These phish testing companies always stick a header (X-PHISH-TEST or some such) on the email so the email server can white-list -- easy to just Outlook blackhole filter anything with that header after you've seen one test.
What stops an attacker from abusing the same header?
It could be kinda-secure if the header had to have a payload which matched a certain value pre-approved for a time-period. However an insider threat could see the test going on and then launch their own campaign during the validity window.
"Our biochem corpus is far in advance of theirs, as is our electronic sentience, and their 'ethical inflexibility' has allowed us to make progress in areas they refuse to consider."
Any day now Equifax is going down. The real difference is that humans have some institutional power over political jurisdictions and how they are run and exactly none over how (large enough) businesses are.
If you want to hold a long-term personal boycott against Volkswagon for immoral business practice, I assure you there are better reasons than the diesel emissions testing scandal.
Until you need to substitute ingredients, you use a different type or rangetop, the pan metal or thickness is different, or something else changes. This was a perfect analogy. People can follow the recipe of assemling various frameworks and toolkits to create software, but they will eventually encounter difficulty.
You may not need to understand molecular differences, but knowing hows fats, proteins, and carbs work, along with how to substitute ingredients, and different theories of cooking all help to actually understand why you can cook until mysteriously things don't work the same as yesterday.
It is said that each fold on a chef's hat represents a different way they know how to cook an egg. Thet need to understand when to apply low heat, high heat, add liquids, when proteins denature and when they coagulate.
Of course, following a recipe in specific ideal circumstances works, as long as nothing changes.
You're right. That would be a counter-example because of non-biological second-order effects.
But in this context, we're talking about first-order biological effects that aren't accounted for because of race. If race doesn't have biological underpinnings then the larger argument is meaningless.
The best outcome for MS would be if the Apple App Store itself were to become one of several app stores on iOS devices. Then MS could build out the pipeline (largely already possess it) to have their own MS App Store on iOS and Android, paired with their development tools which, really, are topnotch. They wouldn't necessarily need to undercut Apple's percentage, but just reduce friction for development and deployment across OSes.
No doubt. I'm just saying what would benefit them. They already have the infrastructure for developing cross-platform software. If this suit, taken to its extreme, breaks Apple's hold on the iOS app store then MS would benefit greatly by having their own app store which worked across their OS and the two primary mobile OSes.
As I understand it, though, there's little motivation to sell software on Android versus iOS right now due to the relative lack of sales (that is, iOS users consistently spend more an applications than Android users). I doubt there'd be much incentive to invest in an app store infrastructure on Android right now given the poor expected return (going off of my recollection, Amazon's app store has not done particularly well, what would differentiate MS's from Amazon's right now?). But if you could have the same app store on both iOS and Android, you'd place yourself in a much more compelling position (for users and developers).
And since iOS users have demonstrated a willingness to part with their money for software, it's a better target for companies like MS, Steam, Epic, and others than Android (or Android alone).
