Copying a bunch of unsourced text at someone without context is a great way to get them to not bother reading it. Why don’t you type the point you were hoping to make?

What do you think profit is? It seems like you’re conflicting profit with income.

Heh, “revenue is not profit”.

Non-profits are specifically not allowed to have revenue in excess of expenses. If they take in too much money, the excess has to be put back in for operational expenses in the future, an endowment or something like that.

I’m not sure that’s entirely true.

Most of their money comes from retail, either the site, subscriptions, or the seller services they provide. AWS, while massive, isn’t what’s keeping them afloat.

You’re entirely correct though that competition with Amazon is difficult because of those additional sources of revenue. Having additional stable sources of income gives them the ability to accept lower margins in retail with less risk.

The way they make money selling things with no profit or at a loss is to ensure that someone else is always paying the difference. “Free shipping” with a paid subscription means that rather than providing shipping for a loss, they just need to do it for less than the subscription. Turns out “guy with a van” can deliver a lot of packages for quite cheap. So many that he’ll be out delivering from 3am to 9pm, and for $5 they’ll drop your package off first and call it overnight.
In some cases they can get the seller to pay for shipping as a promotional incentive, since Amazons conditioned people to look for free shipping as a precondition to considering a product.

Only give away for free what you got someone else to pay for.

If you spend the same amount of money to get more things that you were going to buy, you’ve saved money.

If I need bread and cheese and one store sells bread for $10 and cheese for $5, and another sells $10 bread half off if I buy $5 cheese with it, I save money going to the second store, even if I only came into the store looking for bread.

Amazon is using dirty tricks to ensure you buy from them even if it’s at a lower margin. A smaller profit is better than no sale. It also gets consumers more accustomed to just buying stuff on Amazon, and increases the sales producers see through the Amazon platform. Some producers entirely offload their commerce to Amazon since enough of their sales come from there it makes running their own less viable.

It wasn’t the crypto key pair part I was referring to, it was the part where fido is geared towards interactive user auth, not non-interactive storage.
It wouldn’t have surprised me if the ssh devs hadn’t put implementing fido support for host keys high in the development list, or that it was tricky to find documentation for. Using something like a tpm is the more typical method.

There’s no technical reason it can’t work, and the op got it to work so clearly the implementation supports it, but that doesn’t mean it’s the most expected setup, which means it might have unexpected gaps in functionality or terrible documentation.

Unfortunately, I think you’re going to run into trouble because fido authenticators are geared towards working as user authenticators rather than as device authenticators.
It certainly should be possible from a technical perspective, but implementation-wise, it’s very likely that the code focuses on making fido devices work with client keys, and using tpms for host keys, since that’s much more focused on headless server functionality.

Oval peg in a round hole.

That’s much easier. If you weigh 100kg (220lb) it’s W/(100 + W) = 0.8, and solving for W gives 400.

If you eat 400 kg of wine powder then 80% of your mass will be wine.

This will kill you, and it doesn’t actually matter what powder you choose to eat.

Alright. It’s entirely incidental to the point I was making so I don’t feel particularly invested in defending his actions being the way he said they were.
Replace it with one of the news stories about a politician wearing blackface if it makes you feel better, or fill in what you think would work better as a racist caricature outfit depicting someone from Puerto Rico.
I stand by my original statement that if you think to yourself “I’m going to go to this Halloween party as a Puerto Rican (or any race)” you honestly shouldn’t do that, regardless of what comes into your mind when you picture that race, since races aren’t costumes.

I’m not sure why you would think Boricua is related to food. It means a person from Puerto Rico. It’s like arguing that “#new-yorkers” is about food. If it was about food, or his costume wasn’t what it was, why would the picture just randomly be labeled with either this unknown food term despite no food being in the picture, or why would you go to a costume party not wearing a costume or as a generic baseball fan and post a picture of yourself labeled “Puerto Rican”? And then resign, referencing the Halloween costume amongst the list of racial insensitivities behind that choice?

The person in the article who used the term brownface is a person who actually worked with him and would presumably be able to tell if he had put on makeup to change his skin tone.

Well, it’s what he said he was doing, so that’s why I went with that. Also note the specific terminology associated with Puerto Ricans.

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/09/872697289/chief-editor-at-bon-app-tit-resigns-after-racially-offensive-photo-surfaces

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/08/dining/bon-appetit-adam-rapoport.html

In isolation it would be racist to assume a man wearing a baseball jersey was Puerto Rican or dressed as a one as a caricature. It’s not when it’s labeled as such by the people in the photo, and when asked about it they admit that’s what they were doing, and then apologize and then ultimately resign.

In reality? Like anyone else.

As a costume?

The not-puerto-rican editor of the magazine bon appetit went to a Halloween costume dressed as a caricature of a Puerto Rican with his also not Puerto Rican wife.
It came into my head as an example of something less obviously problematic than blackface, but more obviously problematic than dressing as a Disney character that’s a depiction of a different race.

Feel free to substitute any other ethnicity or race into my example as it makes sense to you.

Incredibly generally: gender is the expression of gender identity and is a social construct while gender identity seems to be largely influenced by biological factors. Sex is the biological differentiation, and while the delineation between the sexes is culturally defined (if someone has xxy sex chromosomes, high testosterone, a penis, and a vagina it’s a cultural decision if we say they’re male, female or intersex), it’s a classification based much more on observable factors.

