"It is understood investigations have not shown any data has been taken."
Versus
"The cyberattack was on a payroll system with current service personnel and some veterans. It is largely names and bank details that have been exposed."
Surely it's one or the other, they've either got hold of those details or not.
"The personal information of an unknown number of serving UK military personnel has been accessed in a significant data breach, the BBC understands." via https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68966497
People without a home do not have access to the platforms that these seats are on. These seats are on the underground, past the ticket barriers, and they would quickly be removed for trespassing on private property, as all TFL stations are staffed.
Typically in London, People without a home would be found outside the station, or occasionally in the concourse.
Bro you've clearly never ridden the tube. Homeless people are on it all the time begging. They slip in behind other people through the barriers at busy or unmanned stations.
Londoner for 24 years. I don't know what to tell you, 'Bro'.
Yes beggars walk down tube trains trying to get money, but they don't tend to set up shop on the platform which is what we're talking about here. I'm also pretty sure most of the people that have asked me for a quid on the tube were not homeless people, just chancers and drug users.
Besides which, once you were past the barrier, sleeping on the tube train itself is likely to be a much more viable and comfortable option than the platform.
as for "unmanned stations"? All London Underground stations are rostered to be staffed during operating hours. Stations located underground have specific staffing requirements and minimum staff numbers, which vary depending on the size of the station. This is a fire regulation requirement arising from the King's Cross fire in 1987.
Some of the small, outer, (above ground) tube stations I use have periods where staff leave the gates open and leave the public areas. They even do this during busy periods. It is easy to get onto the tube network at these places.
There's also stations that share common areas with overground trains that don't even have gates (West Ruislip, for example). And then people also squeeze through the pram/wheelchair gates or closely follow someone through. It's easy to do because the ticket offices are closed and whatever skeleton staffing they have is busy elsewhere. These gates (and stations) are effectively unmanned in this context.
But I agree. It's actually very rare to see people begging on the underground compared to other cities. I don't think access is the issue. Maybe the BTP spend all their time on it?
Thank you for verifying that what I'm saying is not that unreasonable. I'm getting downvoted way too much for totally factual claims here.
I do see beggars at least once a week these days I'd say. They've increased a lot compared to my first years in London when I would safely call it rare. I reckon because of cost of living.
You're getting downvoted because armrests only act as 'hostile architecture' when they stop people lying down to sleep, and the beggars on the tube are visibly not sleeping.
The beggars are constantly moving, and only ask for money on trains that are in motion, in order to evade the staff. Those that want to stay in one place set up just outside the station entrance.
Furthermore, a tube platform is a poor place to sleep, not only because the staff will move you on and the trains are really noisy, but mostly because the tube is closed at night.
I do agree that some-human was wrong to say "People without a home do not have access to the platforms" though, as you're right that it's possible to access the platforms without paying. But some-human was right in the broader context of the thread - whether the armrests constitute hostile architecture - that we do not see rough sleepers sleeping on tube platforms.
Yes, I was responding to the claim that "People without a home do not have access to the platforms". That is all. That therefore rules out that as the main reason that homeless people are not sleeping rough in tube stations. I never mentioned anything about the hostile architecture. That was someone else, so I do not deserve a downvote for it. I was only addressing the claim about access, so that we could discuss the real reasons for the lack of rough sleeping in the tube, not fantasy ones.
In reality the reason is because the authorities want to stop them and they do this through policing the platforms obviously but hostile architecture is put in place to make sure they don't have to be searching for homeless people all the time in the first place. It's a joint effort, obviously.
I mean i think the vast majority of them are homeless and/or drug users. Lots of homeless people are cos they're freezing their nuts off with no hope every day. It's honestly impossible to tell which of them are on drugs and which aren't. But I find it unlikely that most of those people aren't homeless.
And yes I know every station has to be staffed. I mean they look for moments of time when no staff are watching the barriers at lower staffed stations. I have had people slip in the barriers behind me it very obviously happens. Homeless people are perfectly able to get in. They don't sleep there because everything possible is done to stop them.
They used to sell emulators on their marketplace for their back catalogue under the 'virtual console' brand and more recently on Switch include emulation for NES, SNES and Nintendo 64 titles as a benefit on their online subscription model.
