Robust_Mirror

Sushi doesn't have to be raw. Sashimi is raw by definition. But yes, that's what they were aiming for.

Yes, because that's what they're used to. That's not nothing. But in Australia I've had the opposite experience. Every single one saying they prefer uncut. It's just what you're exposed to.

It's more complicated than that.

Most immigrants without proper documentation arrived legally and therefore haven't committed a crime, they overstayed or fell out of status, which is civil.

But people who enter or reenter the United States without permission CAN face criminal charges, specifically under 8 USC section 1325 (improper entry, a misdemeanour) and section 1326 (reentry after deportation, a felony).

Well our parents were/are mostly tech illiterate, were they also bad parents because they couldn't educate us on it? The new generation have 100x the ability to self educate than we did as well.

You're not wrong. They're designed to burn up completely but there have already been failures and documented cases of 2.5kg pieces hitting the ground. The FAA predicts at current trajectories we're looking at about 1 person hit every 2 years by stray debris. And it's only going to get worse the more they launch.

They'd last as debris for about 5 years before falling. Atmospheric drag among other things causes orbital decay that cause them to eventually fall to earth without adjustments.

Will it though? What exactly is it doing differently? Because to my knowledge the only thing that matters is using more water. Having more water inherently cooks it longer. It's done when all the water is absorbed/evaporated. That's why you can use basic rice cookers with nothing but an on button for both white and brown, just get the water ratio right.

I fully agree, there isn't a good reason. The issue is that flaw is a systemic one in Windows.

Modern operating systems should be operating under zero trust. The fact that Windows still operates on Intranet Era logic, where if a file is reachable, it’s probably safe, is exactly why these exploits keep happening.

The problem comes down to a Windows API called ShellExecute. When an application like Notepad passes a link to this API, it is effectively saying to the OS, The user wants to open this, figure out how to run it.

Windows looks at it and essentially says, Oh, it's an .exe on a network share? The user must want to run that software, launch it, rather than, This is executable code from a network location I don't control, download it and make the user double-click it themselves.

The main reason it does this is for legacy enterprise convenience. Decades ago Microsoft designed Windows so that companies could put internal tools on a shared drive and employees could run them instantly. They prioritised seamlessness over security by assuming the network perimeter was the security boundary, and everything on it was there because they wanted it to be.

Obviously that assumption is dangerous. Like you said, no remote executable should ever be treated as trusted by default, regardless of whether it came from the Store, an SMB share, or a web link. The action of clicking a link should never map directly to execution of code. It should map to retrieval of data. Microsoft basically turned a convenience feature into a permanent vulnerability.

Yeah I get your thought process, but the second vulnerability is actually just how Windows is designed to work. When Notepad follows a link, it isn't opening a web page, it's passing a command directly to the OS shell.

Because Notepad is a trusted native application, it bypasses many of the security checks that a browser has.

If the link uses the file:// protocol to point to an .exe on a remote server, or ms-appinstaller to trigger an install, the OS treats that as a direct instruction to launch that software, so it can trigger an app installation prompt or, depending on the exploit, silently side-load malicious packages.

No, I didn't.

This is akin to calling the police for the murder of your spouse BEFORE you commit the murder. There's literally no good reason not to wait until after.

Please, name me a logical reason why, before you commit the act, during the planning stage, or even when you are moments from planning to execute the plan, you would call someone entirely unrelated to prepare a document about what you are going to do, instead of calling them AFTER.

No, it doesn't.

This is akin to calling the police for the murder of your spouse BEFORE you commit the murder. There's literally no good reason not to wait until after.

Please, name me a logical reason why, before you commit the act, during the planning stage, or even when you are moments from planning to execute the plan, you would call someone entirely unrelated to prepare a document about what you are going to do, instead of calling them AFTER.