Imagine being able to shut off all Ubiquiti console access in the world instantly, by posting about a grave security issue (real or not) and having a few compatriots to do the same in a short amount of time. You could trivially block a business's access to its own security cameras on a moment's notice, among other things.
If the response to an unverified issue were "just shut everything down" you effectively have implemented an exploitable DoS in your own incident policy.
This was posted 18 hours ago. If you can't either verify the user has actual access to other people's consoles (at which point you should be immediately turning access off) in 18 hours, then you should probably just close up shop because you have no business providing remote access to a can of soup much less someone's firewall.
If the user in question was making it up, you should also have posted within minutes of discovery that the user in question (and multiple other people) were making false claims.
Again, they've chosen the "we're looking into it" route which is always reassuring.
> If you can't either verify the user has actual access to other people's consoles [...] in 18 hours, then you should probably just close up shop
It's impossible to prove a negative. Maybe they believe that this was user error/malice but are doing more research to confirm this and find evidence of a vulnerability.
>It's impossible to prove a negative. Maybe they believe that this was user error/malice but are doing more research to confirm this and find evidence of a vulnerability.
So it's impossible for me to prove that nobody has walked through my front door today? I'm quite confident it isn't. I'm also confident if they have sane logging in place, they can prove accounts weren't being accessed by unauthorized users.
You're also talking in vagaries like they're hunting a ghost. They've been interacting with a willing end-user who originally reported the error.
I was typing exactly this when I saw your comment. This could very well be a real issue, but could also be a nefarious attack or even just incompetence. I've done support before and there are always users convinced that they are "hacked" or that we are doing something shady because they forgot their friend logged in on their device or forgot that they actually made two accounts in the past.
> Ps.: When I say Thunderbolt, I am well aware of how Thunderbolt 4 is just USB4 with optional features made mandatory. It's not relevant to the discuss at hand.
Dear God, I hope this situation settles down in the near future. As it is I have years of USB-C-looking cables that all do different things but are visually indistinguishable.
I wish the manufacturers would just adopt the USB IF marketing names and logos. https://i.imgur.com/H3unbD5.png would be a lot simpler.
I also wish the USB IF defined colors for high speed lanes absent vs 5/10/20 gbps capable high speed lanes and then 60W/100W/240W power. All it needed were two color bands on the plastic part of the plug. If colors are too gaudy then go Braille-style, have a 2x2 grid on top and bottom of the plug where bit 0 is a little hole and bit 1 is a little bump. That's 16 possible data speeds and 16 possible power levels and so far we have only needed 4 for data and 3 for power.
Intel could've added a separate row for Thunderbolt.
I suspect sheer maritime freight tonnage may be a less reliable proxy due to factors like cost of shipping changes, role of air freight, tariff changes, etc. Maybe share all the trade and globalization graphs instead? https://ourworldindata.org/trade-and-globalization
Your second source, hilariously, predates the entire pandemic (which is when home prices really took off). It also says very little to support your point that we're "consuming more" housing because home sizes are growing. The Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price NSA Index seems to suggest that home prices were rising only modestly until the pandemic. https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/indicators/sp-core...
> Total exports in terms of adjusted cost _has_ stagnated
This doesn't seem to match what you'd get by multiplying their figures of inflation-adjusted GDP [1] with their figures of exports as a percentage of GDP [2].
> Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price NSA
Home prices aren't factored into in either GDP or inflation because they're considered an asset. You're right that the economy has stagnated since the pandemic, especially in America. My point is that it's absurd to suggest that the global economy hasn't grown in the past decade.
It is bizarre that you would read an article which says, “using body-mass index (BMI) to measure obesity is likely the most problematic factor,” and then immediately prescribe a fixed BMI for everyone without qualification.
Yes. BMI is your weight divided by height squared. Which is really weird when you consider that humans are 3D objects! So you should naturally expect that a taller person will have a higher BMI than a shorter person even with the exact same proportions. In practice humans who are taller tend to be skinnier so we'd ideally use something close to the 2.5th power but that math would have been impractical for the 19th century clerks who were the first consumers of BMI information.
