How do you define "minor accident" -- perhaps it was a "minor" accident because no one was injured and no other party was involved?
Last time I bought a car, I found the one I wanted with the note that it had been in a minor accident. I paid for the carfax, and learned that it had some damage and repairs, and had somehow traveled across the country in the process. Limited details, except, the accident had occurred in Florida. $10 later I had the police report. It was a 4wd car and suffered 2 broken axles & broken drive train. not minor in any way.
Axles are small and can break in half easily from a sudden torque inversion, like rolling backwards in neutral and then dropping the clutch in 1st. They are also easy to swap out and relatively inexpensive. If the transmission survived and the axle broke, I’d say the car is a keeper.
Article says "photos of the damage made it look more than minor"
Sounds like buyer was scammed.
> The term "salvage" was a complete shock, but a deeper dive into the CARFAX vehicle history report, which he didn't pull until after the sale, uncovered a "minor accident."
> Photos of the damage made it look more than minor, and a Tesla technician told him the repair work as shoddy.
The article doesn't miss it -- this is exactly the point. We can and will rearrange our environment to support robots, but that means they will never learn dexterity.
offline now. It's a reasonable to expect that this information should not be available in real time to protect parking officers. It's already published daily, as mentioned in other comments.
"undergoing maintenance" but spot check of data looks correct to me.
Street cleaning tickets are given efficiently and enforcement is conducted to minimize the time that people can't park. 2-4 parking officers drive in front of the street cleaning vehicles and ticket everyone parked. if you're watching at the time you'll see almost every car on the street pull out in front of the officers, circle the block and park right back in the same -- but now clean -- spot. those that don't get tickets.
1. zendesk allows you to add users to a support issue and view the complete issue history by sending a response email to a guessable support email from a person associated with an
issue and cc'ing the person to add.
2. Zen desk depends on a spam check for inbound email validity. This check does not appear to catch instances where sender email is spoofed. Zendesk claims this is bdue to DKIM/SPF/DMARC config but I have trouble imagining that 50% of Fortune 500 would get this wrong. There are many automated checks available.
3) Apple issues an Apple ID account to anyone who can receive a verification email
Sent to the mailing address (support@company.com)
4) Slack allows you to sign in to a workspace using any Apple ID associated with the workspace domain (e.g. support@company.com)
This researcher reported #2 to hackerone and was declined. Researcher later discovered full exploit with
3 and 4. Did not update hackerone, contacted affected companies directly.
it would have been prudent to update hackerone on the additional finding, but it feels like an easy oversight for a 15 year old after getting rejected on the first round.
Zendesk should take the higher ground and recognize the mistake and correct it. Not get all "ethical mumbo jumbo."
Based on the Oct 12 change log, "changed flight 4 to "starship super heavy" -- this reads that they can perform multiple flights with the same mission profile. So they can do a few quick test catches and avoid relicensing?
unlikely. They'd already created the prototype decks. They had the fabrication know-how in house. Sure they have in house VFX experience, but rigging the scene and trying to match lighting to reality and ultimately disappointing customers? It's a no brainer to use the real deal when you can.
Many would hire an agency to create an ad for you but that would 10x the cost, not to mention dealing with the opinions of an outsourced creative director...
Which itself is based on an earlier RFC for not-specifically-Geo-JSON, RFC 7464. Both do things a little different than the others: they use the "record separator" character at the start of each line and actually split on that separator when parsing.
The GeoJSON one pretty much seems to exist just to hang an "application/geo+json-seq" media type registration off of. Part of me wants to say this really should have been more of a "all json subtypes are also json-seq subtypes" situation but maybe that's not really feasible with the standards/registration processes.
This is only an issue with plain numbers, however. If you'd have the number in an object or array, you'd detect the truncation just as well. Since using jsonl for a plain list of numbers is... overkill, I'd say it's not an issue.
On the other hand, requiring line terminators in the standard would inevitably lead to incompatibility issues. Most software would accept unterminated files, because text libraries do; and so some files will not be terminated. Some applications do not line-terminate files even on Linux (hello VSCode), and it would be even more problematic on Windows
It makes it incompatible with concatenative streaming, requires O(n^2) reparsing on every new chunk instead of just scanning for \n.
And if you have to parse values to detect end of record anyway, there’s no point in having jsonl standard at all, since you can just try to parse until the matching brace and repeat on success.
What’s the difference between terminators and separators here? The ndjson spec [0] doesn’t say anything like that, and it seems that ndjson and jsonlines are identical in what documents they accept.
A separator separates two records, where as a terminator terminates a record.
You can detect and error out if you see an unterminated record at end of transmission. With separators, the producer might not put a separator after the last record, because there's nothing to separate it from there.
There's no justification for not using terminators, it's just a bad spec. Unsurprising story: the variant with better marketing has less technical chops.
