COULD USE SOME END-OF-THE-MONTH DONATIONS! THANKS!
Posted on: Feb 04, 2023
"This obsession with the slavery of the Antebellum South, again, it is something that happened in the past. No White person alive today in the United States of America has ever owned a slave. No Black person alive today in the United States of America has ever had to pick cotton.
But the reality is, we are all (White or Black, Brown, Red, Peach Taupe Mauve, Plaid) slaves anyway to the "Infernal" Revenue Service, to the Federal Reserve, to the IMF, to the military industrial complex, to the Medical Industrial complex. We do not have the freedom to be independent.
We are forced to buy and to use certain products, to surrender our money for things we don't really want, and that really is an ideal definition of slavery: that your work product is taken away from you and you get nothing in return that you want.
But this obsession with the slavery of the Antebellum South is being fanned up to divide the American people against each other so that we don't unite together against the slavery that is happening in front of us now today.
You think about that for a while." -- Michael Rivero
Graphics processing units (GPUs) from Apple, AMD, Intel, Qualcomm, Arm, and Nvidia are vulnerable to a new attack that lets malicious websites read usernames, passwords, and other sensitive data displayed by other websites.
According to a research paper published on Tuesday, 26 September 2023, the cross-origin attack lets a malicious website from one domain read pixels displayed by other domains.
Malicious actors can then reconstruct the pixels to view words or images displayed by the target domain.
However, for the attack to work, a malicious page must be loaded into Chrome or Edge. Internal differences in the way Firefox and Safari work block the attack from stealing pixels.
A startling and honestly distressing view is beginning to receive serious consideration in both academic and popular discussions of climate change ethics. According to this view, having a child is a major contributor to climate change. The logical takeaway here is that everyone on Earth ought to consider having fewer children.
Although culturally controversial, the scientific half of this position is fairly well-established. Several years ago, scientists showed that having a child, especially for the world’s wealthy, is one of the worst things you can do for the environment. That data was recycled this past summer in a paper showing that none of the activities most likely to reduce individuals’ carbon footprints are widely discussed.
The second, moral aspect of the view — that perhaps we ought to have fewer children — is also being taken seriously in many circles. Indeed, I have writtenwidely on the topic myself.
But scientific evidence and moral theorizing aside, this is a complicated question with plenty of opponents. In what follows, I will address some of the challenges to this idea. Because while I recognize that this is an uncomfortable discussion, I believe that the seriousness of climate change justifies uncomfortable conversations. In this case, that means that we need to stop pretending the decision to have children doesn't have environmental and ethical consequences.
The argument that having a child adds to one’s carbon footprint depends on the view that each of us has a personal carbon ledger for which we are responsible. Furthermore, some amount of an offspring’s emissions count towards the parents’ ledger.