> The lawful bases for processing are set out in Article 6 of the UK GDPR. At least one of these must apply whenever you process personal data:

> (a) Consent: the individual has given clear consent for you to process their personal data for a specific purpose.

> (b) Contract: the processing is necessary for a contract you have with the individual, or because they have asked you to take specific steps before entering into a contract.

> (f) Legitimate interests: the processing is necessary for your legitimate interests or the legitimate interests of a third party, unless there is a good reason to protect the individual’s personal data which overrides those legitimate interests. (This cannot apply if you are a public authority processing data to perform your official tasks.)

...

> Legitimate interests is the most flexible lawful basis for processing, but you cannot assume it will always be the most appropriate. It is likely to be most appropriate where you use people’s data in ways they would reasonably expect and which have a minimal privacy impact, or where there is a compelling justification for the processing.

> The processing must be necessary. If you can reasonably achieve the same result in another less intrusive way, legitimate interests will not apply.

> You must include details of your legitimate interests in your privacy information.

I included the legitimate interests bits because they seem most relevant to testing, but even if testing is not considered "necessary" in a particular use case, there still remain at least two more criteria that might satisfy the use of live data in testing, including explicit user consent. Much of the focus of GDPR is on privacy-invasive intrusive processing and prevention of harm, I think a lot of fuss around it can be dispelled when viewed from this angle.

Giving up and dumping everything into a monorepo, that's not going to help at all. At that point probably better off just giving up any hope of carefully split up and individually managed services

Cloud providers profiting from free software is an important issue, but it is largely orthogonal to the continuing need to protect free works in numerous traditional use cases

No familiarity with these devices, but there is at least a slim chance if it was an embedded device, they needed the flash or RAM for something else. Seen this happen elsewhere before

So I guess from my perspective, I'd treat this with roughly the same scepticism as a free hosting service provided by Google Analytics, at least until the bigger picture is made a little more clear.

> Since its introduction in 1973 and refinement in the 1970s and 80s, the model has become the de-facto standard for estimating the price of stock options

The only contemporary use for BS by professionals is as a convention for quoting volatility. As a pricing model it does not account for key effects such as the permanent "volatility smile" appearing in the aftermath of the 1987 crash (significantly increased price of downside options), and well understood behaviours like jumps and volatility clustering.

The only attacks I know of are low brow phishing, DoS and web site defacements.

.

> Given your exposure in this geography can you name any of it's neighbors

Saudi Arabia targetted at least Bezos' phone

Please elaborate on this. As someone with direct exposure to this area and in this geography, my experience could not be described this way at all.

Let's not forget Iran's first "military satellite" was launched with an over the counter unencrypted amateur cubesat transponder manufactured by a Californian company