I forced a refresh of the VirusTotal results. It is only being flagged by a single engine: MaxSecure, an Indian anti-virus vendor that has gone out of business.
Lenders of money want to get their money back. They try to minimize the number of factors that threaten getting their money back. Those factors are called "risks".
El Salvador wants to borrow money. The IMF is willing to lend it, but sees El Salvador's Bitcoin policies as a risk to getting their money back.
From the IMF's perspective it is a risk to El Salvador's economy and therefore the repayment of the IMF's loan.
Your reply addresses nothing in my comment. The truth of the matter is that El Salvador reached out to the IMF for funding to address a number of issues listed in the announcement, and the adoption of Bitcoin as a national currency is one of many many topics covered by the deal. Spinning this as "the IMF paid off El Salvador to shut down Bitcoin" is, again, a take born out of functional illiteracy.
You are talking about industrial applications. Devices running in residential or commercial environments should be better designed. Proper shielding and grounding is a much better solution than a Y capacitor.
Line filters are everywhere. They're generally required to pass conducted emissions requirements. They aren't going away soon, and our fault protection devices need to work with them, not blindly ignore how we've been meeting EMC requirements for decades.
I thought it's the other way around. There are standards for line filters for precisely this case. The device is either non conforming or damaged or the power in this home is out of tolerance in one way or another.
The TLDR is EV chargers want an exemption from ground fault protection because they have ground fault protection built in. Lots of devices have built in protections for various electrical faults, but we still put them upstream because one of the things we are protecting against is the device itself faulting.
It is like the people holding this view don't understand that Wish.com and Aliexpress exist.
So then what’s protecting the protection? And that protection? At some point you have to stop. EVSEs have to be UL rated and conform to the J1772 spec. Their entire reason for existing is safety, and they basically don’t do anything else. They don’t modify the delivered power in any way. I guess they have a plug that’s rated for 1000s of connection cycles, but that’s really a safety thing too. Putting another GFCI behind that is a silly waste of time, money and another point of failure.
Look out your window at the power pole, you'll see a transformer. That has breakers, differential relays, and other protections.
> And that protection?
Substations have RTUs and SCADA systems that are constantly monitoring everything for faults. They have cool shit like oil breakers that can kill even the large inputs to the substation.
> At some point you have to stop.
No, you don't. The protections go all the way back to the power generation site.
This must be facetious? A GFCI breaker in a house's electrical panel and any breakers present in the transformer on the utility pole are protecting against _very_ different scenarios -- the breaker in the house is to stop someone from accidentally electrocuting themselves, but the breaker on the pole won't even notice an amount of current that could easily kill someone.
Nothing upstream of your electrical panel is sensitive enough to save you the way GFCI outlets are intended to. They aren't even sensitive enough to tell if your whole house is going up because of an electrical fire, they're there for downed power lines etc you getting zapped in the tub is barely a blip to those protection systems.
Yeah even putting aside the Temu specials, a belt and suspenders approach to not killing people does not deserve the derision this article gives it. The built in ground fault protection is there to protect the equipment not humans. In the real world stuff that “shouldn’t happen” eventually happens.
You have fallen victim to Microsoft intentionally blurring the line between security patching and software changes. A security fix should never be bundled with or uninstallable without a UI/feature change unless that change is critical to fixing the vulnerability.
>A security fix should never be bundled with or uninstallable without a UI/feature change unless that change is critical to fixing the vulnerability.
That's a nice thought but in practice it's infeasible to keep different branches for different UI/feature sets around in perpetuity. Consumer of Windows only gets 2 years of support, which is short compared to Ubuntu's 5 years of support for LTS (10 years if you pay them), but you can get similar support periods through enterprise contracts. It's also longer than mobile platforms, which only offer 1 year (if that).
> That's a nice thought but in practice it's infeasible to keep different branches for different UI/feature sets around in perpetuity.
They have been doing exactly that since Windows 98. Windows Update used to only auto install security/bug patches and features were optional installs.
Microsoft also has an entire line of POSReady/WEI that gets only critical security fixes with zero other changes. This version of Windows is what runs on ATMs and self checkout machines.
Yea, I would almost be OK with security patches being automatically applied by default (as long as there was a clear way to turn them off). I'd grumble about it, because ultimately I should be in charge of what gets installed and run on my computer, and I feel my computer should not do things that I have not deliberately commanded it to do. But just force-feeding me software simply because the manufacturer wants me to run it? No bueno.
Finally! It was annoying have to Google the poorly documented --register-unsafely-without-email every single time you needed a one off cert for something.
> In contrast, Ashburn, Dallas, and LA seem to lack ASN diversity, primarily being dominated by singular big tech companies
I don't think you understand the scale of the "Ashburn Metro Area." It is upwards of 250 buildings (maybe 50 of which are "big tech companies") compared to the 70 or so in Amsterdam.
Are you familiar with what ASNs actually are? That is like saying Delaware is the biggest US state by land mass because every large company is incorporated there.
You can both be right, and that's OK :) While you seem mostly concerned with "amount of served/handled data", parent seems to be more concerned with diversity, both are valid ways to judge what makes a "data center capital".
I don't think they're saying Amsterdam is the biggest country because of ASN diversity, but if someone says "What is the data center capital of the world?" both ways would be valid ways to understand the answer.
I remember being awed by the size of the new data center at the Ashburn UUNET campus when we first occupied the campus. It was one of our new “NFL” sites. They were called that because the locations where we built the new large data centers matched up pretty well with cities with NFL teams. It now looks like a small garden shed in comparison to the newer data centers around it.
Although it initially had no single central nexus, one eventually formed in the underground parking garage of an office building in Vienna, VA.
I had a chance to see this ~10 years ago. A data center where a fair amount of "servers" were rows of desktop computers. The top of the building had a whole bunch of antennas and satellite dishes. I never knew the history until you posted this link. :)
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/950eea4e17fa3a7e89fa2c55...