We capture the main components by identifying safe boundaries for two complementary and synthetic measures of biodiversity: the area of largely intact natural ecosystems, and the functional integrity of ecosystems heavily modified by human pressures.

The remainder of this Commission is organised into four parts

Although Doughnut Economics' safe and just indicators2525.O'Neill, DW ∙ Fanning, AL ∙ Lamb, WF ∙ et al.A good life for all within planetary boundariesNat Sustain. 2018; 1:88-95CrossrefScopus (980)Google Scholar include justice elements, our work goes further by quantifying these elements in the same units as the safe ESBs and by operationalising and quantifying justice issues.

Visualisation of the concept of the safe and just corridor

system transformations that could move humanity into a safe and just corridor

the number one issue is to get world leaders  immediately to sit down together and, recognize that we need to urgently get back  into the safe space of planetary boundaries.

If the link you are trying to send is just some kind of harmless confirmation link (e.g. subscribe/unsubscribe from a newsletter), then at least use a form inside the web page to do the actual confirmation through a POST request (possibly also using a CSRF token), otherwise you will unequivocally end up with false positives.

Drupal use a HTTP GET to change data witch is not how HTTP protocol is supposed to be work. A HTTP POST request should be used to change an account from blocked to active. It's a bug and a ugly one.

If you want to be (relatively) sure that any action is triggered only by a (specific) human user, then use URLs in emails or other kind of messages over the internet only to lead them to a website where they confirm an action to be taken via a form, using method=POST

Links (GETs) aren't supposed to "do" anything, only a POST is. For example, your "unsubscribe me" link in your email should not directly unsubscribe th subscriber. It should "GET" a page the subscriber can then post from.

The purpose of distinguishing between safe and unsafe methods is to allow automated retrieval processes (spiders) and cache performance optimization (pre-fetching) to work without fear of causing harm.

Request methods are considered "safe" if their defined semantics are essentially read-only; i.e., the client does not request, and does not expect, any state change on the origin server as a result of applying a safe method to a target resource.

There’s a safety in thinking in a diner. You can have your coffee oryour milk shake, and you can go off into strange dark areas, andalways come back to the safety of the diner.

this is now quantifying this this safe space but for the first time also doing it for justice so measuring the maximum allowed 00:15:33 of significant harm to people and the key take home here is the following in the outer ring here the red and green you see the safe boundary definitions 00:15:45 the blue lines are the assessment of justice so not surprisingly if we care about people the safe bound is about the stability of the planet but if we care about avoiding significant harm to hundreds of millions of people across 00:15:58 the world the climate boundary shrinks from 1.5 down to one degree

share of the safe operating space (SoSOS)

we can see true safe spaces for what they are: a place for marginalized communities to be free of “discrimination, criticism, harassment or any other emotional or physical harm

Within the Earth Commission, we aim to propose ‘safe and just Earth system boundaries’ (ESBs) that go beyond planetary boundaries as they also include a justice perspective and suggest transformations to achieve them3.

Since minimum access levels for the poor cannot be met within the ESBs without substantial reallocation of resources, we propose minimum access levels for all people. These levels provide the floor or foundation of a corridor, while the ESBs constitute the ceiling (Fig. 6). If resources, responsibilities and risks are allocated in a just manner (Fig. 1), we consider this a ‘safe and just corridor’.

The black line in Fig. 5 shows that redistribution is not enough; if everyone’s emissions are equalized at escape from poverty levels, then we would still overshoot the climate boundaries

Preserving ecosystem area is sometimes critiqued as ‘fortress conservation’ by environmental justice scholars, limiting access for poor or Indigenous people68. An ecosystem area boundary therefore requires careful consideration and involvement of the local communities, for example by not demanding that intact areas preclude human inhabitation and sustainable use and/or recognizing the role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in already protecting these areas.

