6,790 karma · joined March 13, 2019
That's how you think it went, huh? Six months and every country and person got over the decades of communism like they never existed? Six month was just enough for the euphoria to wear off.
If reading a book gave you 1 million HN karma everyone would jump on it. Instead it just makes people more educated. Here, gift link [1], check out what did most countries manage to achieve before say June 1990.
They're not inventing a new world, they're not "conveniently" and consciously sweeping anything under the rug, they're not telling themselves a fairy tale. They're just losing much of the world they were living in and have to deal with what's left, holes and all. Why do you think old people are such easy targets for scams and fraud in general? Do you think only the body degrades with age?
If you're young enough to not have seen this in action ever, you'd be excused for not understanding at all what happens and for building such bad faith scenarios. Common sense and some light reading on the topic would have prevented that nonetheless.
Those countries who were fresh from behind the iron curtain were really dealt a bad hand. They had lived in a "protective bubble", albeit a very unsustainable one and suddenly were thrown in the ocean surrounded by sharks looking for an easy meal. Almost every one of those people found themselves desperate but "inexperienced" and unprepared for the new world, every politician was absolutely blown away by the fortune they could make, and every other country jumped on the opportunity to make money. Like shooting fish in a barrel.
For every politician who took a bribe, someone who already had money paid it. That money didn't come from inside those poor countries. This leveraging of poorer countries never stopped. That's how some countries get a better deal than others when the EU adopted the Euro, for example. But it's never been so bad as back then because it's incredibly rare that entire countries find themselves exiting a time capsule, just ready to be exploited by people who already know how the game is played.
This reminds me of two things. The people who always think others are poor because they're lazy, and the people with perfect hindsight and no pressure judging that Captain Sully could have landed the plane back on the runway instead of the Hudson.
Everyone wants to feel better about themselves and the easiest way is to look down on someone who has less. Less "whatever" really, people always find something that they think makes them better, money is just the obvious choice because society slowly associated money with success. It doesn't matter if the wealth came from their parents, or luck, they can still pretend it makes them better.
It's one of those situations where everyone's in on it. The poor really haven't much else to go on and they'll take this little boost in their standing, the rich are tempted to think they so much better than most other people. Everyone in between sits somewhere on that scale.
Obviously. I just figured I'd point you to the real red flags you missed instead of the "I find it weird so it's a problem" thing.
> The job description also doesn't say "owns clean clothes"
That's a false parallel. A commenter higher up already pointed out to you that the candidate could own a tablet. An iPad Pro M5 is faster than most laptops, perfectly good for coding, and not able to run any of the crap sent out by the interviewer which likely expects desktop OSes.
The advert also shouldn't mention such a thing. Some people work remotely, others could honestly tell you they'll get better clothes from the first salary. If you're interviewing someone, they're the best at the job but you stumble on this, it's definitely a red flag. For the candidate, to look elsewhere. Why would you want to work for an employer who focuses more on the sweat stains on your armpit than the actual work or your character?
And now let me paint a different picture to understand the magnitude of the unfairness in your logic. I assume you are the Leo Rampen from the website you advertise in your profile. How many red flags do you count from someone advertising a blog which at the time of writing this has a certificate expired more than a month ago, and the last content update is more than a decade old? How does this reflect on a multi-disciplinary HW/SW engineer who even works on things as critical as satellites? This is to say, don't focus of flagging trivialities. You'll probably look in all the wrong places.
Why do you think the job posting doesn't explicitly mention "owning a PC" as a requirement? If it's a relevant criterion why not make it clear there? If it's not, why have it at all, only to keep it hidden in your biases?
Accepting to run random code sent by someone you don't know should be a red flag for them. Getting asked to run random code sent by someone you don't know should be a red flag for you.
It sounds shocking if you're missing the context and only rely on the blogspam which is this TechCrunch article.
