Password managers and 2FA mostly solve the problem of credential stuffing but unfortunately millions of people still don't use it. 2FA is actually pretty good unless your account is a high profile account then bad actors might try to SIM swap[0] you and hijack your mobile phone number and essentially bypass 2FA. But there are others ways of 2FA too.
>And if you are consistently winning they will ban you! They can legally back off (reduce max bet to a tiny amount) or straight up ban people who bet smart.
I'm not from US, I'm from EU but I'm still paranoid of that so I only sports bet at state owned lottery/betting company.
State run bookies charge commission so high you will not win anyway unless you have insider info and then your risk is bigger with a state run bookies.
Big bookies won't have you so easily. Multiple small ones will but you will get your money back. They not paying is a very small risk even if they decide to not do business with you later.
Company is owned and run by state and I doubt they would allow themselves to have any shenanigans with their customers. You can always sue them, you can sue private companies too but private ownership is just an extra worry. That's why I also have a bank account at the state owned bank not the private one.
That’s probably a good intuition and definitely smart about the bank — I was dropped by Commerzbank in Germany without explanation — but if I were so good at betting that I worried about a ban, I’d want to double check the actual rules.
I mean state is probably the better custodian of your money and your interests than the private investors unless you live in a rogue state run by criminals.
Leaving aside the question of whether it has to be a rogue state to be run by criminals, I think that operating a gambling syndicate is never in the interest of the citizenry, and that includes the Lottery, which is functionally a tax on the poor. For very gaudy spectacles of that exploitation, turn on the TV at Christmas in Spain.
I remember when teachers in school use to tell us that Wikipedia sucks because there in no scientific peer review. They couldn't wrap their heads around the concept of casual crowdsourcing.
>They couldn't wrap their heads around the concept of casual crowdsourcing.
I'm sure they could, most teachers aren't idiots. And they were correct that "casual crowdsourcing" is not a fitting replacement for peer review.
And in fact, the current moderation policies for Wikipedia only work in so far as they use peer-review type processes, such as requiring "notability" and multiple sources, and preferring expertise in a field. Of course, if you're in a relevant field you shouldn't use Wikipedia as a primary source since you would presumably have access to whatever sources the wiki itself cites in the articles.
If I were to make Wikipedia once again from the ground up I would put more attention into building reputation system of contributors. If you have more reputation you are allowed to edit something and/or your edit has more weight.
Why banks don't make their own blockchain or public distributed database of transactions or whatever else you want to call it. There are thousands of banks in the world and each of that bank can be a validator node. Seems like pretty robust network to me.
>- no company generates revenue in its first second. Even if you start a lemonade stand tomorrow, you'll have to buy some lemons first. The time-to-revenue might be very short, but it's never zero. Therefore, making no revenue for 1 day or for 10 years is not a step change, but simply a point on a curve.
Yea, it's called investment. If you want to get rich overnight play lottery or start gambling.
Because majority of malware if not all was written for PCs. Nowadays still most of the malware targets PCs but now attacks targeting web users are more prevalent. Attackers attack through compromised websites or phishing websites using social engineering techniques or exploit kits[0]. Websites are dominant attack surface not web browsers because it is hard to find 0-day exploits and usually they are found and used by state sponsored attackers. Chrome is still the most secure browser because it has enormous market share and everybody is attacking it, both whitehat and blackhat actors so Chrome team is constantly fixing and patching Chrome.
I would wager that if you asked corporations which was more important, knowing what their staff are doing online during work hours vs ensuring that their browser is hardened, they would choose to spy on their employees.
My point is this is coded language to give corporations an excuse to have another foothold on their employee's data.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM_swap_scam