How have the “interactive” features been now that there are fewer players? Is it a wasteland, or does the game still randomly place in user generated content from when the game first released?

Pretty stoked for the upcoming Vault Hunters “vanilla” mod.

Definitely second both of these. Cyberpunk 2077 post 2.0 is very solid, with an engaging, 100+ hour story. Similarly, control is a spectacular single player narrative, easily 20-30 hours of mindfuckery and atmospheric storytelling.

The logic is very different when there is verifiably an afterlife and true gods.

Yeah, no shit, you’re the fucking CEO

The best description I have seen for single store franchisees is, you’ve paid a lot to give yourself a job. They are not lucrative, and in fact, are capital intensive, and often predatory.

There is a very high up front cost, and you generally do not own the real estate. This means you are locked into 30 year leases, often with complicated terms that are solely beneficial to the land owner.

Next, with regards to liquidity, if you don’t own the real estate, you often can’t get multiple business loans with a single franchise, so you must secure the loan with your personal assets, which means you will go personally bankrupt if you hit a rough patch.

Then, after dealing with the complicated business to business transactions and legal work, you still have to deal with the corporate bullshit, taxes, and supervisory duties, particularly if you do not already have a strong business partner to do this for you.

Pretty much, unless you are independently wealthy, own the real estate in a high traffic location, or already have multiple other franchises, it’s a losing venture that will kill your soul and eat every dollar you have.

This is nothing new, other than that Chase has brought this capability in-house. Credit card companies have shared purchase information with second parties forever.

Chase Media Solutions follows from the integration of card-linked marketing platform Figg, which JPMorgan Chase & Co. acquired in 2022

MMORPGs are an easy example, where people form recognizable identities and communities in game. An extension of this would be Second Life, and somewhat more recently, VRChat.

From my understanding, the impetus was that F5 submitted a CVE for a vulnerability, for an optional, “beta” feature that can be enabled. Dounin did not think a CVE should be submitted, since he did not considered it to be “production” feature.

That said, the vulnerability is in shipping code, regardless of whether it is optional or not, so per industry coding practices, it should either be patched or removed entirely in order to resolve the issue.

Authentication is, explicitly, the process of validating that you are who you say you are. Like biometrics, your username is part of your digital identity. So you are correct in arguing that biometrics alone is little stronger than a username, but by definition, both are part of authentication.

That said, to securely authenticate your identity, you need to use multiple factors.

Could you? Yes. But there really is no point— biometrics alone are only a single factor for authentication.

You should have at least two of the three— something you are (fingerprint, facial, or retinal recognition), something you have (badge, token, secure device), and something you know (passphrase).

If they are also sending a validation email, it would fail, so no issue.

As a casual gamer, I can’t say this game even remotely reached the zeitgeist in 2024.

Hope they actually have interiors this time.

1. From the title of your article and your executive summary, the premise of your paper is that CVSS is flawed, and CITE is your solution.
2. From the title of your article, and choice of name, “QHE CVSS Alternative; CITE”. CVSS is a VULNERABILITY Scoring System. CITE, as your propose, is a THREAT evaluation tool. You can see how one could have the impression that they were incorrectly being used interchangeably.

As you yourself stated, CVSS does exactly what it says on the box. It provides a singular rating for a software vulnerability, in a vacuum. It does not prescribe to do anything more, and it does a good job doing what it sets out to do (including specifically as an input to other quantitative risk calculations).

Compare what with attack?

Your methodology heavily relies on “the analysis of cybersecurity experts”, and in particular, frequently references “exploit chains”, mappings which are not clearly defined, and appears to rely on the knowledge of the individual practitioner, rather than existing open frameworks. MITRE ATT&CK and CAPEC already provide such a mapping, as well as a list of threat actor groups leveraging tactics, techniques, and procedures (e.g., exploitation of a given CVE). Here’s a good articlewhich maps similarly to how we operate our cybersecurity program.

I think there is a lot on the mark in your article about the issues with cybersecurity today, but again, I believe that your premise that CVSS needs replacing is flawed, and I don’t think you provided a compelling case to demonstrate how/why it is flawed. If anything, I think you would agree that if organizations are exclusively using CVSS scores to prioritize remediation, they’re doing it wrong, and fighting an impossible battle. But this means the organization’s approach is wrong, not CVSS itself.

Your article stands better alone as a proposal for a methodology for quantifying risk and threat to an organization (or society?), rather than as a takedown of CVSS.

You can always reflash it with your own if you hold that concern.

Glancing through your article, while you have correctly assessed the need for risk based prioritization of vulnerability remediation and mitigation, your central premise is flawed.

Vulnerability is not threat— CVSS is a scoring system for individual vulnerabilities, not exploit chains. For that, you’ll want to compare with ATT&CK or the legacy cyber kill chain.

Release date, 06/30/2024. Cease and desist date, 01/01/2024.

.(potksed ym rof) 68x naht rehto gnihtyna no swodniw nur reven ll’I ,epoN

.gnimoc eb lliw sehctap ytrap tsrif on os ,tsixe regnol on erawtfos taht etorw taht seinapmoc eht fo emos ,snur llits ti dna swodniw no (yllacipyt semag ro snigulp noitcudorp cisum rehtie) oga sedaced nettirw erawtfos pu llup yllanoisacco I tub ,krow rof PBM MRA ym htiw yppah yrev m’I

According to the Bureau Of Labor Statistics, the median salary for airline captains, first-officers, second-officers, and flight engineers in the United States is $203,010 as of 2021.

The big problem is actually in certifying people qualified to take those jobs, which takes additional time and money, mostly to pay for flight time for training. It can take a few grand for just a personal pilot license, but to fly an airline, you need instrument, commercial, and Airline Transport Pilot License (ATPL) certifications, plus increasingly expensive type ratings for the various aircraft you will be flying, a minimum of 1500 hours of flight time, and multiple years at the bottom working your way through smaller regional airlines and courier services.

You can get through the commercial licensing in 12-18 months and about $40k in flight time and insurance, but that is barely enough to get your foot in the door making $50k a year, and even then, you’re still not allowed to fly parcels or passengers for money. Getting those licenses will take another 18 months and another $40-80k, again, mostly in flight time.

That said, once you have ATPL, the company will start paying for your flight time, and you will be earning a 6 figure salary. After 5 years or so and about $100k investing in your training, you should be making over $200k, and can begin to recoup those costs.