That’s super frustrating. The hospital should have easily been able to get someone who had at least a basic grasp of a common language to help ensure they understood the forms and got them filled out correctly.

The fault is 100% with the hospital.

They know where the package came from, but the shirts are required to have a label for the consumer to know.

They are invariably being held to the strictest scrutiny because they offended the inspectors, but country of origin labeling isn’t so customs knows where it came from, but so consumers do.

https://www.cbp.gov/trade/rulings/informed-compliance-publications/marking-country-origin-us-imports

They obviously know where the shipment came from

Okay. You’re still doing tech support either way. I have no way of knowing how much free tech support you’re willing to give, hence my caveat of how much you’re willing to support them.

Netflix would disagree. People feel like they’re supposed to be getting access to a service, and if they’re not getting it they’ll complain to the nearest party to what isn’t working. In this case that’s you or Netflix being asked questions about why the router isn’t working.
That it’s wrong or irrational has nothing to do with who’s getting asked the question, and who’s the first line of troubleshooting when the service doesn’t work.

If people didn’t ask the wrong people questions, Netflix wouldn’t need support articles on how to reset your router.

Honestly, you’re supporting a chunk of her network by being a media provider in the first place. “It won’t play” doesn’t usually come with an assurance that it’s not a device or network issue.

Neither plex nor jellyfin seem remotely worth the effort to provide to others in my opinion, I just felt like sharing that there are ways to afford network protection to locked down devices.

I’ve got no real care for jellyfin one way or another, just sharing that there’s ways to make the network obey.

I think giving people access to my media server is asking for too much trouble personally. Now you’re dealing with forgotten passwords, people using your bandwidth at weird hours, and you basically become the media fairy, responsible for finding whatever it is people want, and then dealing with their issues when their device can’t codec at it for whatever janky reason.

I’m good at setting boundaries with family so it’s not stressful, just more annoying than I want to deal with.

Depending on their router and how much IT labor you care to do for these people you can actually configure a site to site VPN tunnel. All traffic for a particular address range will get routed through the VPN automatically.

It used to be a high end feature but it’s made it’s way into general routers since it doesn’t really require many resources and it lets you label it as having more home office features.

The soft power will take the longest to repair, but 40-50 years is a bit long. That’s on par with how long it took for us to build most of it in the first place.

Rebuilding could take 10 to 20 years. If he’s shit enough it could take two to six.

If he does Herbert Hoover levels of damage there’s likely to be broad motivation to take heavy handed action to fix it. Re-nationalizing land, nullifying contracts, and disregarding the impact it has on those who invested money or otherwise relied on the changes. Some of the programs being torn apart today are direct responses to trying to fix the problems Hoover caused.

It’s not a lot, but it’s worth remembering that Hoover had a lot of similar stances to Trump. He made things so bad that America elected the closest thing we’ve ever had to democratic socialism, and people liked it so much that they elected him four times and Congress changed the Constitution out of spite.

among newborns (0–2 months), RSV hospitalizations fell 52 percent

there was a 71 percent decline in hospitalizations in NVSN

0 to 7 months old—RSV-NET showed a 43 percent drop in hospitalizations

NVSN data, there was a 56 percent drop.

Shit like that is fucking huge, and makes me get some happy misty eyes thinking of the people whose lives have just been made better because of this.
30 to 40 thousand kids kept out of the hospital. Some heart wrenching portion of that as lives saved.
Every year. And that’s in the US alone!

I hope the researchers who worked on this feel appropriately proud.

Suggest she talk to her OB sooner rather than later. The window for the maternal vaccination is reasonably narrow, and some places where you might routinely get a vaccine aren’t accustomed to it yet and might take longer than expected to work through it. (If they give the vaccine too early the antibodies don’t transfer as helpfully, and too late and they don’t have enough time to develop and transfer)

My wife had a hell of a time getting it from the usual place we get flu and COVID shots because it was a more nuanced criteria and they, reasonably, didn’t want to give a treatment outside of approved guidelines. Eventually the OB said the back and forth was silly and had someone go get a dose from the hospital pharmacy and just gave it during the office visit.

It’s literally a lifesaver. We had twins that were born premature, which is a major risk factor. At six months we all got it, and one was miserable but fine, and the other required a relatively non-invasive hospital stay for extra monitoring for a few days.
Given the giant risk factors we had, without the vaccines it would have been a much more scary time, and it was already basically textbook Not-a-great-time.

I feel like I could be persuaded either way, but I lean towards allowing them during sentencing.
I don’t think “it’s an appeal to emotion” is a compelling argument in that context because it’s no longer about establishing truth like the trial is, but about determining punishment and restitution.

Justice isn’t just about the offender or society, it’s also indelibly tied to the victim. Giving them a voice for how they, as the wronged party, would see justice served seems important for it’s role in providing justice, not just the rote application of law.

Obviously you can’t just have the victim decide, but the judges entire job is to ensure fairness, often in the face of strong feelings and contentious circumstances.

