Health in old age is something that you invest in, much the same as wealth. Of course you can suffer an accident, or lose your investments from bad luck. But in both cases you're guaranteed bad results if you don't put the effort consistently and starting when you're younger.
For health, this means making exercise, good sleep, and good diet a part of your daily routine. Much like investments, you can go as deep on that as you like, but if you start early all you need is basic knowledge.
Personally I'm not sure why people are fixating on this particular point - companies rarely tend to lay off their high performers. Sometimes they might axe entire divisions and that would include both high and low performers, but whenever it's not that the implication is clear.
I did spend the first half of my career in banking though, so maybe I've got a different baseline.
This applies to everything, a mechanic, a lawyer, a dentist. You can't have all the prerequisite knowledge on every field where you may need to make big choices so eventually you'll need to talk to someone.
If it's not the bank, and it's not you, it has to be someone else. You can ask over email for all the information available on the products from the bank and take it to an independent advisor. Eventually you'll run into the need to have a live chat with that trusted advisor or risk moving one mail per day in each direction trying to explain what you want and what you could get.
Yes, the $5 wrench in action. The only protection against that is to not have the information on the device or in any account associated with or used from the device.
Impractical for a normal person who wants to just live their life.
I’d argue that what an NFT really is is a vehicle for laundering huge amounts of dirty money.
The banana, the angle of the banana the certificate itself are all theatre, designed to be a plausible high value good that can be created from thin air with the sole purpose of being an excuse to transfer someone some money that they can then claim to be legitimate earnings regardless of where the money originally came from.
Anyone who gets suckered into this scene without understanding its true nature is, well, a sucker.
Correct, as a London bike commuter for over a decade I can confirm that nobody in their right mind uses a shared cycle path. They’re dangerous for pedestrians, and you can’t make any kind of decent progress on them as they’re filled with bins, lampposts, blind driveways, and best of all even bus shelters. Then when you get to the end of it at some random point you’re not expecting there’s no way of joining a road without having to cede priority.
Kids riding to school is the only use case they satisfy.
I was aware of this being the case when dealing with consumers, but had assumed that because B2B contracts are assumed to be between 2 sophisticated parties that there is little legislative protection that could override the terms of the contract.
My understanding of law is generally UK based, but I'm not aware of legislation what would supersede a contract term limiting liability when the event that created the liability was one of general diligence/competence in carrying out the contract rather than relating to health and safety or some other area that is heavily legislated.
For that reason I'm unconvinced on the article's statement that this isn't just a "French Legal System" thing and that the same kind of judgement might be made in other jurisdictions.
As the article already states, in most jurisdictions you cannot void gross negligence liability in contracts. It will probably come down to that in those jurisdictions.
If they willfully did not implement staged rollouts that look like negligence to me but ianal. You kill canaries for a reason.
Well for starters it did impact health and safety domains; hospitals and emergency services were severely degraded. There absolutely will be preventable deaths directly traceable to Crowdstrike.
I think the general idea is that gross negligence is a breach of contract. Every contract implicitly assumes that both parties are making a good faith effort to honor the terms of the contract. If you are not doing that, you may be in breach of contract, and the liability limitations may no longer apply.
Alas in the world of B2B, contracts from larger companies nearly always come with lists of specific requirements for security controls that must be implemented, which nearly always include requiring anti-virus.
It just not as simple as commenters on this thread wish!
The contracts are rarely specifying stuff like antivirus explicitly, but instead compliance with one or more of the security standards like PCI DSS. Those say you have to use antivirus, but they all have an escape hatch called a "compensating control" which is basically "we solved the problem this is trying to solve this other way that's more conducive to our overall security posture, and got the auditor to agree with us".
My source: I review a lot of contracts. It's very common for things to be explicitly required.
Yes you can go back and forth and argue the toss, but it pushes up the cost of the sale and forces your customer to navigate a significant amount of bureaucracy to get a contract agreed. Or you could just run AV like they asked you to...
