Bush said the no new taxes quip, and Democrats subsequently laser-focused on making him (slightly) raise taxes, showing he is a "liar".
These days I think a Republican president in the same position would be a lot more likely to refuse to sign it, even it if meant shutting down the government. But politicians (and voters) really were much less divided back then compared to today.
> My take away is to learn not to promise overly optimistic outcomes when your political rivals have a significant stake in seeing you either be a success or a failure.
Over-promising is the bread and butter of campaign rhetoric; candidates do it all the time (certainly in US presidential elections at least). If it was really that much of a problem in practice, you'd see more election winners who hadn't previously promised all kinds of things they have no chance of delivering.