Legitimately interested to hear why your opinion is what it is in more detail.

Hearsay is allowed in sentencing statements, and Arizona allows those statements to be in a format of their choice.

It’s the phase of the process where the judge hears opinions on what he should sentence the culprit to, so none of it is evidence or treated as anything other than an emotive statement.

In this case, the sister made two statements: one in the form of a letter where she asked for the maximum sentence, and another in the form of this animation of her brother where she said that he wouldn’t want that and would ask for leniency.

It’s gross, but it’s not the miscarriage of justice that it seems like from first glance. It was accepted in the same way a poem titled “what my brother would say to you” would be.

Reading a bit more, during the sentencing phase in that state people making victim impact statements can choose their format for expression, and it’s entirely allowed to make statements about what other people would say. So the judge didn’t actually have grounds to deny it.
No jury during that phase, so it’s just the judge listening to free form requests in both directions.

It’s gross, but the rules very much allow the sister to make a statement about what she believes her brother would have wanted to say, in whatever format she wanted.

Jessica Gattuso, the victim’s right attorney that worked with Pelkey’s family, told 404 Media that Arizona’s laws made the AI testimony possible. “We have a victim’s bill of rights,” she said. “[Victims] have the discretion to pick what format they’d like to give the statement. So I didn’t see any issues with the AI and there was no objection. I don’t believe anyone thought there was an issue with it.”

Gattuso said she understood the concerns, but felt that Pelkey’s AI avatar was handled deftly. “Stacey was up front and the video itself…said it was AI generated. We were very careful to make sure it was clear that these were the words that the family believed Christopher would have to say,” she said. “At no point did anyone try to pass it off as Chris’ own words.”

The prosecution against Horcasitas was only seeking nine years for the killing. The maximum was 10 and a half years. Stacey had asked the judge for the full sentence during her own impact statement. The judge granted her request, something Stacey credits—in part—to the AI video.

From a different article quoting a former judge in the court:

“There are going to be critics, but they picked the right forum to do it. In a trial with a jury you couldn’t do it, but with sentencing, everything is open, hearsay is admissible, both sides can get up and express what they want to do,” McDonald said.

“The power of it was that the judge had to see the gentleness, the kindness, the feeling of sincerity and having his sister say, ‘Well we don’t agree with it, this is what he would’ve wanted the court to know’,” he said.

I don’t like it, and it feels dirty to me, but since the law allows them to express basically whatever they want in whatever format they want during this phase, it doesn’t seem harmful in this case, just gross.

I actually think it’s a little more gross that the family was able to be that forthright and say that the victim would not want what they were asking for, and still ask for it.

It says in the article that the judge gave the maximum sentence.

The sister who created the video gave a statement as herself asking for something different from what she believed her brother would have wanted, which she chose to express in this fashion.

I don’t think it was a good thing to do, but it’s worth noting that the judges statement is basically “that was a beautiful statement, and he seemed like a good man”, not an application of leniency.

Walk me through that analogy, and what point you’re trying to make. My hammer doesn’t typically have unexpected interactions with things I’m not hammering. When I build a bookshelf, I don’t have to make sure my desk is clean to keep people I let borrow books from unlocking my front door without a key.

Do you think that improper setuid isn’t a common enough vulnerability to have a name and designation?

What constitutes a security nightmare if not something that requires a large and annoying amount of work, and can be made insecure by a mistake somewhere else?

Chromes decision actually makes a lot of sense, from a security perspective. When we model how people read URLs, they tend to be “lazy” and accept two URLs as equal if they’re similar enough. Removing or taking focus away from less critical parts makes users focus more on the part that matters and helps reduce phishing. It’s easier to miss problems with https://www.bankotamerica.com/login_new/existing/login_portal.asp?etc=etc&etc=etc than it is with bankotamerica, with the com in a subdued grey and the path and subdomain hidden until you click in the address bar.
It’s the same reason why they ended up moving away from the lock icon. Certs are easy to get now, and every piece that matches makes it more likely for a user to skip a warning sign.

The final piece is that often each of those services would be on a different computer entirely, each with a different public IP address. Otherwise the port is sufficient to sperate most services on a common domain.

There was a good long while where IP addresses were still unutilized enough that there was no reason to even try being conservative.

I would describe need to proactively go out of your way to ensure a program is simple, minimal, and carefully constructed to avoid interactions potentially outside of a restricted security scope as a “security nightmare”.

Being possible to do right or being necessary in some cases at the moment doesn’t erase the downsides.

It’s the opposite of secure by default. It throws the door wide open and leaves it to the developer and distro maintainer to make sure there’s nothing dangerous in the room and that only the right doors are opened. Since these are usually not coordinated, it’s entirely possible for a change or oversight by the developer to open a hole in multiple distros.
In a less nightmarish system a program starting to do something it wasn’t before that should be restricted is for the user to get denied, not for it to fail open.

https://www.cve.org/CVERecord/SearchResults?query=Setuid

It may be possible, but it’s got the hallmarks of a nightmare too.