• 0 Posts
  • 144 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 23rd, 2023

help-circle

  • In my opinion, if Newsom is anything worth his salt, he would invest public funds into tiny homes and basically guaranteed jobs for the homeless, rather than being cool with things like:

    • living in the BART facilities
    • living in tents on the street
    • being rounded up into random buildings/facilities because Xi is coming
    • $20 minimum wage for everyone but Panera Bread since the CEO is my friend

    Newsom, literally with the stoke of a pen, could invest public funds into helping the homeless in a provable way, yet he does not. The only conclusion I can come to is that he does not want to.

    Please, convince me otherwise, but the state of, at least, SF under Newsom (and big tech, admittedly) has greatly deteriorated










  • Delete hosted cloud. Move back to hosting your own. When every cloud is different (since it’s built and configured by some random IT and DevOps people for that company) it becomes much harder to find an exploit than it is in the big 3 cloud providers. Security by obscurity.

    Cloud services targeting governments are just a giant scam (e.g. FedRamp). They are just as vulnerable as everything else, the only difference is some slick salesperson was able to land a contract by talking about how much money it would save by not having to hire “expensive engineers” directly. This is exactly where it leads, and it’s not a surprise, it’s a known known in big tech.










  • The law being challenged for those interested (commonly known as “stand your ground” law)

    21-5222. Same; defense of a person; no duty to retreat. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force. (b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person. © Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person or a third person.

    I personally think it is pretty obvious that there was not “reasonable” cause to shoot someone simply since they rang your doorbell, but now it is up to a jury.

    I also doubt this would be in the headlines if it was white man shooting white man or black man shooting black man. This really just seems like race baiting which isn’t surprising in an election year I guess, moreso it’s disappointing.