Can you propose an example of a compensating control for an "antivirus" that had a chance to pass? Would you propose something like custom SELinux/Apparmor setup + maybe auditd with alerting? Or some Windows equivalent of those.
compensating controls ftw. the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law. our system was more secure with the compensating controls, vs the prescribed design. this meant no having to rotate passwords because fuck that noise.
I agree with running but not cycling - I’d say it’s merely a question of how hard you try.
Cycling is one of the very few sports (along with maybe swimming) that you can do for extreme amounts of time without acutely harming your body.
The issue that does affect people is that if you started with the bad diet, you probably don’t have the fitness to produce the required output that would overcome it.
If you manage to increase your fitness so that you sustain higher outputs however you absolutely can out-train your terrible diet!
Even with running - especially with running - you can easily burn enormous amounts of calories.
There are two problems with this saying.
First, nobody knows what a bad diet is in the context of this saying. How many calories are we talking? How poorly balanced is the diet?
Let's take a basic example: assume the perfect diet for a sedentary person, well balanced, exactly the right amount of calories, etc. Then on top of it, this person eats a 200g pack of Haribo 4 times a week. Surely this makes that diet insanely bad, right? Well, not really, it's only about 500 excess kcal/day which would be very easily compensated if this person had an active lifestyle. So how insanely bad does the diet need to be until the argument actually works? This saying is usually directed at people who want to lose weight, surely nobody is trying to lose weight in good faith if they drink soda daily, eat donuts left and right, and some haribos to top it off.
The second problem, is that people are scarily sedentary and view what should be a completely normal amount of physical activity as impossible. So what upper bound are we putting on the "running" part of the saying?
Doing 1-2 hours of sport 4 times during the work week, plus one longer physical activity on the week end (e.g., half a day hike or bike ride) is a completely normal amount of sport.
4-10 hours of exercise a week, for starters, is a lot more than what most people achieve. And it burns a ridiculously low amount of calories. Maybe ~300kcal/hour of excess calories burnt. That's ~3000kcal/week. You can ruin that in one sitting at Pizza Hut in under an hour.
If your goal is weight loss, and you have a choice between an extra hour of exercise, or eating one less Mars bar a week, skipping the Mars bar will be better for your weight loss.
Yes it's a lot more than what people "achieve", but it's the amount that people should be doing. Doing sport is not a chore that must be "achieved", it's a pleasant and relaxing activity that most people should be enjoying. The entire discourse around sport and physical activity is fucked up in the first place. When you hear public health official advising to do sport, they are almost apologising for it.
Counting kcal per hour of sport like that doesn't make any sense. 300kcal is 1h of brisk walking (non-sedentary people do it as part of their daily life, and probably don't count it toward their physical activity). It's also 1h of weight lifting, which most people would probably consider intensive sport. OTOH it's only 30min of jogging, which is a utterly trivial amount of sport for any healthy person. Those are rough approximations obviously.
After clicking the "reply" button of this post, I'm leaving for training with my sports club. 30min brisk walk each way to get there, and 1.5h of sport that is estimmated to burn 500kcal/h. Burning calories is trivial for active people.
That's the point though - if you get your fitness up then 600 kcal/hour should be possible on the bike and it should be sustainable to do day after day at that volume. Mix in the odd day of doing things super hard at 800-900kcal/hour and you're make an enormous difference to your weekly output.
If your goal is weight loss you should probably skip a mars bar every now and then, but I think you're underestimating what's possible after a bit of training and fitness improvement.
The exercise however will be better for your health and in the long term probably to weight loss too. The overall impact od sport on your body is not just calories burned.
I don't understand why people bring up totally ludicrous binge eating into this discussion.
Eating 3000 calories in one sitting is hard. Like, genuinely difficult, you're probably stuffing yourself uncomfortable and then in a food coma afterwards hard.
It reminds me of those silly TV shows with depressed 500lbs weirdos who just stuff their face all day. No-one normal is doing that. I mean christ it's only a bit less than half a kilo of straight mayonnaise.
