Yes, but usually something like that leaves other signs. If men with guns take away a lot of people in your company in theory other people will notice.
I'm surprised that top 20 in Osu doesn't require video proof beyond screen recording! A hand cam requirement for even one run would have instantly called this out.
The sad thing is, laws like this are almost worse when they are used infrequently, since they the government can apply selective enforcement against people it doesn't like but are otherwise legal (we're seeing that now). Laws like this should be dredged up and revoked because they are otherwise landmines and secret weapons waiting to be abused by future (or current) governments.
This isn't some obscure law that's being "dredged up." It's been enforced continuously, including under Obama. It's just being made an enforcement priority. Previously, it was prosecuted only in serious cases, usually involving national security threats. But there's no good reason why it shouldn't be enforced for more mundane cases of immigration fraud, which are well within the scope of the law.
If it's not a serious case or a national security threat, why impose de-naturalization quotas? Surely if there are real threats out there we should be dedicating the energy to those?
(Also since you brought up Obama, why was Obama able to deport so many more people than Trump? And able to do it without terrorizing US cities with secret/poorly trained police, or needing a DHS with a larger budget than most other countries' militaries?)
You're fixated on a "technically this is legal" argument. But you're (perhaps willfully) missing the larger repercussions. This administration has lied and misled about their opponents committing fraud. You know they are not acting in good faith. So why would we want to further empower capricious, inconsistent, and politically motivated behavior?
You need to enforce it because illegal immigration is harmful in and of itself, even if the immigrants aren’t criminals or national security threats. Why do we enforce speed limits even when the person doesn’t cause a serious accident? Because the point of the law is to create a deterrent effect that compels people to follow a certain process.
Obama had an easier time deporting people because, at the time, most people in his party accepted the view that illegal immigration is harmful even without some other crime: https://www.foxnews.com/media/2010-obama-clip-goes-viral-whe.... Back then, even most Democrats embraced requiring immigrant to assimilate. If you think assimilation is important, then it naturally follows that we have to control the number of immigrants at a level where America changes them before they change America. Today, many of them reject assimilation in favor of multi-culturalism. If you embrace multi-culturalism, it’s hard to justify any limit on the number of immigrants. And at that point, illegal immigration just becomes a technicality.
For the same reason people fishing without a license is harmful even if it's not otherwise criminal. It's not about one fish. It's about a system that's designed to avoid social harm by limiting the aggregate volume of an activity, and people fraudulently bypassing those limits.
Does fishing without a license warrant the same large-scale violent carceral approach that DHS is taking? That would be an insane, disruptive overreaction for something that poses no public safety danger.
> So why would we want to further empower capricious, inconsistent, and politically motivated behavior?
Well because I want the laws enforced. Other politicians had my whole life to enforce immigration law and they chose not to. If it's between this and unchecked immigration status quo, I choose this. This is a lesson to respectfully enforce the rule of law and the will of the people lest they enforce it disrespectfully later.
> It was accomplished by simply choosing to enforce the law.
They accomplished it by terrorizing people based on the color of their skin. There's nothing "simple" about creating a gigantic secret police force. There's nothing "lawful" about blatantly ignoring court orders.
You already conceded that there is no public danger. Your argument boils down yet again Great Replacement nonsense about immigrants being bad for America.
All laws? Because there are several that the administration are actively breaking. Surely you want those enforced too? How about court orders?
> Other politicians had my whole life to enforce immigration law and they chose not to.
I mean, Obama was way more effective at deporting illegal immigrants than Trump. Even by raw numbers. So I'm not sure how you can honestly argue that de-naturalization quotas are necessary now, when they weren't before for an even more effective administration.
That is literally the way laws work. Laws don't have moral statuses attached in them, we prescribe that to them as citizens. It would be wrong for this law to be enforced, and it should be revoked, but from a state perspective and a legal perspective, it IS "perfectly fine".
There is nothing morally wrong with the law either. It's morally irrelevant that it used to be in the same code provision as another law that was based on a racial classification. The law we're talking about today doesn't do that. And I would be surprised if any developed country doesn't have a similar law. Canada does, for example: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/immigration-citizenship/he...
To pick one point out of the article for discussion, does anyone have any idea why the US is the leader in per-capita prison rates? The laws aren't all that different from other first world nations, and i doubt all the other nations have magically solved crime. What is going on? Is crime just lower in other nations? Do they not punish as many crimes with jail time?
Longer incarceration times in the US, fewer alternative punishments, lower rehabilitation and a higher inequality compared to similar countries. Recidivism in North-west Europe is around 25% compared to around 60% for the US, combined with longer and more prison sentences for comparable crimes quickly leads to much higher incarceration rates.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction".