Torrenting is a pretty standard, official, way of distributing Linux ISOs. Linux' license also doesn't really stop anyone from doing so, as it very much wants its users to share it with others (GPL v2, see the 4 freedoms of the FSF). There could be problems distributing e.g. Red Hat-owned stuff (trademarks, copyrighted things, non-FOSS software and such) without permission, but Linux itself is completely legal to share.
Torrenting also isn't illegal by itself or a direct link to pirating, it is just a very common way of sharing pirated data.
Emulation and virtualisation is a pretty standard, official, way of running software on other devices, where the software licence also doesn't stop anyone from doing so.
Emulating also isn't illegal by itself of a direct link to pirating, it is just a very common way of playing pirated games.
I assume you are probably trying to make fun of the comment or playing devil's advocate or something, but you are correct. The illegal part comes when you try to share things you have no rights to share, such as the ROMs or BIOS.
Just as you can go to to arch linux' web page and download through their recommended method (torrent), you can go play old PS1 games on the PSClassic (based on the PCSX emulator), or play GB/GBC games on your 3DS Virtual Console (in house nintendo-made emulator afaik, correct me if I'm wrong).
I interpreted the comment as a comparison between torrenting and emulation, "but torrenting isn't illegal but is used for illegal things" and thought it was implying the opposite for emulation, i.e that emulation was illegal.
I was making fun of that comment to point out the same is true of emulation. However I obviously misinterpreted the initial comment since you're clearly aware emulation itself is legal. Sorry.
No, in the way that advertising that your product can play a few homebrew games when it already can play thousands of Steam games makes no sense. It's obviously to hint at playing Nintendo titles.
Why does that matter? It's like torrents and Linux distributions, perfectly legal, it's not the software developers intent that makes the file sharing be legal or not, it's the users usage of such software.
I guarantee you that the footage would be a viral sensation online. King World productions would decline to air it, okay. But if it leaked, it would be viewed by millions.
Not only would they "decline to air it" they are prohibited from airing it.
> Broadcasting obscene content is prohibited by law at all times of the day. Indecent and profane content are prohibited on broadcast TV and radio between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.
> Obscene content does not have protection by the First Amendment. For content to be ruled obscene, it must meet a three-pronged test established by the Supreme Court: It must appeal to an average person's prurient interest; depict or describe sexual conduct in a "patently offensive" way; and, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Christ in the Original Star Trek run CBS had a censor employed on set for an episode where a character wore a risky outfit to make sure no nipples popped out. That isn't different to this Chinese company making sure their shows meet the restrictions of the Chinese authority.
Your weird puritan country will air a show where a character shoots someone with a gun in the street, in your copaganda shows, but god forbid one of them gets a tit out whilst they do it.
My argument is against the statement that the US is “honestly no better”
You’re raising a point about RF broadcast of obscene content. That’s a tiny slice of available media. What China is censoring is being done as completely as they can muster. What the FCC censors is narrowed down to airwave broadcasts.
Surely you can see that there’s a difference here, right?
Tank Man is prohibited completely. Not just over a certain delivery method, during certain times of day.
Yes, I see that. My retort was to "The United States government does not employ censors to remove portions of shows before allowing them to air (or stream, whatever)." which it effectively does.
The scale isn't black and white with China being terrible and USA being great here, it's a sliding scale of shitness, with one being a 4/10 and the other 9/10, but the 4/10 pretends to be a 0/10 and proports "free speech for all. Home of the Free world. The government can't tell you what you can say and do." and the other doesn't pretend it is.
Then you’re arguing with someone else. I’ve never claimed the US is “0/10” or any such silliness. I made sure to acknowledge what censorship does exist here. I referenced FCC authority in that first comment.
“Honestly no better”
That’s what set me off, because it so obviously not true. It’s better in the US. Not perfect. But definitely better.
The problem is finding them. If a layman looks for a cloud back up provider that isn't one of the BigTech group - uses Duck Duck Go and finds a small company offering 10GB back up for free. Unfortunately for them, that service is using AWS for storage, so ultimately despite they're best effort they're just using amazon cloud storage.
This is where the small guys kick ass vs the Googles/Microsoft. Try Dropbox, Backblaze etc. Much better experience. Apple is OK UX wise but locked in which sucks.
How is a laymen supposed to tell the difference between Backblaze - running their own servers, and a Dropbox-like - which is really just uploading your files to amazon's servers?