A few years ago I read a paper where they checked the correlation between CT measured body fat percentage and a lot of easily measured and calculated figures, in the same style of BMI (w/h²). I haven't been able to find it again, but if I remember correctly BMI was actually pretty good, although worse for women than for men, and the best measurement included waist circumference.
Why do we assume that fat is bad for you, but muscle is always good for you. The blood necessary to maintain excessive muscle is still excessive to normal humans, and may put strain on the heart. Only our skin grows with our muscles, other organs do not grow in tandem.
I've always thought that while BMI is crude, it still is reasonable for measuring metabolic syndrome, considering that many of the things associated with heart problems involve the needing a powerful heart, when adding any mass whatsoever will necessarily increase the work the heart must do.
Do you have anecdotes or other evidence of someone experiencing heart issues because they were too muscular?
It seems to me that in the usual case where a person develops muscle mass by working out, this isn't a problem because whatever "blood necessary to maintain excessive muscle" is negligible in the face of the body adapting to improve the cardiovascular system in order to serve muscular oxygen needs during workout. Of course, heart problems due to an unhealthy person ramping up exercise too quickly is a concern, but this is separate from your concern.
One also observes that athletes in general have lower heart rates than the average person; whatever additional burden their muscles impose, their cardiovascular system is way more adapted to handle that due to exercise.
My argument is that we should not assume that extra mass from muscle does not impose similar health problems from fat. If we are going to say that, it should be demonstrated. A fit person doesn't need to weight 30+lbs more than standard overweight section of the BMI. If they do, they will be a very non-standard human.
Here are some things I found in a brief glance at google scholar. There appears to be a condition called Athlete's heart, but I dunno:
The first link describes heart problems perhaps arising from intense exercise, which is a different thing that heart problems arising from muscle mass.
The second describes the same thing:
> Several middle-aged and older men trying to improve their physical fitness by weightlifting have presented for repair of severe mitral regurgitation, some of whom stated that they remembered feeling a pop in the chest while weightlifting, which was the start of their dyspnea.
> Arterial BP increases most during weightlifting that is accompanied by mechanical compression of blood vessels (such as when bent forward at the waist or squatting) and when accompanied by a Valsalva maneuver.
Neither of these papers link them to muscle mass but to the stress of high-intensity exercise itself, which I have already addressed.
I agree that we should not assume things, but in the lack of cursory evidence, I would still stand by my argument that in the normal case where muscle mass is formed from working out, such workout stresses and modifies the cardiovascular system to such an extent the result is a body that is more than capable of handling whatever stress that muscle at rest imposes on the heart.
Once again I reiterate my cursory evidence to my argument, that athletes' cardiovascular system are generally so much more efficient and less taxed than the general population that their hearts beat at 3/4 the average heart rate.
It seems like athlete's heart syndrome is a benign condition.
Actually, it appears BMI is more accurate for women than for men. I'm guessing because men have more variability in their muscle mass.
Overall, I think BMI looks like a pretty useful metric considering how easy it is to measure. That would explain why it sticks around despite being frequently criticized.
Waist-to-height ratio is surprisingly good: your waist should not be more than half your height. Simple to measure too, since you only need a piece of string.
Humans are 3D objects, but fat is not distributed equally throughout the body. Most fat is subcutaneous fat, i.e. located right below the skin. Its abundance can therefore be approximated by body surface area, which is proportional to height squared.
This might be a nice explanation of it didn't fail to agree empirically with reality, where in fact there is a significant cubic component which gives rise to the "something close to the 2.5th power" that GP suggests.
Indeed, especially the 22 BMI target. For me (5'10") that would mean 155lbs, I'd have to shed (going by my scale which estimates body fat percentage) around 28 lbs of fat (I'm at 15% fat right now, so 28 lbs would get me to 0% which is unhealthy) and 7lbs of other weight to hit that target. Could I lose some weight? Sure. But I won't. Back on the exercise habit after a few months off and I'm getting slimmer but my weight is staying the same, as I would expect it to based on my previous experience (I pack on muscle easily).
BMI is a useful heuristic (BMI over 30 and not a powerlifter? Probably unhealthy, let's look at other characteristics and see how unhealthy and how to address it) but a terrible target until you know your own body.
