The first provided link is extremely useful as it lets you jump to declarations, files, and line numbers in the current Linux Kernel source. For digging up kernel code snippets it it is extremely useful.
Also like the kernel is fairly sanely laid out. Its a project with literally hundreds of contributors so keeping the code base organized is important.
Just to give some perspective, not all your visa problems are because you have a weak passport:
As a European, that happened to me when I needed a work visa for the US (for 2 month unpaid internship, J-1 visa). Only had to wait 20 min though because I had to book an appointment via credit card for $10. And I would not say that the guys there were nice in anyways. (Whole thing cost me $500, one day of travelling and 2 month preparing the whole thing in total.)
Agreed. Those topics are very specific instances of general principles that are usually taught in a security course.
What did OP mean by "secure client/server architecture" though? What are the basic/fundamental principles behind it, that are NOT covered in cybersec education?
Perhaps (see sibling comments), but I don't think that's what GP was getting at. They take it down because the government (or whoever is in control) wants to control the flow of information amongst their citizens and not some private (likely foreign) company. What good is the Great Firewall if you can just subscribe to Elon's ISP with a dish?
Feasibly, SpaceX would not need to negotiate or conform to any nation-states censorship requirements, because the citizens can just directly access the satellite through private infrastructure.
A capitalist analogy is how hotels used to (and many still do) charge outrageously for internet. When people started using their own infrastructure to connect their laptops to the internet, hotels (like the Marriot[0]) jammed wifi hotspots.
By this logic, all stock traders should be considered employees of the stock exchange they use. Uber is just like a stock exchange - a match making service.
* Traders/riders on a transaction/ride pay the exchange/Uber for this service.
* Traders/riders are free to trade/ride as much they want to, at any hour of the day, provided there's enough liquidity in the market (surge pricing etc.)
* If a trader doesn't cut a profit on a trade, it's the trader's problem not the exchange's
* If an Uber driver doesn't drive enough to earn a living wage, it's the driver's problem not Uber's.
The problem in your logic is that different industries have different regulation, like food industry has different rules then electronics, this regulation were created probably after bad things happen. As a user of Uber or classic taxi you should have same protections. Try imagine Uber for food, you put in an app what food you want to eat and some random person will bring you the food he cocked, the person is not qualified, the startup did not made enough background checks, maybe he cokes in a place with rats, if you get sick you can 1 star the person. My point is that analogies do not work that well when you change industry,
P.S. I did not downvoted you
I would totally buy the food from the random person if it was cheap, convenient and had good user ratings.
People who can afford to only buy things with background checks and quality control and insurance should be free to buy those things, but it's a little mean to decide for everyone else. Some people can only afford the shitty version.
Yes they can. It happens all the time, just not through a company. Probably not in Europe, though.
I am making a normative argument. I am aware that regulations prevent that sort of thing for good reasons. I say that there are also good reasons for not regulating. In everything there is a tradeoff.
Yeah, but the society calculated and decided that it is worth some extra cost to have clean food places and personnel then have to pay with lives or medical care.
As a society we decided that this rules are better globally, even if some individuals would risk eating expired food because is cheaper.
Society rarely gets its calculator out. Rule making tends to be a political process. Oftentimes, the rules are suboptimal. The “calculation” is just a convenient rationalization.
I assume even if I get an exact measuring function for cost vs benefits you will find a minority that will ask to use a different measurement function.
Yes, I am not from US so yes for US in Europe is fair to have this kind of rules and taxes on things that are bad for health like cigarettes and alcohol
You think that allowing poor people to buy and eat expired and spoiled food is a good idea? You would get an epidemic and pay at least 10 times more and one person eating bad stuff could infect an entire village, so I disagree we should allow selling bad food, the companies would find ways to sell rotten flesh if it was legal and they would make some cool commercials and packaging for it.
The very fact that a company makes a cool commercial is a signal that they are willing to invest a lot of money to make their brand known. From there, people can infer that they won't just make their customers sick, change their name and location to escape the bad reputation, and do the same thing again somewhere else.
Poor people sell food to each other all the time without formal credentials, certifications, inspections and so on. Since they sell to each other, locally, to people who know them, they will only make each other sick on accident. And if someone has lots of accidents people will switch to a better cook. The amount of food poisoning will increase, but not to epidemic levels.