Safe and just ESBs aim to stabilize the Earth system, protect species and ecosystems and avoid tipping points, as well as minimize ‘significant harm’ to people while ensuring access to resources for a dignified life and escape from poverty. If justice is not considered, the biophysical limits may not be adequate to protect current generations from significant harm. However, strict biophysical limits, such as reducing emissions or setting aside land for nature, can, for example, reduce access to food and land for vulnerable people, and should be complemented by fair sharing and management of the remaining ecological space on Earth4.

joint knowledge to identify safe and just ESBs

there are amazing people worldwide that are working to protect the local to Global Commons the next step is to involve businesses 00:11:44 countries cities and people worldwide to accept Earth system boundaries and the just Transformations we need to live within these boundaries

can we quantify safe and just Earth 00:04:20 system boundaries or an earth system corridor in 2019 the Global Commons Alliance created the Earth commission to answer this question

we need in this Century a safe and just Corridor for all people to exit the danger zone but also to ensure that all people have access to basic needs rights 00:04:07 uh rights to a water food energy and infrastructure

we're taking colossal risks with the future of civilization on Earth We're degrading life support system that we all depend on we're actually pushing 00:00:57 the entire Earth system to a point of destabilization pushing Earth outside of the state that has support civilization since we left the last ice age 10 000 years ago this requires a transformation to safe 00:01:11 and just Earth system boundaries for the whole world economy

2030 (UNGA, 2015) provides a global consensus on key justice principles of access and a starting point for an analysis of a safe and just corridor that aims to ensure that “no one will be left behind.

By identifying safe and just target ranges, the question arises: How can we achieve these targets and live within the corridor? Transforming toward a “just” world may be a pre-condition for being able to achieve a “safe” world. Leverage points to achieve such transformations are essential for governing our commons.

We propose that the stricter of the safe and just target ranges for each variable should define the safe and just corridor (Figure 2). Furthermore, we propose to identify a spread of safe and just targets corresponding to different physical risk tolerances and different understandings of environmental justice.

Second, a key question is how biophysically “safe” targets can be achieved while also meeting goals for human well-being and justice. For example, meeting the social goals of Agenda 2030 without widespread transformations may lead to crossing safe targets for the biophysical state of the Earth system (Sachs et al., 2019). Achieving biophysical targets, such as 1.5°C for climate or increasing ecosystem protection, can undermine well-being, if, for example, bioenergy competes with food production, or protected areas undermine local livelihoods (Hasegawa et al., 2020).

First, an “unsafe” world is likely to increase inequality, so “safe” would seem a necessary pre-condition for “just”—but not always a sufficient one. A “safe” target from a biophysical perspective may not be adequate to prevent large-scale risks to humans in specific contexts. For example, there are large risks for many human populations even with a 1.5°C climate target (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2018).

Identifying safe ranges for these systems in isolation, for example as the planetary boundary framework has done (Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen, Richardson, et al., 2015), will not be enough to describe a safe corridor.

An integrated framework is needed that aligns safe and just Earth system variables while also accounting for sub-global scales and interactions between Earth system processes.

our goal of synthesizing a range of safe and just conditions rather than prescribing any specific solution.

An integrated people and planet perspective is required to guide human development and use of the global commons We outline an approach to defining a safe and just corridor for a stable and resilient planet supporting human development A conceptual framework for linking safe and just Earth system targets is proposed

safe as primarily referring to a stable Earth system and just targets as being associated with meeting human needs and reducing exposure to risks.

Keeping the Earth system in a stable and resilient state, to safeguard Earth's life support systems while ensuring that Earth's benefits, risks, and related responsibilities are equitably shared, constitutes the grand challenge for human development in the Anthropocene. Here, we describe a framework that the recently formed Earth Commission will use to define and quantify target ranges for a “safe and just corridor” that meets these goals.

But anti- spam software often fetches all resources in mail header fields automatically, without any action by the user, and there is no mechanical way for a sender to tell whether a request was made automatically by anti-spam software or manually requested by a user. To prevent accidental unsubscriptions, senders return landing pages with a confirmation step to finish the unsubscribe request. A live user would recognize and act on this confirmation step, but an automated system would not. That makes the unsubscription process more complex than a single click.

This document describes a method for signaling a one-click function for the List-Unsubscribe email header field. The need for this arises out of the actuality that mail software sometimes fetches URLs in mail header fields, and thereby accidentally triggers unsubscriptions in the case of the List-Unsubscribe header field.

It's supposed to be a safe space

The variable a is incremented thanks to the atomic memory primitives function addInt that is concurrent-safe. However, we assign the result to the same variable, which is a not a concurrent-safe write operation. This a careless mistake detected by the atomic analyzer.

