Folks that really care about security go for tamper evidence.
For example you can get a filing cabinet which has a lock and a counter that ticks every time it is opened. You pair it with a clipboard where you note the counter count, why you opened it and sign.
It can be picked, that can't be avoided. But the act of opening it creates a trail which can be detected. Adding a false clipboard entry is detected by subsequent users, there typically aren't many people with access.
Determining that you have a breach allows it to be investigated, mitigated. The lock is an important part of that, but it isn't perfectly secure so you manage that flaw.
Of course filing cabinets are getting rare and replaced by digital document stores, with their own auditing and issues.
But if that's not the threat you are trying to protect against, there are locks that are sufficiently secure that picking or other "low-impact" defeat attempts are considered pretty much pointless. Abloy protec2 comes to mind.
The Canadian Mint in Ottawa has a rather impressive large gold bar on display in the gift shop for people to lift and take photos with. It's not in a case or anything.
It's chained down with a Protec padlock - and there's a cop a few feet away to deal with you trying something un-subtle.
To me that sounds more like a good endorsement for having a guy legally authorized to use force against you standing guard. Any old padlock is probably safe when a uniformed agent of the state with weapons of varying lethality is standing next to it.
You don't even have to go that far. Firefighters have core pulling kits that take care of 90% of all locks in 2 minutes tops. And for most other locks, the thing holding the lock tends to be less of an issue than the lock.
I had an Abloy Protec2 malfunction while locked (PSA don't use them for key-only sashlocks) and the locksmith drilled it out in ~10 seconds. That is the last time I spend that kind of money on a lock!
Doesn't even need to go as far as using power tools.
Every lock I've been unable to pick (usually due to the fact that it's a pile of rust) has been susceptible to bolt-cutters. Big lock? Bigger cutters. Still cheaper than an angle-grinder.
Not in the sense of "can't be opened without the key".
Good locks buy you two things: Deterrence (maybe), and a set minimum of time and noise requirements to bypass them. If your lock reputably takes 3 minutes to pick or a Ramset gun to blast them open, make sure your guard comes by every two minutes, and otherwise stays in earshot.
It's obvious to the owner and the whole world that an intrusion has occurred if the door is sawed open or the lock is cut off. It's nice to know your home has been broken into vs. some of your jewelry is gone and you don't know whether to blame your teenager, a relative, someone who did work on your house since you last checked, etc.
Photos of your sawed open door will probably help in your insurance claim too. Telling your assessor "the cops say they might have picked the lock" isn't something I'd want to rely on to get my claim approved.
Assa Abloy’s Cliq (electromechanical) keys aren’t able to be picked as far as I know (I could definitely be wrong!), the local international airport uses them to secure doors. The keys aren’t cheap, we have to put up a several hundred dollar deposit when checking them out from airport security for projects. These sorts of locks are useful in places with 24-hour operations or in public spaces that lead to private spaces, an unpickable lock falls to a drill pretty quickly if that’s an option.
Virtually any lock can be destroyed with tools and most doors/walls can be busted through with enough effort and equipment. I think the airport police would notice that, though ;)
It depends on what "secure" means. Any lock can be destroyed with tools. Most locks can be broken with a big pair of bolt cutters, a drill, or, failing that, melting.
If secure means "without leaving evidence of tampering," things get a lot more interesting, but that has narrow practical use cases outside of stuff like espionage. Once you're in this space, we can start talking about how difficult something can be without specialized tools. But now we're leaving "I am protecting my stuff" territory and entering "this is just a sport and we're agreeing on a ruleset" territory.
There are a couple of lock designs out there that I don't think anybody's successfully ever picked. The ones that first come to mind are a couple of the "smart" electronic locks. Many of those are junk, but a few are very well thought out.
Secure against what? You might be surprised at what a wench and a truck can pull / destroy. If that fails, there are shotguns and also explosives, jackhammers and the like.
There are always assumptions built into lock design. A simple lock is very secure if a fence is jumpable, most people will jump the fence rather than mess with a lock.
Even a complex lock will never be secure for national secrets (like nuclear missiles), you need to just assign guards. Locks exist but are basically a formality (IIRC, many tanks and airplanes are left unlocked because all the security posture is with the military and the lock itself is too much of a hassle for logistics).
------
Fort Knox itself was designed to be safe from Nazi invasion. If the Nazis invaded New York City, they won't find any of the governments gold. The 'lock' in this case is the miles and miles of geography the Nazis would have to navigate before reaching Fort Knox.
"In 1933, the U.S. suspended gold convertibility and gold exports. In the following year, the U.S. dollar was devalued when the gold price was fixed at $35 per troy ounce. After the U.S. dollar devaluation, so much gold began to flow into the United States that the country’s gold reserves quadrupled within eight years. Notice that this is several years before the outbreak of World War II and predates a large trade surplus in the late 1940s. [...] In 1930, the U.S. controlled about 40% of the world’s gold reserves, but by 1950, the U.S. controlled nearly two-thirds of the world’s gold reserves."
> At the bottom of the rear door pocket, there is a slot in front of the release cover. Slide your finger into the slot and lift to remove the cover. Pull the mechanical release cable forward.
I wonder how people are supposed to be able to find that when in an emergency sitting in the backseat of someone else's car.
They're in even worse luck if they are in any number of cars that have rear-seat "child safety" locks that prevent opening the door from the inside. There's no way to bypass that except from outside the car.
Yeah, that's terrifying as well, but I think it's the same for all car manufacturers about that, isn't it? Or is some makers worse than all the others because of design decisions?
