I have had tinnitus from an infection, which (very thankfully, and I admit very luckily) slowly resolved over a period of years.
That said, I have experienced occasional reoccurrence. One thing that helps is I ask my masseuse to concentrate on the sides of my neck- there is a specific muscle that when tense can cause ringing.
Does your tinnitus get momentarily worse when you tense your neck muscles?
if the scammers had spoofed the email, they would already have that code, and if they hadn't spoofed that email... I mean it looks like a case ID, why would they need it?
Maybe the reading back the code was to get buy in, then there's a missing step here like they had him hit "allow" on a 2fa prompt. Or maybe the email was legit, since it references a "temporary code" and the case ID allowed access with that code?
Good chance my reading comprehension is shot and I'm missing something, I suppose, but I don't understand.
> In the Gmail app on iOS, it looked completely legitimate — the branding, the case number, everything. Even the drop-down still showed “@google.com.”
> So when he asked me to read back a code — supposedly to prove I was still alive — in a moment of panic, I did.
The sentences do not refer to the same thing.
The code was not in the email... The narrator was asked to read back "a code" not the case ID in the email. "A code" here referes to a 2fa push notification code. The email was used to rattle the narrator / build trust to get them to comply.
Yes, that is how I read it as well. Email was just for fun, and the code came by a different channel (of course). The email the scammer sent wouldn't contain a code they can use to take over his account (of course).
I feel like what trips people up is the abstraction layer.
Viruses are abstracted on top of other living things in the same way that animals are abstracted on top of plants, in that they both require the lower layer of abstraction for their basic survival.
I remember that the "Slashdot Effect" used to be a thing, getting featured on Slashdot generated enough traffic that it routinely took sites down.
Then digg came along, and I started using that, but kept Slashdot on the backburner. One day I remember listening to a diggnation podcast, one of the live ones with Kevin and Alex in front of a live audience at (probably) some bar somewhere, and Kevin made a remark about "Slashdot effect.... it's the Digg effect now!" and the crowd roared.
And he was right. It had been a fair while since Slashdot had managed to take anything down.
I felt a little sad, for a moment, because I knew what it meant.
This is true. Extensions currently (manifest v2) are able to evaluate net requests dynamically, and are able to modify requests according to a dynamic ruleset that the extension can retrieve from some filter list published on the internet.
Under manifest v3, extensions are not able to dynamically inspect requests, instead, they may only apply rules to net requests. Even worse, there is a limitation of only 5000 rules per extension!! [1]
Even WORSE worse, under Chrome's manifest v3 rules, the extension cannot load any external code! Meaning that blocklists must be packaged with the extension. [2] Now, one might consider the reading of that link to no affect block lists, it's not a "library" and it's not "code" so long as it's just a list of textual rules.... however, google considers the following to be a violation: "Building an interpreter to run complex commands fetched from a remote source, even if those commands are fetched as data". [3]
Sneaky sneaky. An extension update (and hence new app store submission) is required to update filter lists.
In other words, dynamic net requests are banned, and remotely-updated blocklists are banned as well.
"Based on input from the extension community, we also increased the number of rulesets for declarativeNetRequest, allowing extensions to bundle up to 330,000 static rules and dynamically add a further 30,000."
If Manifest v3 is really this bad then it's probably still possible to build adblockers by DLL hooking the browser. It should also not affect browsers with built-in adblocking like Brave and Vivaldi.
If you consider only the selection pressure from the mother’s side then yes that is the case.
However you must consider that the mother and the father are in an arms race with respect to the carrying capacity of the mother. The selection pressure from the father will always tend towards an offspring that is the maximum capacity at which the mother can bear.
If that's the case then women who have an easier time having kids than average will be more desirable mates and attract higher quality men than women who have a harder time having kids than average.
That's true only if the selection pressure on individual children favors largeness, right? On an island or without as much nutrition, it might be an advantage to be smaller, since you could get by on less food.
That's a prisoner's dilemma situation. As a group, smaller islanders are less likely to run out of food (the cooperation strategy). But as an individual, a bigger islander can beat up the smaller ones and take their food (the defection strategy).
Of course if everyone defects, the group as a whole is worse off.
I dunno. If they really were trapped in a Prisoner's Dilemma, then the equilibrium would be that they get big, I think (unless there's a "repeated games" angle here). Yet what we actually observe, of species that get isolated on islands, is that they do get small.
That said, I have experienced occasional reoccurrence. One thing that helps is I ask my masseuse to concentrate on the sides of my neck- there is a specific muscle that when tense can cause ringing.
Does your tinnitus get momentarily worse when you tense your neck muscles?