A post-money SAFE sets a fixed ownership percentage for the investor, but a pre-money SAFE does not

The very next day, Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the first federal gun-control law in 30 years. Months later, the Gun Control Act of 1968 amended and enlarged it.

> I should have used "side-effect-free" instead of "idempotent" in my tweetsThe HTTP term is "safe method".

So long as the filters are only using GET requests to pull down links, there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with them. It’s a basic (though oft-ignored) tenet of web development that GET requests should be idempotent; that is, they shouldn’t somehow change anything important on the server. That’s what POST is for. A lot of people ignore this for convenience’s sake, but this is just one way that you can get bitten. Anyone remember the Google Web Accelerator that came out a while ago, then promptly disappeared? It’d pre-fetch links on a page to speed up things if you clicked them later on. And if one of those links happened to delete something from a blog, or log you out… well, then you begin to see why GET shouldn’t change things. So yes, the perfect solution to this is a 2-step unsubscribe link: the first step takes to you a page with a form on it, and that form then POSTs something back that finalizes the unsubscribe request.

Idempotent just means that following a link twice has exactly the same effect on persistent state as clicking it once. It does not mean that following the link must not change state, just that after following it once, following it again must not change state further. There are good reasons to avoid GET requests for changing state, but that’s not what idempotent means.

Arguably any link that performs such an action via GET is fundamentally broken. A proper unsubscribe should direct to a page with a form that requires a POST submission. (Of course, in the real world, few things are proper.)

This is not advice. A GET is defined in this way in the HTTP protocol. It is supposed to be idempotent and safe.

An HTTP method is safe if it doesn't alter the state of the server. In other words, a method is safe if it leads to a read-only operation.

In other words, once you've used Maybe you cannot hit nil with a missing method. This is remarkable because even &. doesn't save you from omitting || "No state" at the end of the computation. Basically, that's what they call "Type Safety".

Another solution is using the Safe Navigation Operator &. introduced in Ruby 2.3 which is a bit better because this is a language feature rather than an opinionated runtime environment pollution

We have identified several safe insertion regions (SIRs) within E. coli MG1655 that do not contain any known genes or regulatory regions

You should default to the most permissive option imo and there really is no reason to check anything until you really need to If it were left to me I'd just use optional chaining, as it also eliminates the need for no-ops

Directives like ng-if="info.report.revenue" sort of work in Angular if info.report is undefined, in that the ng-if becomes false. But the Svelte equivalent {#if info.report.revenue} throws an error. For now we're using lodash get in places where we need to and looking forward to Svelte support for optional chaining.

Unfortunately, this simple, lifesaving practice has become part of a political debate that says: If you’re for Trump, you don’t wear a mask; if you’re against Trump, you do... The stakes are much too high for that.”

handle?.destroy?.()

Make sure students can reach out to you privately to let you know if anything about the experience was uncomfortable for them.

Scalable Definition of Done

The EARN IT act turns Section 230 protection into a hypocritical bargaining chip. At a high level, what the bill proposes is a system where companies have to earn Section 230 protection by following a set of designed-by-committee “best practices” that are extraordinarily unlikely to allow end-to-end encryption. Anyone who doesn’t comply with these recommendations will lose their Section 230 protection.

Broadly speaking, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects online platforms in the United States from legal liability for the behavior of their users. In the absence of this protection, many of the apps and services that are critical to the way the internet functions today may have never been created in the first place – or they couldn’t have been created in America.

A year’s worth of cajoling back and forth has ultimately resulted in the EARN-IT bill wending its way through the U.S. system, a bill that, if passed, would see messaging services become legally responsible for the content on their platforms. While not mandating backdoors, per se, without some form of probes into message content, the argument runs that the punitive risks become unsurvivable.

there’s a bill tiptoeing through the U.S. Congress that could inflict the backdoor virus that law enforcement agencies have been trying to inflict on encryption for years... The choice for tech companies comes down to weakening their own encryption and endangering the privacy and security of all their users, or foregoing protections and potentially facing liability in a wave of lawsuits.

