50 every weekend is an exaggeration, but more people were murdered in Chicago from 2001 to 2021 than American soldiers died during the Global War on Terror (6,593 died in Iraq and Afghanistan vs. 11,561 in Chicago).
This is something of a red herring though as somewhere around 75% of those murders are black-on-black, with only a minority involving Latinos. Chicago primarily attracts attention not because of its murder rate (#22 in the country vs. Detroit at #5), but instead due to the size of its population and the prevalence of violent music that has come out of the region.
Not to dispute your point, but the GWoT was shockingly low casualty for the Americans. Almost 10x as many Americans died in the Vietnam war (58,281 US military KIA), mostly between 1965 and 1971, peaking at 16,899 in '68 alone. There are lots of reasons for this, including the different styles and intensities of fighting, the soldiers used (GWoT was all volunteer after all), improvements in transport and trauma care, and the sheer technological lead that the US held. GWoT was really an example of punching down counterinsurgency, not a real "war" in a lot of ways.
My take the high murder rate among blacks in Chicago is due to Slavery, Jim Crow, followed by decades of racist therefor ineffective policing. That toxic racism is also what's motivating the ICE terrorizing.
My point is everyone has been silent about Chicago's violence for decades, and only now they seem to care because it's not Black people being targeted. It's straight up racism to not care about Black people's welfare but care only when it's other people being endangered.
When I lived in Chicago, no one was silent about Chicago's violence. It was widely acknowledged as one of the city's biggest problems and there was a ton of effort put into stopping it by the government and nonprofits, including grassroots initiatives.
To steelman what you're saying, it's true we lived with it so long that it came to seem normal in a way if you weren't personally affected. But "everyone has been silent" is just not true.
These demonstrations were nominally dedicated to protesting police brutality, not crime, and the policies they advocated for generally had an adverse impact on the crime rate in subsequent years.
When? Where? The instances listed in the article are not compelling.
Here’s an excerpt from the second article:
> According to Homeland Security deputy secretary Tricia McLaughlin, officers were trying to conduct a “targeted traffic stop” of a car registered to a “female illegal alien,” but the male driver “refused to pull the vehicle over.”
> “Law enforcement pursued the vehicle before the assailant sped into a shopping plaza where he and the female passenger fled the vehicle,” according to McLaughlin.
> “They ran into a daycare and attempted to barricade themselves inside the daycare — recklessly endangering the children inside,” she said.
From the third article:
> The agents, who were armed but did not draw their weapons, pushed other people who were looking to intervene, he said.
[…]
> The woman who was arrested is from Colombia and does not have legal immigration status, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said.
If you have information about this issue that isn’t present in the articles linked, feel free to provide it.
ok great, you made it all the way to the second article before you found something you thought you could pull a misleading quote from. Said quote is, appropriately enough, from a woman in the administration whose job is to provide "cover" for her own agency.
and you not-so-gracefully just elide key facts in the same article like:
"the agents were not invited inside the building, did not have a warrant, and were armed with guns while walking into the school with children and teachers present"
&
"the woman [...] is a prekindergarten teacher at the school"
even if you think this is someone who ought to be deported, there are many less violent, less traumatic, and far more dignified ways to go about it. Or would you like to endorse masked men with military-grade equipment storming into daycares to arrest women who work with children there?
> before you found something you thought you could pull a misleading quote from
Do you have any information not presented in the article that suggests that this woman had legal status to reside in the country, and / or that she was not apprehended during a pursuit?
I’m not putting it past an official to lie about these kinds of things, but if this woman had the facts on her side you would usually have heard about it faster.
> the building, did not have a warrant,
Law enforcement officials do not need a warrant to enter private property while they are engaged in the active pursuit of someone suspected of having committed a crime.
> and were armed with guns while walking into the school with children and teachers present"
Per my last comment:
> The agents, who were armed but did not draw their weapons, pushed other people who were looking to intervene, he said.
You’re trying to give a very particular account of these events that the facts are not supporting.