America uses prisons to warehouse the mentally ill. We also have the rare combination of extremely high rates of violence - our rate of violent gun deaths per 100,000 is in the top 5 globally, slotting in between Mexico and Venezuela - and fairly robust policing and judiciary functions.
Universal healthcare, social security. There has been a reduction in availability of care for the mentally ill in the country I live, which resulted in more homelessness, confused people on the streets etc.
Same where i live. In the 90s there were huge cuts to balance the deficit. Then, combined with the rising cost of housing throughout the noughties and after, massive numbers of homeless in tents you never saw before.
That's can't be entirely it. Other nations have similar laws against drug use, and from what i remember reading only 5% of the prison population is in jail for non-violent drug related crimes.
US incarceration rates increased 500% in the decades following the enactment of war on drugs legislation, starting with the Controlled Substances Act in 1970.
More speculatively, I think the prison system has also taken over the role of the mental health institutions that were wound down under Reagan. Over half of the incarcerated population has a mental health condition, and likely are not receiving adequate mental health care while incarcerated.
You actually seem to have a compelling case here. I am seeing something like 20% of the combined state and federal prison population is in for drug offenses, but that raises some more questions. I could certainly believe that a lot of that is simple possession and the US is uniquely terrible in that regard, but certainly other countries must handle drug dealers as well. And it's hard to break out drug offenses into more detail. Are we talking kilograms of possession? Distributing drugs? (of course, some laws claim that possession, say, 10 grams implies intent to distribute which complicates things).
And even outside of drugs, while 20% of our prison population does account for a large chunk of the us's exceptional nature, it would still leave us #1 by a large margin if it didn't exist. Although Wikipedia does talk about another part of this is due to the _length_ of the US sentences, and how they are much longer on average then other countries, so that also contributes significantly.
The United Kingdom also extensively uses private prisons, along with Japan and Australia, among others. If that is it then it would be a lobbying problem specific to the US, which seems like it could be pinpointed to more specific laws or sentencing guidelines.
But that 8% is almost as many prisoners as comparable countries have, total. The lobbying and sometimes outright corruption around private prisons doesn't care if it also feeds people into non-private prisons as long as it also feeds the private prison beast
additional to some things of other posters i would like to add these things:
- 3 Strikes policy: once you commit 3 Crimes, the third trial gets you a lifesentence
- police has effective immunity: the police can do everything, from getting 3 people incarcarated for the crime that only one person commited to shooting anything that shooting anything that frightens them(backfiring of an car has caused an shooting that turned an person into sieve)
- in many states lying by the police is allowed.
- the widespread availability of Weapons of War: i mean weapons that have no usage apart from killing people
That's a convenient explanation, but it's almost too convenient. We just got unlucky and there's not much we can do? We just got bad people and bad culture and that's that? It's also pretty difficult to prove! Not to say it's wrong, just that it makes thing too easy.
To give you an example in disparity of culture a relative of mine visited me a few years back from Austria. We took a train into NYC and the notices the sign that said “Assaulting transportation personnel is punishable by up to 7 years in prison” and couldn’t stop laughing all day. They are a lawyer and had never encountered a non murder case with a sentence that harsh.
For a real answer, if something being posted to HN only requires it be relevant to someone and be interesting, doesn't that mean that anything is allowed? There is currently a conflict between groups of HN users as to what is reasonable to post here and what isn't.
Well not exactly. The guidelines are contradictory. They say that "Anything that good hackers would find interesting" is on topic, but "Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports" are off topic. How do you resolve the difference? It's just a cultural decision as to what is allowed and what isn't.
"Just" is doing a lot of work in that problem restatement. It's not a word typically found in front of the phrase "cultural decision", although I commend the baldness of your ideological commitments.
As an active reverse engineer, I'm really curious how you used agetic AI for this! Did you just have them going through the code and labeling stuff? Or were they also responsible for writing the reimplementation? This overview is super interesting, I would love to see details about the pipeline itself.
There are many ghidra plugin, like GhidrAssist, you can use to connect to a LLM. They will automatically put a name on each function and variable. It is far from perfect but it is way faster than doing it by hand in my experience.
out of curiosity, why is a self signed cert bad for this case? Can't the updater check the validity of the cert just as well regardless? Or did the attackers get access to the signing key as well?
> Until version 8.8.7 of Notepad++, the developer used a self-signed certificate, which is available in the Github source code. This made it possible to create manipulated updates and push them onto victims, as binaries signed this way cause a warning „Unknown Publisher“
It also mentions "installing a root certificate". I suspect that it means that users who installed the root cert could check that a downloaded binary was legit but everyone else (i.e. the majority of users) were trained to blindly click through the warning.
Notepad++ has way too many updates for a text editor. I purposely decline most of the nags to update for precisely this reason. It is too juicy of a target and was bound to get compromised.
reply