Once the platforms introduce backdoors, those arguing against such a move say, bad guys will inevitably steal the keys. Lawmakers have been clever. No mention of backdoors at all in the proposed legislation or the need to break encryption. If you transmit illegal or dangerous content, they argue, you will be held responsible. You decide how to do that. Clearly there are no options to some form of backdoor.

Despite its opposition, EARN-IT is the clearest threat yet to end-to-end encryption, given this clever twist in pushing the onus onto the platforms to avoid transmitting illegal content, rather than mandating a lawful interception approach.

Tiring of the privacy and safety debate, those behind EARN-IT have proposed making the platforms responsible for the content they transmit, encrypted or not. This would mean, as explained by Sophos, that tech companies “either weaken their own encryption and endanger the privacy and security of all their users, or forego protections and potentially face liability in a wave of lawsuits.”

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has notable safe-harbor provisions which protect Internet service providers from the consequences of their users' actions. (Similarly, the EU directive on electronic commerce provides a similar provision of "mere conduit" which, while not exactly the same, serves much the same function as the DMCA safe harbor in this instance.)

Spikes Spikes are a type of exploration Enabler Story in SAFe. Defined initially in Extreme Programming (XP), they represent activities such as research, design, investigation, exploration, and prototyping. Their purpose is to gain the knowledge necessary to reduce the risk of a technical approach, better understand a requirement, or increase the reliability of a story estimate. Like other stories, spikes are estimated and then demonstrated at the end of the Iteration. They also provide an agreed upon protocol and workflow that Agile Release Trains (ARTs) use to help determine the viability of Epics. Details Agile and Lean value facts over speculation. When faced with a question, risk, or uncertainty, Agile Teams conduct small experiments before moving to implementation, rather than speculate about the outcome or jump to a Solution. Teams may use spikes in a variety of situations: Estimate new Features and Capabilities to analyze the implied behavior, providing insight about the approach for splitting them into smaller, quantifiable pieces Perform feasibility analysis and other activities that help determine the viability of epics Conduct basic research to familiarize them with a new technology or domain Gain confidence in a technical or functional approach, reducing risk and uncertainty Spikes involve creating a small program, research activity, or test that demonstrates some aspect of new functionality. Technical and Functional Spikes Spikes primarily come in two forms: technical and functional. Functional spikes – They are used to analyze overall solution behavior and determine: How to break it down How to organize the work Where risk and complexity exist How to use insights to influence implementation decisions Technical spikes – They are used to research various approaches in the solution domain. For example: Determine a build-versus-buy decision Evaluate the potential performance or load impact of a new user story Evaluate specific technical implementation approaches Develop confidence about the desired solution path Some features and user stories may require both types of spikes. Here’s an example: “As a consumer, I want to see my daily energy use in a histogram so that I can quickly understand my past, current, and projected energy consumption.” In this case, a team might create both types of spikes: A technical spike to research how long it takes to update a customer display to current usage, determining communication requirements, bandwidth, and whether to push or pull the data A functional spike – Prototype a histogram in the web portal and get some user feedback on presentation size, style, and charting Guidelines for Spikes Since spikes do not directly deliver user value, use them sparingly. The following guidelines apply. Quantifiable, Demonstrable, and Acceptable Like other stories, spikes are put in the Team Backlog, estimated, and sized to fit in an iteration. Spike results are different from a story because spikes typically produce information rather than working code. They should develop only the necessary data to identify and size the stories that drive it confidently. The output of a spike is demonstrable, both to the team and to any other stakeholders, which brings visibility to the research and architectural efforts, and also helps build collective ownership and shared responsibility for decision-making. The Product Owner accepts spikes that have been demoed and meet its acceptance criteria. Timing of Spikes Since they represent uncertainty in one or more potential stories, planning for both the spike and the resulting stories in the same iteration is sometimes risky. However, if it’s small and straightforward, and a quick solution is likely to be found, then it can be quite efficient to do both in the same iteration. The Exception, Not the Rule Every user story has uncertainty and risk; that’s the nature of Agile development. The team discovers the right solution through discussion, collaboration, experimentation, and negotiation. Thus, in one sense, every user story contains spike-like activities to identify the technical and functional risks. The goal of an Agile team is to learn how to address uncertainty in each iteration. Spikes are critical when high uncertainty exist, or there are many unknowns.