nous

You are not considered to be working somewhere until you have signed a contract and after the start date on that contract. Accepting a offer is not signing a contract. You are not working at the new place yet. You have no obligations to do anything at that point. You just need to have stopped working at your current employment before your start date. You definitely do not need to quit before accepting the offer. No where I have worked requires that.

You are right. You cannot onboard a new job before you leave your old one. Accepting an offer is not part of the onboarding process though. It happens before.

After an interview process the company makes an offer. The candidate can then accept or reject it. But that is really all informal. You can then negotiate with them for an official start date and contract. You just need to ensure you can hand in your notice and work the rest of your notice period before the start date of your new contract.

I don't know anyone that would hand in their notice before accepting the initial offer of a company. At least here in the UK.

Probably not the only thing they are used for considering it's ties to the CIA

You assume they don't already have a job and we're just looking for other opportunities. Not everyone is unemployed before they apply for other jobs. If anything that is a good time to look as it gives you stronger position to negotiate from.

Yes it is a security issue. But almost everything is. You can make it secure enough with the right policies. However it overall increases the attack surface of your application and has a greater chance that you missed something or miss configured the policies. So many firebase apps have been hacked because of miss configured access to the database.

So it puts more work on you to get things right.

Think it is an old blackarch logo - an arch based pentesting distro.

Valve needs to win this. Or at least stop this part:

The NYAG also proposed to gather additional information (beyond what we normally collect in the course of processing payments) about each game user on the off-chance someone in New York was anonymizing their location to appear outside of New York, such as by using a VPN. This would have involved implementing invasive technologies for every user worldwide. Similarly, the NYAG demanded that Valve collect more personal data about our users to do additional age verification—even though most payment methods used by New York Steam users already have age verification built-in. Valve knows our users care about the security of their personal information, and we believe it’s in our and their interest to only collect the information necessary to operate the business and comply with law.

Loot boxes are overall bad for users and should be regulated. But not by getting valve to collect personal information on everyone in the world.

Audiences watching any live TV on the likes of YouTube or streaming platforms need a TV licence, but this is apparently not well known and not effectively enforced.

I hate this. What does it mean by live TV? Is that any live stream on YouTube? Or live shows published by the BBC. They make no attempt to clarify WTH you need a license for. I am not going to pay for a TV licence to watch someone in Australia live stream something that will never see a dime from it. Also YouTube and these other platforms have their own monitozation methods. Are they not collecting on that as well? What about people outside the UK that watch these shows through these platforms?

The whole thing is just a mess of confusion.

When 94% of people use the BBC each month yet fewer than 80% of households contribute,

How the hell did they get this 94%. Seems very high number. I know many people that just don't have a TV anymore.

In an open letter to the prime minister, Labour MPs said "successive governments" had done "too little to protect young people from... unregulated, addictive social media platforms".

They are focusing on the wrong thing. The problem is not young people access it, it the unregulated and addictive parts. Those affect everyone not just the young. Regulate the addictive behaviours of these platforms and protect everyone. Don't just force ages ineffective age verification that harms the privacy of everyone.

I treat warning as todos. Fix them all before I release something. I would only ever disable one if I know for a fact the warning is a false positive.

I would question why you are seeing so many warnings you are not sure about? If you keep on top of them you really shouldn't have that many. Marking them all as allowed with a Todo comment feels just like you are burying you head in the sand.

I would leave them all there to keep nudging you to investigate and remove them. Hiding them behind a Todo will just mean you will ignore them. And warnings are important, they very likely point to a problem, even if that is just the code could be simpler. It is rare they are true false positives.

Looks like there is going to be a shift to using nftables in arch. The iptables package in core is currently for the legacy interface with an iptables-nft package for the new interface, but the core-testing iptables package is for nft interface and there is now a iptables-legacy package in core-testing.

My guess is they are moving packages that can work with nftables to depend on that instead of iptables which looks like it is shortly going to be using the new nftables interface anyway. Probably as part of migrating to nftables by default. Looks like docker does have experimental support for nftables in version 1.29 and that is when the dependency was added to the PKGBUILD script.

It does not look like nftables or iptables conflict with each other at a package level. And nftables can work with iptables rules.

It is probably worth just migrating to nftables now if you rely on managing iptables yourself.

Why do this at all. Design your tools and systems to create directories in the repo that are needed if they don't exist.