atx_aquarian

If you're on a ".gov" site, it's safe to expect that it is a legit site of the US government.

Nice

Sun Tzu nods, wisely.

It's absolutely not enough time. Those are serial killers in the making.

That's a big motivation for me, too, but I'd say it's about equally that I want archival of the best stuff for when rights holders pull their catalogs from the services I stream. I used to think that was mainly for the more obscure stuff, like local bands' early albums that I can barely find anymore, but recently I've noticed albums missing from main services (Tidal and Spotify, in my case) for bigger acts, too.

I gnu y'all would find a way to pun it up.

I thought it was because he’s afraid he sounds like he's saying "lion" instead of "lying", and he doesn't want to risk sounding complimentary.

It is ridiculous, but it's also exactly what is happening with loud combustion engines. Any sound coming from it is just higher-entropy (i.e., unused) energy being produced and promptly lost instead of contributing to power.

~~It blows my mind that centuries-old concepts "let's not jump to hasty conclusions" and "people should be free to protest the government but not break the law" just got called "flaming progressive".~~

edit: Sorry, now I see what you're saying, that those were some points that pull people from across the aisle.

“Incomplete paper and online applications will not be accepted,” Evans said in the statement. (Parker’s [demonstration] cancellation request would have lacked a driver’s license number.) The Secretary of State’s Office did not respond to individual questions about what testing the portal underwent before launch, the system’s security procedures, what happened to Parker’s cancellation request....

Yeah, that tells us we just don't know if this was a problem after all. Evans's statement basically claims it wasn't a vulnerability. If that's correct, then the worst thing might be if someone's browser tripped on the validation JS and allowed them down a blind alley execution path. If the claim is correct and if the page's JS never shits the bed, then in that case the only negative outcome would be someone dicking with the in-browser source could lead themselves down the blind alley, in which case who cares. The only terrible outcome seems like it would be if the claim is incorrect--i.e. if an incomplete application submission would be processed, thus allowing exploit.

Short of an internal audit, there's no smoking gun here.

This really is the only acceptable comment. Might as well close the thread.