> even if you think this is someone who ought to be deported, there are many less violent, less traumatic, and far more dignified ways to go about it.
I agree, a school isn’t the place for it. So I ask again: Do you have information that would suggest this woman was not being actively pursued by law enforcement officials prior to entering the daycare?
> Or would you like to endorse masked men with military-grade equipment storming into daycares to arrest women who work with children there?
I could (accurately) refer to this woman as an undocumented criminal who barricaded herself in a daycare after being pursued by law enforcement agents, but it’s completely hyperbolic versus just saying “a woman ran into a daycare and was arrested.” There’s nothing to suggest that these officers “stormed” the building like marines kicking the doors in at Fallujah. As was explicitly mentioned in the article (and my previous comment), their guns were never drawn. None of the three articles related to this incident suggest that the officers were masked.
There are multiple videos of ICE leaving an arrest in such a hurry they ram into a passing car that had the right of way. Unmarked cars with no lights follow normal traffic laws. They proceeded to yank the US citizen driving it out of her car and take her with them. She was detained without access to representation and then released without charges. That is unlawful arrest, and probably reckless endangerment. It is claimed that ICE does not need a warrant to enter a place. The fourth amendment says otherwise whatever other laws say. If they enter a place without a warrant seeking evidence, that is unlawful search and seizure. They laughed as they shot multiple people in the head with pepper balls. Some of them were not even near protests, they were just having fun. The training for those rounds explicitly calls out not to do that as it can be lethal. That is assault with a deadly weapon. If it could be proved they had that training, it might be argued as attempted second degree murder.
Don't do development on your local machine. Full stop. Just don't.
Do development, all of it, inside VMs or containers, either local or remote.
Use ephemeral credentials within said VMs, or use no credentials. For example, do all your git pulls on your laptop directly, or in a separate VM with a mounted volume that is then shared with the VM/containers where you are running dev tooling.
This has the added benefit of not only sandboxing your code, but also making your dev environments repeatable.
If you are using GitHub, use codespaces. If you are using gitlab, workspaces. If you are using neither, check out tools like UTM or Vagrant.
That's not a realistic solution. Nobody is going to stop using their machine for development just to get some security gains, it's way too much of a pain to do that.
It's 100% realistic because *I've been doing it off-and-on for the last 25 years.*
When I was developing server software for Windows, the first time I was able to setup a development environment by simply cloning a VM instead of spending a day-and-a-half with a lap full of MSDN CDs/DVDs, I never went back.
Prior to that, I was happily net-booting *BSD/Solaris servers all over my house/apartment.
Nowadays, we have so many tools to make this trivial. Your contention doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny of the available data.
If you are downloading software from untrusted sources (e.g. NPM, pip, and others) and running it on your primary working machine, or personal machine, then you are simply begging for trouble.
The way to sell it isn't vague security somethings, but in making it easier to reproduce the build environment "from scratch". If you build the Dockerfile as you go, then you don't waste hours at the end trying to figure out what you did to get it to build and run in the first place.
Wake up and smell the codespaces/workspaces/vagrant/so many other tools that make this not a pain. Some of these tools have been around for AGES. Nowadays, with VSCode Remote, you can even use a "modern" IDE environment with a local fat client observing your remote runtime. Other folks do this quite happily, with tremendous tooling, using emacs or *vim.
its not particularly painful to develop in a container. Maybe docker is a nuisance (although I know people do do develop within docker) but something like firejail or bubblewrap is pretty easy to use.
Taking this more seriously than it perhaps deserves: if that’s true, why isn’t widespread adoption of this approach growing?
Whether or not it’s a good idea, “realistic” implies practicality, which could presumably be measured by whether people find it worthwhile to do the thing.
I suppose it depends on what you're protecting, who's out there to get you, and how boring and time consuming it is to clean up after a breach (can't that take weeks or months), etc.
Aren't you're a bit asking "When X transportation method isn't used by everyone, can it really be any good?" :-)
When I had a Macbook from work, I set up an Arch Linux VM using their basic VM image [1], and followed these steps (it may differ, since is quite old): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enF3zbyiNZA
Then, I removed the graphical settings, as I was aiming to use SSH instead of emulated TTY that comes ON by default with UTM (at that time).
