Interesting. I didn’t know that. So, just to clarify, her husband stopped her from paying her taxes?

Gotta ask if those hips are still avoiding paying taxes https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/shakira-stands-trial-spain-alleged-tax-fraud-2023-11-19/

Ah, this is why I love Lemmy.

The problem you’re describing (open sourcing critical software) could both increase the capabilities of adversaries and also make it easier for adversaries to search for exploits. Open sourcing defeats security by obscurity.

Leaving security by obscurity aside could be seen as a loss, but it’s important to note what is gained in the process. Most security researchers today advocate against relying on security by obscurity, and instead focus on security by design and open security. Why?

Security by obscurity in the digital world is very easily defeated. It’s easy to copy and paste supposedly secure codes. It’s easy to smuggle supposedly secret code. “Today’s NSA secrets become tomorrow’s PhD theses and the next day’s hacker tools.”

What’s the alternative for the military? If you rely on security by design and open security for military equipment, it’s possible that adversaries will get a hold of the software, but they will get a hold of software that is more secure. A way to look at it is that all the doors are locked. On the other hand, insecure software leaves supposedly secret doors open. Those doors can be easily bashed by adversaries. So much for trying to get the upper hand.

The choice between (1) security by obscurity and (2) security by design and open security is ultimately the choice between (1) insecurity for all and (2) security for all. Security for all would be my choice, every time. I want my transit infrastructure to be safe. I want my phone to be safe. I want my election-related software to be safe. I want safe and reliable software. If someone is waging a war, they’re going to have to use methods that can actually create a technical asymmetry of power, and insecure software is not the way to gain the upper hand.

Long ago I had a friend who claimed something similar. In front of the camp fire, he claimed he was feeing spirits inside of him and that he became possessed. He gained attention from the group for about a minute. At first they asked if he was okay. He continued to act possessed, so they stopped being kind. They yelled at him, made fun of him, imitated him….

I sat next to him and quietly asked if he was okay and needed anything. I didn’t really know what his reaction would be because I didn’t know him. He was a friend of a friend. Still, I told him that him and I could leave to take a walk and talk. He didn’t respond and simply stared at the fire. He ignored us for the rest of that night.

The following morning, he decided to act ignorant. “What happened? I don’t remember anything.” The group was pissed at him and barely talked to him. He hasn’t been invited to anything ever since.

This whole thing was very unfortunate. It’s a memory of mine that is painful. I understand back then we were teenagers. Teenagers explore their identities, sometimes in cringy ways. That’s normal. But still, the event isolated him from the group. And if I talk about this whole incident to anyone who was there that night, they still resent him.

I suppose this is a long answer to your question. If someone claimed they had a vision of the vehicle crashing/exploding and everyone dying, nobody would believe them and they’d be in for a tough time.

Oh. Shoot. I’ve bought those in the past. So they’re lying about being flushable, I suppose.