Does it at least pick a good spot for it in Sharepoint? A bit off topic but at my last job we used the Webex - Sharepoint "integration" and it worked the same way but it would just prompt you for where to share it from in the folder structure, but from the root. Inevitably people would just create a folder and share it, but the default permissions on the folder would mean nobody had access to it but the sharer. So you'd add the people in the room (manually) and then when someone new joined the room you'd need to manually add them as well, every time... We were a little surprised that the integration wouldn't automatically grant access to anyone in the room.
I think it was at least better than that. I don't remember having permission issues with uploaded files.
It's been a while, so I can't remember exactly where it put them. But the directory structure had the room name in it. As a user I didn't get a choice where they went.
I'd note that this was advice given by the antagonist to the protagonist, so that the protagonist would _willingly_ give up his existence to the antagonist.
A friend of mine has been complaining that a DAW is the only thing keeping him stuck in Windows at this point as well. In his case, he specifically said that VST's were the problem. Was your experience the same?
Bitwig is a very good DAW with native Linux support. It's made by former Ableton devs so it definitely leans in that direction, but it works pretty well for other types of workflows too, especially with the recently released version 4.
VSTs are definitely an issue; most high quality commercial plugins are still only released for mac/windows. However there are a few projects for running them in wine and it generally works pretty well.
I do think we'll see more and more Linux in studios going forward, but it would help if Linux got its pro audio story together. Pipewire is a big step in the right direction but not yet mature.
Yep, for me it's the DAW and VSTs that keep me needing Windows for now. You can try to make them work with Wine or whatever, but it's not worth the hassle.
I think it's pretty clear from the full text that he's not advocating for racism against past racists or their offspring (which, intentional or not, is what your use of the quote makes it sound like).
He's advocating for "anti-racism" which claims there is no such thing as "not racist" policy, only racist policy and anti-racist policy. But he jumps through hoops to redefine racism so that it can suit his argument that "not racist" doesn't exist. That if you don't consider race in literally everything then you are racist, by his definition. This is in direct opposition to the Civil Rights act of 1964:
"Since the 1960s, racist power has commandeered the term “racial discrimination,” transforming the act of discriminating on the basis of race into an inherently racist act. But if racial discrimination is defined as treating, considering, or making a distinction in favor or against an individual based on that person’s race, then racial discrimination is not inherently racist. The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity."
I think the redefining racism you mention is simply pointing out, at a high level, that one law does not erase injustice ingrained into power systems that were instructed by racism for literally hundreds of years, or the effects those systems have had on the targets of this racism and their offspring (things like generational wealth accumulation), and everyone else subject to those systems.
The other thing is the idea that, for those of us growing up in various segments of society that are affected by the above, our very mechanism of thought was generated by this system, and that affects how we think about and perceive these systems (and everything else).
I believe he's simply advocating for being conscious of the above two facts, when examining these systems and reforming them (and of course when teaching the history of these systems). To ignore race and racism as if it never happened is to allow all of that ingrained racism to perpetuate (of systems and of thought). All of this sounds pretty reasonable to me, but that may be due to my particular experience.
That said - I'm no expert, I've only read the linked passage so far, though I've now ordered the book and will start reading it tonight. I'll refrain from commenting further here (I think we're pretty off-topic already). Thanks for the discussion!
In the linked article, for lower income groups white men trail black men for college admissions. (Let alone black women.)
You can't always unequivocally state that white people are privileged over non-whites in every circumstance. Obviously it's going to be true in many cases, but it can't always be just assumed.
It's not as off-topic as you might think as critical theory covers a wide range of things.
One of the biggest issues with Kendi and similar works (of which there are many in the academic world) are they paint a false dichotomy and they frame themselves as the only legitimate response to historical racism, etc. That is, anti-racism is the only way to combat "white supremacy". It's illiberal in this regard (and in fact, the entire body of critical theory is not only skeptical to western liberalism but actively attacks it as "the tools of the oppressor") and I hope you find his remedies as totalitarian and insane as I do. For instance, I don't think a "Department of Anti-Racism" which is staffed by "formally trained anti-racists" and not appointed by elected officials with the authority to "clear" all local, state, and federal policies to ensure they are "anti-racist" is a good idea. And to be equipped with "disciplinary tools" to punish non-compliance...
