@Telorand
@reddthat.comCheck your airflow. It could be that heat is building somewhere and being recycled into the intake.
Thermal Grizzly also makes a high performance pad (i.e. nothing wrong with using a properly-rated pad), so if you think yours is good, it's probably airflow related.
Chinese state-sponsored spies have been spotted inside a global engineering firm's network, having gained initial entry using an admin portal's default credentials on an IBM AIX server.
In an exclusive interview with The Register, Binary Defense's Director of Security Research John Dwyer said the cyber snoops first compromised one of the victim's three unmanaged AIX servers in March, and remained inside the US-headquartered manufacturer's IT environment for four months while poking around for more boxes to commandeer.
Emphasis mine.
"Hmm, yes. Let's connect this server to our trusted network and never touch it again." FFS.
Honestly, this is the question people should be asking in response. I totally get the gut reaction against censorship, but I don't think anyone would agree that Facebook, Xitter, etm. are innocent, neutral parties in all of this.
Part of the issue (as the article points out) is that those companies have been allowed to essentially craft people's internal narrative, often amplifying our worst impulses and inclinations—all in service of making the black line go up for investors.
So is banning social media for teens the correct path forward? Maybe in the short term, but until we direct the governance to the companies creating the problems in the first place, we're almost certainly going to have this conversation again in the future.
It's still an ad, intentional or not, mainly because of the unrestrained, almost hyperbolic positivity. It sounds almost exactly like a pitch to investors, assuring them that they can invest in this totally-not-a-fad tech scheme. Also, it's a wall of text...
Which is exactly what I'd expect from a LLM that doesn't actually comprehend what it's writing but instead plagiarizes and amalgamates businesses pitches and internet fanboy screed.
It's not a copyright suit, it's a patent suit. So it's indeed just like the Apple suit, though what patents were infringed upon is still unknown as of now.
But that's all they are: guesses. The fundamental flaw in looking to history for future behavior is the assumption that each person elected to office has the same motivations, ideals, and philosophies.
They want to get elected, sure, but wanting to get elected isn't the same as desiring to keep that office. If I had the skills to run for office, I would be willing to sacrifice reelection to ensure good legislation passed, for example.
"No, see. It's 'climate smart,' because it makes us more money by being smart and advertising it with the word 'climate.' So, no harm, no foul?"