Limonene

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

Thank you for explaining it. I have been confused about this for hours. I thought he was talking about congress members. I don't think I could have ever figured it out.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Are you on Linux, or Windows? If you're on Linux, which driver are you using?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

I never saw that character in the game, but there are dozens of other reasons to hate Metro 2033.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Sounds like what you're looking for is an ATX12V plug. It's a 2x2 connector that normally has two yellow and two black wires. It normally goes into the 2x2 receptacle on the motherboard to power the processor. In this case, the eGPU enclosure needs it for some reason, maybe for more power.

The good news is that the 2x4 breakaway connector (called EPS12V I believe) that splits into two 2x2 connectors is probably compatible with this receptacle. One of the two 2x2 pieces of the connector should fit into the eGPU's power receptacle, and the other won't. If it fits, it is probably the right connector. If two of the wires going to that connector are yellow, and two are black, then it's almost certainly the right connector.

You may have multiple of these 2x4 breakaway connectors. If so, they should behave identically, and you can break up any of them and try to fit the pieces into the ATX12V receptacle.

List of ATX power supply connectors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_supply_unit_(computer)#Connectors (without images, unfortunately.)

Don't forget about the big 20-pin or 24-pin main ATX motherboard power connector. Your second power supply, since it is non-modular, will need something to simulate the motherboard's power button. That's can be as simple as a switch between the PS-ON wire (green) and any ground wire (black). But hopefully your eGPU has a place to plug in the ATX motherboard power connector, and handles that on-off switching for you.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 weeks ago

I've seen "Domain Controller" and "Subscriber" for the sake of plausible deniability.

In the case of SPI, they want to keep intact the names MISO (master in, slave out) and MOSI. So they use things like "Main" and "Sub".

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 month ago (10 children)

You can tell it's a dead mall because it's tilted. Functioning ships and stations are always coplanar with the galactic plane.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

If you are Microsoft, then yeah. You'd go to jail when a Windows vulnerability is found.

In all seriousness though: it would be more likely to be just a civil penalty, or a fine. If we did want corporate jail sentences, there are a few ways to do it. These are not specific to my proposal about software vulnerabilities being crimes; it's about corporate accountability in general.

First, a corporation could have a central person in charge of ethical decisions. They would go to prison when the corporation was convicted of a jailable offense. They would be entitled to know all the goings on in the company, and hit the emergency stop button for absolutely anything whenever they saw a legal problem. This is obviously a huge change in how things work, and not something that could be implemented any time soon in the US because of how much Congress loves corporations, and because of how many crimes a company commits on a daily basis.

Second, a corporation could be "jailed" for X days by fining them X/365 of their annual profit. This calculation would need to counter clever accounting tricks. For example some companies (like Amazon, I've heard) never pay dividends, and might list their profit as zero because they reinvest all the profit into expanding the company. So the criminal fine would take into account some types of expenditures.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 month ago (12 children)

This is stupid. Their justification is an "unusual degree of vulnerabilities."

So why not outlaw vulnerabilities? Impose real fines or jail time, or at the very least a civil liability that can't be waived be EULA. Better than an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (3 children)

They only want to tax employee benefits above $12,000. The point of it seems to be to limit how much health insurance people get, so it limits their access to healthcare.

If all employer-provided health insurance was taxed (not just the amount above $12,000) it would be a good thing in the long run, because it would disentangle health insurance from employment.

[–] [email protected] 187 points 1 month ago (11 children)

Business ethics is the opposite of ethics.

view more: ‹ prev next ›