The victim can report to the government local to the hackers, but that local government is under no real obligation to do anything about it.

And given this, why would most companies keep paying their defenders to hunt them down once the trail seems to end in a foreign country?

Defence is seen as a cost that reduces other costs, rather than something which will pay back, so I suspect it only happens if the company doesn’t have other work for the defenders to do (rare) so they might as well work on this as be paid to do nothing, if they think the attackers may return so they want to learn as much as possible about them for future defence (depends on what they did and who they it seems they may be), or if the government where the company is based steps in to fund the hunt for some reason (maybe political).

Vibe coding at its finest? Maybe they were implemented by Copilot and it saw an opportunity to hurt a rival AI?

These ex-BBC reporters agree with you: The News Agents: Inside the BBC: What really went on

Episode webpage: https://www.thenewsagents.co.uk/

Media file: https://episodes.captivate.fm/episode/7a06ad81-9dd6-480d-9333-b38ff56fbd05.mp3?aw_0_1st.showid=c49390b9-6909-4cd3-a974-e270cf686f27&aw_0_1st.episodeid=7a06ad81-9dd6-480d-9333-b38ff56fbd05

a member of the Joint Chiefs

Belgium has a single Chief Head of Defence. In Belgium, the Joint Chiefs are some guys who figured how to get supplies from Dutch coffee shops!

Arrive on time?

Cartoon about the BBC currently sucking up to the far right: https://tech.lgbt/@Natasha_Jay/115524226654011092

But he did say ‘we fight like hell’. The bad edit just made it seem clearer than Trump’s speeches ever are. If there had been an edit flash (where the screen briefly goes grey between clips) and ideally a couple of snatches of speech from in between, there would have been no credible complaint. This seems more like wanting history to be neater than it usually is, not an attempt to change Trump’s fundamental message, no matter how much he’s backpedalled it since.

How can you tell? It looks like a bad edit. This is not like the 2007 incident of editing things out of order to fake someone leaving an appointment angrily, then making an indiscreet comment on the faked event.

‘We fight like hell’ isn’t much of a code!

Naughty CNN! Trump did indeed say to ‘we fight like hell’ as you can see in the full transcript on news sites that haven’t surrendered yet, such as AP: Transcript of Trump’s speech at rally before US Capitol riot | AP News

Any one hour documentary pretty much has to edit that rambling dumpster fire of a speech. The BBC’s main mistake was not to make the edit clearer.

This was probably worth an apology. Was it worth the leader resigning? Probably not. The right-wing media succeeds in hunting another witch. I hope it backfires and Labour appoint someone further left.

I might have upvoted that except how do you define “run by”? Who is the fediverse “run by”?

How can you call this good? While I agree there are problems needing tackling, this proposal does nothing to help young adults and the parental consent option seems very likely to create a have/have-not split in child groups which will also have negative impacts.

It looks rather like the “we must do something, and this is something, so we must do this” fallacy being used to exploit child protection to start compulsory ID checks.

Yes, this does smell a bit like fixing the wrong problem mixed with a possible trojan horse for compulsory ID-verification (and the dodgy businesses often claiming to provide it). Surely if social media is too corrosive for young people, there are a lot of adults who also won’t be able to cope, so the corrosive bits need to be tackled?

Also seen at https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/57081889

Not sure why this isn’t a crosspost.

Yeah, that’s not how socialism is used in most of the world. It’s to the right of communism, to the left of social democratic, not really encountered the others enough to know where they stand, except anarchism is off on another axis. Communists may see socialism as a step towards them, but socialism doesn’t necessarily mean collectives, as other forms of ownership are accepted. Look at the principles of groups like Socialist International.

It’s more part of socialism than it is of liberalism! Liberals generally want the least property regulation needed for their system to work, whereas socialists want the means of production to be owned by the workers or users, depending what sort of socialists.

Are you confusing socialism with communism? Communism is more likely to say everything should be common property.

Sadly, but which of course doesn’t imply the reverse.

Ugggh, pass the mindbleach for that mental image!

You write like those things are incompatible and liberal socialists don’t exist in most other countries.

NYC has lots of foreign residents and visitors, maybe the most of any USA city, so isn’t a foreign-born mayor there more than merely ‘internal news’? It’s not like the mayoral election of Nowhere, North Dakota.