As far as people I’d trust to not just make shit up, I’d say Librarian, aka, professional fucking researcher is high on the list.
As far as people I’d trust to not just make shit up, I’d say Librarian, aka, professional fucking researcher is high on the list.
Don’t bother with the cert if it’s not your job, but at least look into CCNA Routing and Switching. There are tons of courses available, both in person and online, as well as numerous YouTube videos on the subject.
See if your local library or community college has an adult education center that provides a course. At some point, you will need to learn subnetting, which is just math, but practice makes perfect, and your life is easier if you have it committed to memory.
Proper written work is still one of the most effective ways to do this.
While true, it’s pretty asinine to hold companies operating in China accountable for complying with Chinese law. It sucks, but they aren’t just going to abandon the Chinese ~cash cow~ market.
Or, the real sign of gentrification is that the Google Maps car drives by your neighborhood more than once every five years. Guarantee that’s not happening in the projects.
Sorry if I’m about 10 years behind Linux development, but how does Docker compare with the latest FlatPak trend in application distribution? How you have described it sounds somewhat similar, outside of also getting segmented access to data and networks.
This. They clearly overextended due to the boom in streaming during the pandemic, and are now reacting to the contraction in content consumption both here, and on YouTube.
Possible? Yes. Likely? Not at all.
To perform a zero knowledge proof, you’d have to have structured data to support the claim, which most whistleblowers would not have. If a whistleblower already had the hard evidence in hand, e.g., serial numbers and timestamps, they could have just provided those anonymously, and someone could follow up. The problem is, you can’t always get a copy of the hard evidence without revealing your intent to the employer, or at least, other employees.
Presumably most whistleblowers are making unsubstantiated claims that something happened, or maybe with light evidence. Based on who they are, a journalist or investigator may then elect to follow up and dig up the hard evidence to support the claim. This requires revealing your name and position/relationship to at least one person. Rarely, they would be willing to put themselves out there to provide an affidavit under oath, which itself is not enough to pursue criminal charges (though it could help build a case around intent or willful neglect, or help support a warrant or discovery).
It’s illegal, but not unheard of, to try to force journalists to reveal their sources, but the same protections are not universally in place if you reported a finding to a company’s internal affairs, for example. But unlike attorney-client privilege, or shield law protections, the risk in signing an affidavit is, as we’ve seen in recent US trials, that records will not stay sealed, and your name will be revealed to the defense and/or public.