Finally, I set up some basic scripting to turn the machine on and SSH into it as soon as sshd.service was available, which I don't have now, but the script finished with this:
(fish shell)
while not ssh -p 2222 arch@localhost; sleep 2; end;
Later it evolved in something like this:
virsh start arch-linux_testing && virsh qemu-monitor-command --hmp arch-linux_testing 'hostfwd_add ::2222-:22' && while not ssh -p 2222 arch@localhost; sleep 2; end;
I also removed some unnecessary services for local development:
It works incredibly well with Linux VMs, my daily driver. I plug in a USB keyboard, external monitor and Can't Believe It's Not Linux. Only occasionally when I need to use the laptop screen/keyboard does macOS bother me and remind of it real self.
There's around 10-15% performance penalty for VMs (assuming you use arm64 guests), but the whole system is just so much faster and well built than anything Intel-based to day, that it more than compensates.
For Windows, it's lacking accelerated video drivers, but VMWare Fusion is an ok free alternative - I can totally play AAA games from last decade. Enjoy it until broadcom kills it.
With remote development (vscode and remote extension in jetbrains with ssh to VM) performance is good with headless VM in UTM. Although it always (?) uses performance cores on Apple Silicon Macs, so battery drain is a problem
I started using UTM last week on my Macbook just to try out NixOS + sway and see if I could make environment that I liked using (inspired by the hype around Omarchy).
Pretty soon I liked using the environment so much that I got my work running on it. And when I change the environment, I can sync it to my other machine.
Though NixOS is particularly magical as a dev environment since you have a record of everything you've done. Every time I mess with postgres hb_conf or nginx or pcap or on my local machine, I think "welp, I'll never remember that I did that".
I used to have a separate account on my box for doing code for other people, one for myself and another for surfing the web. Since I have an Apple TV hooked up to one of my monitors I don’t have a ton of reasons for hopping credentials between accounts so I think I’ll be going back to at least that.
The fact I use nvm means a global install won’t cross accounts.
The direction of political winds shift over time. An organization like the PSF cannot assume an open-ended liability like that. DEI today, but what tomorrow? As we have seen, political leadership in the US has shown itself to be unreliable, pernicious, and vindictive.
US leadership is undermined by the politicization of these grants. That is something that members of this community, largely a US-based, VC-oriented audience, should be deeply, deeply troubled by.
I don't think that's a good summary of what happened.
From your wiki link
> In 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS), under the Obama administration, revealed that it had selected political groups applying for tax-exempt status for intensive scrutiny based on their names or political themes. This led to wide condemnation of the agency and triggered several investigations, including a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal probe ordered by United States Attorney General Eric Holder. Conservatives claimed that they were specifically targeted by the IRS, but an exhaustive report released by the Treasury Department's Inspector General in 2017 found that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny.
> The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration's audit found (page 14): "For the 296 potential political cases we reviewed, as of December 17, 2012, 108 applications had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied, and 160 cases were open from 206 to 1,138 calendar days (some crossing two election cycles)."[11] Bloomberg News reported on May 14, 2013, "None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected."
The IRS took some stupid shortcuts by trying to look at keywords (including those linked to liberal causes) for more scrutiny of if they met the criteria of a non profit. There's no evidence this was done based on partisanship and it did not cause any groups to be rejected
The Trump administration is definitively coming after 501c3s. I run a nonprofit and all the movement around us has been preparing for this since these laws were first announced. Ironcically, the laws to investigate nonprofits were first proposed under the Biden administration to attack the Palestine movement, and like most things in the Palestine movement, they were quickly turned against the rest of the country.