Assuming Dropbox encrypt the data at rest, Amazon won't have any access to it. And if they do delete stuff they now have to deal with a company instead of single individuals.
That is right, but I cant resist bringing out the trope that airpods product line alone - just one produce line! - is one of the world’s biggest businesses and dwarfs most unicorns like Dropbox.
Dropbox used Amazon until 2016, to only have their own datacentres in the last 5 years. Who's to say they decide that's not economical and move back to aws?
OneDrive IS Microsoft and iCloud IS Apple so they ARE BigTech, the same as Google? I don't see how that argues against the point?
Box is the only one in that seems to qualify? Kinda proves my point that it's not at all easy for a laymen.
So instead of depending on three of the largest tech companies with built in redundancies, you want to depend on a fly by night operator with no track record?
You would even avoid DropBox because they also chose to use proven reliable technology until their own technology was good enough?
I mean personally I use iCloud and Google Drive, but i fully understand that at any point Apple or Google could decide to hand all of my data to a government, accidently turn off all their security and let anybody access my data, delete my data, or even go bankrupt.
But the point I was making was that it was hard for a laymen to decide to avoid using any of the bigtech companies, since so many of the small upstarts are just build on-top of the existing bigtech and aren't forthcoming on if they own the datacentre or if its Azure/Aws etc, so for those who they really did have privacy as their key driver it probably would be easier to self-host, or you have to trust somebody.
The adage that there's no such thing as cloud computing, just somebody else's computer makes sense. If you're that concerned with privacy it's far easier to run your own.
There is very much such a thing as “cloud computing”. The “cloud” isn’t just a bunch of VMs. There is an entire offering on top of the VMs. Your average consumer is not going to spin up a bunch of Linode VMs and create their own backup solutions.
slip of the tongue/keyboard. It was obviously supposed to read "There's no such thing as cloud storage, just somebody else's computer." It's a fairly well known phrase[0][1]. It's even a laptop sticker[2].
And no, they're not going to spin up a VM. They should buy their own NAS and back everything up to that if they care enough about privacy to avoid cloud storage.
Sure, but we're talking about cloud storage here for a laymen, who's hardly likely to know what AWS is, and we're also talking about a laymen who just wants to backing up a file, they're not using thinking about any of that. They just want to put their file on a drive somewhere. I'm arguing that if they care that much about privacy they should back it up to a device they own, and not use on a cloud provider. You're not providing a defence against any of that. You're saying that instead of storing their files on Google's computer they should use Amazons, or Microsofts? Why? If they truly value their own privacy they should back things up to a device they own such as a NAS, and/or a trusted family members NAS.
I've also just seen, which you didn't disclose, that you work at AWS[0]. Not disclosing a vested interest doesn't exactly lend confidence to your impartiality. Either way, I'm still not sure how your argument is a rebuttal to my proposal. SO far it seems to amount to "other cloud providers exist" and "Your mistype wasn't accurate"?
This applies especially in the UK, where it can be pouring with rain for an hour where I live, but beautiful sunshine 2 miles away where my brother lives. The country is an island with hills everywhere and a flat east coast. The Met office data doesn't really have the resolution wanted for some people.
The adage if you don't like the weather in the UK, wait 5 minutes, is also perfectly accurate.
Yes. I live on the South Coast and notice temperature changes from driving just a few mile inlands (e.g. in winter, the difference between car windscreens icing up or not).
> The adage if you don't like the weather in the UK, wait 5 minutes, is also perfectly accurate.
I know what you mean, but three or four hours will almost certainly guarantee a change (especially when raining) as this gives westerly fronts from the Atlantic to pass through.
I still don't see why you're not exposing these devices to Homekit in Home Assistant so that they show up natively on your Apple devices in the control centre? Having my smart speaker volume control next to my iPhone's volume control just makes sense for that? Same for quick access to lights? Just pull down from the clock and tap to turn on/off specific lights, or have sliders next to the iPhone brightness slider for lights with brightness granularity. I don't see what an app adds to that?
"It is understood investigations have not shown any data has been taken."
Versus
"The cyberattack was on a payroll system with current service personnel and some veterans. It is largely names and bank details that have been exposed."
Surely it's one or the other, they've either got hold of those details or not.