The Broadcom link in the posted tweet records [some of?] their reasoning. Things like very North America specific strings, activity happening M-F for certain things (compilation, etc), capability (access to zero days implying deep pockets to buy said zero days), and breadth of target, etc.
That said - it ABSOLUTELY BOGGLES MY MIND that, if these are not leaked, but rather recovered from attempted attacks, how are _any_ valid timestamps and strings not randomized as part of the build process!? I'm not saying it refutes or confirms, I'm just wondering - how difficult is it to read an ELF | PE and remove / change those things, and if it's as easy as I'm thinking, why would you not do so? Or replace with preprocessor directives that you could setup to random values for production builds to use strings and timestamps that indicate some other entity? All of this seems straightforward to me, like, could do via shell scripting or python. Is there a valid reason to leave this stuff in? Are we seeing some low priority work that the TLA wants to leak to show that they're out there and capable?
> Or replace with preprocessor directives that you could setup to random values for production builds to use strings and timestamps that indicate some other entity?
They do, except they're not random. Check out the CIA Vault 7 leaks from a few years ago. They purposefully leave trails that point to other countries including using foreign languages for variable names/comments.
> “[D]esigned to allow for flexible and easy-to-use obfuscation” as “string obfuscation algorithms (especially those that are unique) are often used to link malware to a specific developer or development shop.”
> The source code shows that Marble has test examples not just in English but also in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi. This would permit a forensic attribution double game, for example by pretending that the spoken language of the malware creator was not American English, but Chinese, but then showing attempts to conceal the use of Chinese, drawing forensic investigators even more strongly to the wrong conclusion, — but there are other possibilities, such as hiding fake error messages.
Ah OK good, thanks for the link. Right, this seems like something _I_ could probably handle with a weekend or two's worth of research (meaning it's pretty simple because I'm no hacker).
And Broadcom _does_ note that they associate with Vault7 group via the whole picture, but it's weird they present the strings and dates data without noting that it would be trivial to fake, and don't give any specificity to the other data points.
I guess for this type of work the only thing you _really_ have is the code's intent, if you can figure that out.
Right, and also - did they really "commit", at least in the "pledge" or "binding promise" sense of the word? I think "commit" might be too strong of a word. Maybe "plans to" would be better.
They can announce this now and change their mind as they please, right? I'm not sure about Apple's track record on things like this, they may be good, but they could just slowly pull or decrease funding, and we probably won't even hear about it in the future, or am I missing something?
Are these budgets available online, or at least at the ask to the public? Since they're not paying taxes, I think they should be. If not, then who exactly is it transparent to?
The church across the street from my house is large and I'm sure heating and upkeep is no small chunk of change. A good portion of the cars parked in the reserved row (staff) are nicer than mine, so I'm guessing the salary isn't necessarily "modest".
bash syntax is terse enough that it's practical at the interactive command line. Thus once you take it up, you take it up for scripts AND daily interactive use. For system operators who use both frequently, between these two you quickly internalize the abbreviations. I can see it being an issue for infrequent users.
While it's not terrible, I find powershell pretty frustrating. I started off enthusiastic, especially given how archaic cmd.exe is. As mentioned elsewhere though, the advice not to use aliases, coupled with unbelievably long command names that I hate typing and can't always recall exactly - is it convert-to-csv? to-csv? no it's convertto-csv - I can never remember and I don't feel I should need to use ISE to work around this. This utterly prevents me from internalizing.
Even worse, until v3 apparently, iterating over an empty array would fail out (iterate once on $null instead of not iterating at all) and had to be protected with an explicit check. I was on v2, and it was at this point that I completely checked out and decided it wasn't worth learning and that I'd wasted my time. In general I could do what I needed with either cygwin or win32 cpython and those didn't make me feel like clawing my own eyes out.
It seems the situation has improved, but I just don't see any reason to take it up again, ESPECIALLY on linux, unless I _have to_ do dotnet stuff, and even if I do I'll explore every other available option first (ironpython? f#? is there a dotnet tcl?) TBH I avoid dotnet anyways given Microsoft's past (EEE) and current (telemetry, start menu ads, etc) behavior. Fool me once etc etc etc.
Terrible UX.