"The FBI stated it found no evidence of "enemy hunting" of the kind that had been suspected, but that the investigation did reveal the IRS to be a mismanaged bureaucracy enforcing rules that IRS personnel did not fully understand. "
The sad irony is that the staff understood it perfectly, the organizations were not legitimate 501c groups (since at the time we had enforceable rules around political activity by nonprofit groups) but through extremely bad faith investigations where Congressional republicans literally forbade the IRS from reporting on their barring of climate and ‘progressive’ groups when investigating the ‘scandal’ so that even today people mischaracterize it as an example of IRS political targeting.
Even the people buried deep in the most podunk regulatory department you've never even heard of are smart enough to re-order the priority list on a change of administration. They don't need to be told and there is no paper trail. They just know what's good for their boss's boss's boss's boss^n is good for them and that kicking a potential hornet's nest is bad for them.
And even if you personally want to hassle someone with friends in the right places, what are the odds every other leaf of every other part of the organization(s) does? There will always be someone who has no morals and wants to climb the ladder who's happy to read between the lines and drop the ball.
It's just how it is. On some level, I'm not even sure this is a bad thing. If the executive can't change prioritization implicitly then the organization is either stupid or unaccountable.
It could be revoked if they are found to engage in illegal discrimination-Solidified by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1983 case Bob Jones University v. United States. based on public comments made by board members, such evidence seems replete.
Yeah, this all makes sense if the intention is to change the name of the device.
Netflix (the service) has an app named Netflix. You access Netflix via Netflix on... XYZ. Same goes for basically every other streaming service.
So Apple TV the service on Apple TV the app makes perfect sense if you are thinking about accessing their streaming service via other set tops where Apple TV the app is available.
My guess is that the Apple TV set top will be renamed to something else, perhaps "Apple Home".
Then it would be "Access Apple TV via the app on your Apple Home device" and the merging/conflation of "Apple TV subscription via the Apple TV app" will make perfect sense the same way you would say "Access Netflix via the app on your Apple Home device".
My guess is that "tvOS" will be renamed "homeOS" to go with it.
Apple Home is already the name of their app for smart home stuff.
The Netflix comparison doesn’t quite work with Apple TV. I have an Apple TV (the device) and I don’t just use Apple TV (the app) to access Apple TV (the service). Apple TV (the app) is also where I need to go to buy/rent movies from the iTunes Store, watch Apple keynotes, and it can also be a place to aggregate content in a single UI from a bunch of different streaming services (notably not Netflix, they opted out). Apple TV (the service) is just one feature of Apple TV (the app), at least when it’s running on Apple TV (the device).
These distinctions do matter, due to Apple trying to consolidate everything into that single app. They sunset multiple other apps with its release. I actually find the app pretty hard to use as a result.
This is awesome. Only thing that is missing is a place for me to ask a question from Kagi Assistant about the current story I am looking at, using the story as part of the context of my question.
One of their digital lock designs had a rather cough Pleasing vulnerability. But other than that it's vendor lock-in (heh), and lack of availability in the US.
With most so called locksmiths being drillsmiths in the US, not being able to clone DD and dimple keys.
Puck one. Or maybe the OP is just bitter they can't pick it for their next "belt" after getting chuffed with themselves picking average american garbage.
Digital locks aside, this is more applicable to any lock you buy and rely on (substitute US with your local region):
> lack of availability in the US
I wouldn't go out of my way to find something like Schlage here, when Abloy (Assa Abloy) locks are available in abundance with locksmiths able to duplicate usually all the key variants.
No, there was a vending machine smart lock that if you hitachi'd it right it'd unlock.
And, I phrased it wrong: most people expect to be able to walk into lowes and clone a key. And while it seems assa has been on a buying spree since I last looked at them, I do not associate them with anything you'd be able to find at big box store. When I think assa abloy I think "you better have the key card or you're SOL."
As a European, most of the products mentioned in the linked article and this discussion are from brands I've never associated with Assa Abloy in the first place.
In addition to the pedigree that someone else pointed out, macOS is also explicitly certified as UNIX by the legal stewards of that name: https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/
I have to dig out this chart when people complain about macOS's "non-standard utilities." Linux's GNU tools are the ones that aren't standard. If anything, Linux did an "embrace, extend, extinguish" against Unix in general.
reply