Race and ethnicity are more akin to sex than to gender identity, which would be better compared to cultural identity.
What distinguishes races is a social construct, but within a context racial classifications are relatively consistent. Racial markers that mean nothing in the US might be quite significant in Rawanda.
Similarly ethnicity, being a blend of race, language, culture and heritage is socially constructed but relatively objective within a context.
Culture on the other hand is, like gender identity, more to do with subjective feelings, opinions, and choices on the part of the individual, with the distinctions between them being cultural.

The woman in question mislead people about her race and ethnicity by misidentifying her relatives and heritage. Her cultural affiliation is harder to dispute, although being a chapter president for the NAACP shows at least a degree of acceptance by the African American culture in the area.

What “idiots complaining about cultural appropriation”? It’s not exactly a common thing, despite what caricatures of them might make you think. No one is getting upset that anyone eats food from another culture.

The only actual examples I can think of that I’ve actually heard discussed are “please don’t dress as my race as a costume, it’s basically blackface” and “my religion was systematically driven to the brink of extinction, I’d appreciate it if you didn’t use it as a fun activity to express your creativity”.

These things always seem chock full of getting defensive about something that doesn’t really happen, or acting like the smallest pushback to the dominant culture doing whatever they want is incredibly terrible.
Appropriation isn’t an issue when it’s just cultures sharing. It’s an issue when people reduce the culture to the things in question, forget that there’s actually people involved who deserve respect, or outright claim ownership of the thing in question.

Don’t go to a Halloween party dressed as a Puerto Rican. Don’t grab a random assortment of native American religious practices, mix them with crystals and use it to showcase your creativity.

I think part of it’s that not all propaganda is bad.

There’s probably a term for it, but I’d draw a distinction between “opinion” propaganda and “aspirational” propaganda.

One tries to change your opinion of something, like “cops are good noble and always do the right thing”.
The other encourages the viewer to live up to some ideal. It’s entirely possible for that ideal to also not be great, but even then “I should be” is better than “they are”.

A lot of PSAs and things from the ad council fall in the later category. Like the billboards that basically say “real men are present and emotionally available fathers to their children” or "good parents teach their kids healthy diet and exercise by example”.
They’re openly cases of the government trying to change public opinions or attitudes (which arguably makes them better examples of propaganda than a lot of commercial television), but they don’t feel as objectionable.

“This honest and kind man who always tries to do good and help those around him to the point that it overshadows him being a physically perfect human is the embodiment of the emblematic American man” is more in that aspirational category.

I would lean towards no. I’m me. I don’t consider the things that people seem to associate with their “inner child” to be exclusive to children, so I don’t feel a tension between my desire to act responsibly and my sense of wonder, joy, and playfulness.

Age isn’t a mask hiding the inner child, it’s a toolkit that helps them appreciate and engage with those things. My childish delight at birds flitting about the bird feeder is only enhanced by being able to buy my own, keep them filled, and the ability to understand more about everything that goes on with them. I have the experience and faculties to answer questions I have, which only deepens my appreciation for the “common” wonders we see everywhere. Experiencing more of life and it’s lows only makes the highs sweeter.

A child plus age and experience is an adult. You don’t need to lose the happiness to get there.

You need to think about what a backdoor looks like for different devices, and different functions of that device. “Backdoor” generally means a way to bypass security measures, but that entails can vary wildly in different contexts. For some things you can know because you can check to see if the hardware is doing what’s expected because the only meaningful backdoor would be local to the hardware.
For example, hardware based encryption systems can have their outputs compared against a trusted implementation of the same algorithm.

For cases where there isn’t an objective source of truth for “proper functioning”, or where complex inputs are accepted and either produce a simple answer (access granted/denied), or a complex behavior (logging login attempts and network calls are always expected) it can be harder to the point of impossibility to know that what’s being done is correct.
This is also the case for bugs, so it can actually be unclear if something is a backdoor or an error.
“Any sufficiently hair brained programming error is indistinguishable from an attack by a nation state threat actor”. (the goto fail bug is a great example of this. extremely dumb error every programmer has made, or a very well executed and sophisticated attack.

Ultimately, any system can be compromised by a sufficiently determined attacker. Security cannot be perfect, because at some point you need to trust someone.
The key is to decide how much you trust each system to handle whatever you need it to handle.
I trust my phone’s manufacturer as much or more than I trust the network provider. If I’m doing something naughty the person I’m communicating with getting snagged leads to me via the network and their device without needing to compromise my hardware. I choose to focus on the weak link: the people I talk with who might be unable to properly conduct a criminal conspiracy, and getting them up to speed.

I figured it was more about fresh snow. :) fresh snow in the city is at least white, and pretty in a … Chaotic sense.

If it’s not snowing, it’s still not green. It’s just grey. Grey is worse because at least the snow is pretty.

True, but in the modern era so is aluminum, and I would have expected essentially everywhere to have updated by now since we’re more than a century into knowing lead and food don’t mix.

Like I said, there are lawsuits and there should be, because a business is ultimately responsible for what it sold and who it chose to do business with to a fundamentally higher standard than an individual is.
The consumer facing businesses can turn around a sue their suppliers to continue the chain.

Finding they destroyed documentation that they knew something would indeed be a pretty big smoking gun. There’s no real reason to think that they did though, since the businesses in question aren’t actually making any money off of it or in a position to benefit. They actually loose money by having to pull stock and destroy it.

In at least one case, we know which company added the lead and which potentially knew about it, they’re just in Ecuador.

Also, felony murder requires that you have intent to commit a criminal act. As written, not necessarily as applied, it would apply if you agreed to drive to a gas station robbery and your passenger killed someone. If you just agree to give someone a ride and then they kill someone you’re not culpable, assuming you said “oh hell no” and then didn’t continue to give them a ride post-murder.