That sounds pretty good in comparison to the Cybertruck, because that one can't be opened from the outside ever, if the battery dies.
The manual bypass for the driver and passenger seat is much easier to find than the one in the rear. Too bad the driver can't help rescue everyone else, because the door handles are electric.
The front doors have a way easier and more obvious way than the rear doors. In fact, for the front doors it's so obvious that most passengers think it's the normal way to open the door. The reason the rear doors have it much more hidden is because child safety locks are an important safety feature, and they'd be useless if small children could easily bypass them.
Yeah but the back seat is more likely to have children or passengers unfamiliar with the car too so an esoteric emergency procedure is worse there. IMO these cable unlocks shouldn't be allowed for safety, there should be an obvious easy mechanical release people understand which is a normal handle.
It's only hidden for the back doors so that it doesn't render the child safety lock useless. It's in the most obvious spot possible for the front doors.
Indeed. This is why the drug passed phase 1 (safety) trials when it was first approved in 1992 for treatment of prostate enlargement. Moreover, it subsequently passed additional rounds of clinical trials for the hair loss indication in 1998, and has been involved in more than 30 different clinical trials overall.
Now, I'm not going to argue that there can't be rare side effects that are only discovered with time. I'm also not going to claim that the original trials were perfect, or that research into the question isn't justified. But you're trying to assert that they didn't test for safety, and that's just factually incorrect.
I should take back my statement- I had a knee jerk reaction to someone saying that proof is required of harm for a drug, when I've seen so many cases of drugs being inadequately tested and then causing harm, and I think the precautionary principle is often not followed anywhere close to adequately when it comes to new chemical stuff we do to our bodies.
We probably mostly agree in principle. I'm not saying they didn't do safety testing. I would suspect that the safety testing was flawed as it has been in every other case that I have looked into, and failed to catch possible harms that may now be happening.
Whether those harms outweigh the benefits overall remains to be seen and likely will never be known unless it's really really bad, which is likely not the case here.
I'd agree more research is probably justified, but there's likely little profit in it for anyone.
> TFA cites eight peer-reviewed studies finding a link. Sounds like decent evidence to me.
There have been over 30 randomized controlled trials of this drug, and the author picked only eight papers, none of which were randomized, none of which were controlled, and all of which were based on mining self-reported data from patient databases.
There's an FDA-mandated warning label for every drug. The current label for Finasteride [1] includes depression only as a "postmarketing experience", which is based on the same data you're reading here (self reports), and is not reliable for determining causality. [2]
There is no current listing for suicide, suicidal ideation, etc.
[2] "Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure"
CRP and fecal calprotectin. The meal consisted of well-boiled meat (pork/beef/chicken together, slow cooked, overnight), and carrots, zucchini, and butternut squash cooked in its juice until it mostly wasn't soup anymore. Picked things that were very soft/easy to digest, with at least some nutritional value, because it didn't bother me. I just wanted to buy time for things to calm down.
It was meant to be an elimination diet with reintroduction, but every reintroduction attempt failed miserably for 20 months. Then, suddenly, it was fine.
I still mostly eat food I would recognize in its ingredient form instead of highly processed stuff, but if everybody's going out for pizza, I can have a couple slices and be fine. I just can't do that all the time.
Would you please stop posting in the flamewar style and breaking the site guidelines? Your account has been doing a great deal of this, and we've already had to warn you many times:
Seems like that would be a good niche, not only for avoiding massive copyright considerations.
Also, it's some of the most boring footage where there's overwhelming amounts that's about the least desirable thing for humans to sit and watch every minute of.
First a contacts app that bombed, and now an ai assistant? I fear she’s stuck in the past and now is in a beyond crowded space. Have any of her attempts post google worked?
> Yes. She made a tremendous amount of money for herself while failing miserably at Yahoo!.
I was at Yahoo from 2004-2011, so I've got my opinions, but I think failing miserably at Yahoo is like the default option. It was a great gig to take in 2012 --- if you do well, well then it's clearly your leadership; if you don't do well, it's that Yahoo wasn't salvageable.
August 11, 2005: Yahoo acquires 40 percent of Alibaba.com for $1 billion, and Alibaba takes over the operation of Yahoo China.
Yahoo Japan was also a joint venture between Yahoo and Softbank, with Yahoo holding about 50% of the ownership.
At some point, Yahoo stock was regularly trading at or below the estimated value of the overseas holdings. The part of the company that actually did stuff was valued at zero or less. In the acquisition, yahoo stockholders got cash for the operating business plus shares in holding company formed around the overseas holdings ... Over time, the holding company sold the holdings and distributed the proceeds to shareholders and ceased operating.
Yahoo made a $1b investment on Alibaba early on, and Alibaba was growing a lot, investors couldn't directly buy Alibaba, so they bought Yahoo hoping to eventually cash in.
Yahoo was valued at $44b at one time, and the $1b it put in Alibaba was valued at $40b. So 90% of Yahoo was the Alibaba investment. There was a whole spin off core business to separate it from the investment part drama, years and years of distraction and investors and board people who wanted their ~40x instead.
She is clearly an amazing negotiator if nothing else. She made a spectacular amount of money running yahoo even faster into the ground. Imagine being paid 100M just to go away. Inspiring in its own way.
It depends on what you think she is attempting. If you consider that she is attempting to maintain a certain standard of living, then yes, it is working. There is a strange reality where you can get other people to pay you millions of dollars a year because somebody else previously paid you millions of dollars a year. You might have to keep shuffling who pays you, though.
According to the article it’s largely self paid. I’d also be surprised anyone for a pre-product startup is being paid millions a year to run it… even her.
reply