I'm 185 cm (6'1") and 73 kg (161 lbs), for a BMI of 21.3. I still have more than 0% fat, but I'm certainly slim. I don't have to fight at all to keep my weight as it is, and I'm healthy.
You say 30 BMI, but in my experience unless you are lifting a lot of weights 25 is the upper limit. Ten years ago I hit 25 BMI, and despite feeling "normal" there were already the first signs of being fat: thights always red, sweaty all day and way less resistance than today.
I lost 15 kg (33 lbs) not by doing crazy exercise, but by cutting 100% of shitty food and eating beyond necesity.
I think you're agreeing with me but I'm not sure. I said you have to know your body, which you seem to. For your body 25 BMI is an upper limit, for my body 25 BMI is a lower limit unless I'm losing muscle mass or going to unhealthy body fat percentage levels.
Which is why I also said BMI is a poor target. 22 BMI, for me, would be an awful target. I'd be gaunt and have to lose a lot of muscle mass, not just fat (which I don't have a lot of to lose). Even bringing body fat percentage from 15% to 10%, which is still healthy, would only get me down to about 180lbs. That would leave me 25lbs over the target for a 22 BMI. That's my body, not yours, not anyone else's. I've learned what is healthy for me and have set goals and expectations around that. I wouldn't expect yours, or anyone else's, to be the same. You've realized that 25 BMI is too high for you, great. Now you know, but that doesn't apply to everyone. And the original poster in this thread claiming everyone should be at 22 BMI is clearly also speaking about a particular experience which is not applicable to everyone, but writing as if it is.
"...in my experience unless you are lifting a lot of weights 25 is the upper limit.."
I get you...
I'm 6'0" (183cm) and 212 lbs (96kg) (BMI=29). I'm at 17% body fat and am working toward 10%, but also have been lifting weights heavily. I just got down to size 32 jeans (82cm waist) but have a 48.5" chest (123cm) and 15.5" (40cm) biceps. I still wish to lose 15-20lb more, but then I'd be at 195lb and about 8% body fat -- with a BMI of ~27. (Assuming I don't add more muscle at the same time.)
It is a lot better than a 15 months ago when I made my life change - I was 240lb (109kg) and 38% body fat, and pushing a 38" (96cm) waist, truly obese. And I felt like shite.
I am surprised how much I have come to love weightlifting, rowing, and eating a diet better balanced towards low-caloric density foods (lots of veggies) and lean protein. And I am more surprised at how quickly my body changed, considering I'm now just over 50.
My BMI is 31 but my body fat % is 18%. I've been lifting weights seriously for 12 years, since I turned 40, but I would never be mistaken for a bodybuilder.
that part is tricky, takes a lot of time, experiments
But also I think the body shape makes a big diff, I have very thin limbs, long legs, my best BMI is between 17 and 18, without limiting myself in food quantity (I alwways eat as much as I can, tho I naturally like to eat 1 or 2 meals a day max)
>The interest in an index that measures body fat came with observed increasing obesity in prosperous Western societies. Keys explicitly judged BMI as appropriate for population studies and inappropriate for individual evaluation.
>When a team of researchers adjusted BMI to take muscle mass into account back in 2018, then associated this corrected measure with mortality risk, they found that the “U” mostly transformed into a straight line.
It sounds like you're responding to a cryptocurrency talking point. How likely do you think it is that taxation (as in, "nothing is certain except death and taxes") will disappear at some point?
That news item is only saying that wireplumber will activate pipewire as an audio server, and won't allow you to use it for video only (with pulseaudio serving audio).
It's irrelevant for those who've picked pipewire as audio server specifically, so it will most likely be irrelevant for Ubuntu.
Plus the Ubuntu 22.10 release is in October 22 (they use calendar versioning), so there's still some time to work out the kinks.
It's fine when it works. It's a monstrosity when it doesn't.
I spent an hour the other day trying to figure out how to tell it not to output audio through my DualSense controller haptics (which look like a four-channel audio output) when I connect it to an Intel NUC over USB. I never did succeed, and all the posts I found were basically other people asking how to do similar things.
