I'm going to say that every layoff has a cover story. The goal, reduce the workforce make/save money, is really the only justification needed. Everything else is PR, and an attempt to stay out of legal hot water.

This concept is the enemy of the a centuries old idealistic societal pillar of the West: Liberté, Libertas... this has blessed so many of us in the West, and I beg that it doesn't leave. Something beautiful and as sacred as the freedom from forced labor and the freedom to choose your trade, is the concept of the free and unbounded innocence of voices asking their leaders and each other these questions, to determine amongst ourselves what is fair and not, for our own betterment and the beauty of free enterprise. It's not so much that the Chinese state is an awful power to behold (it is and fuck Poohhead)... but this same politic is on the rise in the West and it leads to war. It always leads to war. And now the most automated form of state and corporate propaganda the world has ever seen is in the hands of a ruthless ruling class that can, has, and will steal bread from children's hands, and literally take the medicine from the sick to pad their pockets. Such is the twisted fate of society and likely always will be. We need to fight and not with prayers; this moment is God forsaking us to behold how the spirit breaks and what the people want to fight for as ruthlessly as the others do to steal our bread.

encourage innovation in the banking and financial system What "innovation" do we need in the banking system?

Lets you question how digital stalking is still allowed?

Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.

Yeah but considering who's in charge of the government, half of us will be hit with that designation sooner or later.

I think the principle could be applied to scan outside of the machine. It is making requests to 127.0.0.1:{port} - effectively using your computer as a "server" in a sort of reverse-SSRF attack. There's no reason it can't make requests to 10.10.10.1:{port} as well. Of course you'd need to guess the netmask of the network address range first, but this isn't that hard. In fact, if you consider that at least as far as the desktop site goes, most people will be browsing the web behind a standard consumer router left on defaults where it will be the first device in the DHCP range (e.g. 192.168.0.1 or 10.10.10.1), which tends to have a web UI on the LAN interface (port 8080, 80 or 443), then you'd only realistically need to scan a few addresses to determine the network address range. If you want to keep noise even lower, using just 192.168.0.1:80 and 192.168.1.1:80 I'd wager would cover 99% of consumer routers. From there you could assume that it's a /24 netmask and scan IPs to your heart's content. You could do top 10 most common ports type scans and go in-depth on anything you get a result on. I haven't tested this, but I don't see why it wouldn't work, when I was testing 13ft.io - a self-hosted 12ft.io paywall remover, an SSRF flaw like this absolutely let you perform any network request to any LAN address in range.

Sure thing! So glad I could be helpful! I don't blame you. It's the only thing I'm keeping a Win10 dual-boot for right now, and to their credit, it does work quite well in Windows. We've had a ton of fun with our set. In the meantime, I'm keeping up with the project but not actively tinkering with it myself, because it's exciting but also not quite there yet. It's at least given me hope that it can be done though! I'm confident we'll see significant gains sooner rather than later. Hats off to them. (Once my income stabilizes I'll gotta pitch them some funds...) Envision has made it VERY convenient to get set up, but the whole process still saps more time than "Fire it up and play." So maybe play with it at some point, but either way definitely keep your ear to the ground. I'm hoping in the future we'll get to use it for things like Godot XR or Blender integration.