Scheuer allegedly went into action quickly following his termination, and by early July was said to have used his work credentials, which still functioned after his termination, to access the menu creation system Disney contracted another company to create and change all the fonts in the system to wingdings symbols.
Okay. So while jail is probably appropriate given the potential threat of harm if nobody had reviewed the menus prior to their publication with the allergens stripped...
The tech community should not let Disney off the hook for failing to scrub the access credentials of a terminated employee. Because the law can punish one actor, but if the attack vector is still open, the public isn't safe from future more subtle incidents of menu manipulation (or other similar attacks by other disgruntled employees).
Is there any information on what Disney did after this incident to prevent another Scheuer in the future? The root of the attack is that the sFTP system was accessible via "credentials [that] were non-individualized, not specific to a particular user, and available for use by multiple employees with administrative access."
(I'm also a little unclear on whether this was all owned by Disney proper or they were farming this out to a third-party service provider company and that company screwed up. With so many entertainment venues in such a small area, Orlando is positively shot through with high-volume, hyper-focused service provider companies that do stuff like this).
Article appears to blame developers for not attracting VCs to crypto. Right... Because every other industry would blame the developers for not attracting VC's to their industry, right? Right? And of course VC's are where it's at...
I think the better/mature response to this cultural change is to design takehomes anticipating the use of AI and then seeing where the canddiate got lost in the weeds or gets lost when cross questoined about it
There were 30% layoffs at a company I worked at and one of the 'survivors' was so traumatised by it that they took their own life. It's a known phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor_guilt
Apple did NOT create the smartphone. When the iPhone released in 2007 it was a feature phone- no app store and famously missing featured like copy and paste. Besides Palm who you have mentioned there was Symbian and Windows Mobile which each had third party after market apps available.
Indeed Apple did not invent the concept of the smartphone. But by all accounts the first iPhone was absolutely considered a smartphone, based on its superior hardware, advanced operating system, and fully-functional web browser.
You seem to be equating "smartphone" with "has third party apps", but that isn't the defining characteristic of "smartphone" based on any common usage.
Besides, when the iOS App Store was launched ~1 year later, the original iPhone was able to use it.
I had a Nokia n95 at the time. It also had superior hardware and a fully functional web browser. Yes the iPhone was attractive at the time but not initially a smartphone and certainly not the first
I did not say iPhone was the first, I said the opposite. And again, your definition which equates "smartphone" with "has an app store" simply differs from widespread usage of the term.
Both the n95 and original iPhone were widely considered to be smartphones at the time! Examples:
Apple & Android took the smartphone from something that belonged in a businessman’s belt holster to something that lives in the pocket of every person on the planet who can afford it, from niche to ubiquity. For sure they did not invent “phone with store”, but they did create or strongly participate in a complete change of the market that left the earlier players - Windows Mobile, BlackBerry, Nokia, etc buried six feet under.
Rutherfordium has relatively stable isotopes (up to 48 min) [1] and is definitely agreed to exist. This article is about extremely neutron-deficient isotopes and their excited states.
There are two forces fighting with each other: Many protons repel each other with their positve electric charge. But they also attract each other with their strong force. It's complicated but if you simplify you could say too large nuclei tend not to hold together.
If you add electric neutral neutrons you have more strong force but the electrical repulsion doesn't increase. So if you have more neutrons, you might have larger nuclei.
They measured what happens if some element's isotope has too few neutrons. They were surprised about the extremely short half-times. From that they estimated on the opposite side (again simplifying here!) that very large nuclei with a lot of neutrons could be stabler than known up to today.
So: on one side (few neutrons) extremely unstable, so on the other side (more neutrons) stabler than expected?
That's what I understood from the article. I have no idea.
Close, but not quite. The general tendency for large nuclei to be less stable is correct, but for any given size, there is something of a optimum proton/neutron ratio that is most stable, and either adding or removing neutrons will reduce the half-life (minus various complications involving magic numbers etc.). At the very neutron-rich end, isotopes tend to spontaneously and rapidly emit the excess neutrons, and at the very neutron-poor end they will spontaneously shed protons to stabilize themselves. If you map these boundaries on the table of nuclides, you get the so-called neutron and proton driplines, respectively, which delineate the isotopes that, as GGP put it, can be reasonably agreed to exist. If you are interested in this stuff, [1] is a decent overview.
This paricular article is about mapping out isotopes close to the proton-drip-line in a heavy synthetic element, with the particular result that excited states can be more long-lived than the ground state of the isotope. This again is nothing particularly new. Generally excited states are short-lived, but there are many known examples of inversion, with the most extreme being a rare, naturally occurring, isotope of Tantalum: Ta-180m. The ground state Ta-180 has a half-life of 8 minutes, while the excited state is de facto stable, with a still unknown half-life in excess of 3*10^17 years [2].
To me, the rules given to you are pure gatekeeping. The fact that even after they had given successively more restrictive rules for what should be a trivial program they then verbally restricted you further confirms this. I would question whether this was actually an interview for a real job or not but in any case it's not you it's them.