They aren't buying the books only to destroy them but to build an AI training dataset, which means they're making a digital copy. This becomes a copyright issue. The destruction is the legal loophole that allows them to keep the digital copy as the only copy in circulation and be considered fair use as decided by a judge (see below).
The concept of ownership means you can do anything you want with the object, the book in this case. Not with the content, like make or distribute copies. The scanning machines are cutting the spine of the book, feeding the pages to scanners, and then destroying the physical copy.
Anthropic's version of this was Project Panama [1]. Quoting from the page:
> Judge William Alsup ruled that the destruction and digitization of legally purchased books constituted fair use
This is the legal loophole that allows them to do what they need to do, and the benefit of doing it outweighs the modicum of outrage this title will generate.
Edit. Because I see my statement confused all the HN experts:
Anthropic's version of this was Project Panama [1]. The destruction of the original allows them to keep a digital copy in the AI training dataset. Quoting from the page:
> Judge William Alsup ruled that the destruction and digitization of legally purchased books constituted fair use
I take it you mean this literally (assassinations) rather than figuratively (getting hired by the competition).
> In recent years US has been hit so hard
Any evidence of this? Other than the storm in a cup that was the recent news of "dead scientists" that turned out to be a nothingburger.
The idea sounds very plausible and it happens again and again elsewhere (e.g. Israel keeps taking out Iranian scientists). But I haven't heard anything major from the US, and I doubt the US would take it lightly and keep everything quiet, especially with the current admin who would kill for more media distractions for the people.
By this definition there has never been a waterfall project. They all need to correct, adapt, or redo something.
Look, I think I get your point but you seem too stuck in some formal definition riveted with assumptions to understand the other side. If you build a house you can correct some things after the fact. You forgot a power outlet or a light fixture? You need to move or resize a window? Probably fine and even decently low effort. You realize your foundation is too thin or too small? You forgot about one room? You put the bathroom on the wrong side of the house? Not so fine and definitely not low effort.
The state of software development is so bad because so many devs just jump head first into writing code and in the end they deliver a pile of barely held together shiny bits that technically works but is a pain to modify, extend, maintain, secure, extract the expected performance, etc. All because there are 100 brick layers and not one architect or engineer on the team.
This ban makes sense if they suspect the enemy is covertly scanning using unsuspecting users' drones. But if they suspect foreign actors are using the drones to scan, well they won't be stopped or slowed down by the ban. Whoever is interested in targeted mapping of buildings and specific areas won't be put off by Lidar drones not being commercially available. Independently Lidars and drones still are, and combining the two for malicious purposes is a no-brainer.
Which part of my list was just "a detail" to be dealt with at some point in the lifecycle (but only if you're not too busy shipping features) for you? You're laying bricks before knowing if the wall's supposed to be concrete.
> Code is a form of low-level design and is where the rubber hits the road.
Sure but in keeping with your analogy tires are fungible across most cars and it takes minutes to change one if you picked the wrong compound. It takes years to properly design a tire, not to speak of everything that sits on top of those tires. By the time you actually "meet the road" you already defined to a tee what you want to achieve from every perspective and everything you do is to meet that goal, even if you have to make tweaks. You don't find out if it's a scooter or a roadster tire while working on it.
> The best requirements, designs, marketing, etc are worth jack if one fucks up the code.
Why are you mixing some fundamental things which are essential and can't be changed along the way without massive effort and risk, if at all, with things like marketing?
Do you want to aimlessly write code while chasing a target that moves randomly and conflicting because your plan was to define things "at some point"? You're really making my point with your insistence that it's all about code and every other fundamental thing is "a detail" that just comes along the way.
On those complex systems in particular the problems start long before any code is written.
A software engineer can create and understand the specs, requirements, design the system, architectural decisions, define everything about that software and data, model everything, failure, performance, operational topics, documents everything, etc. before a single line of code is written, and of course they can write good code. Then there are the coders who patch together chunks of code from Stack Overflow or whatever boilerplate they have in the company's repository. I know every coder likes to call themselves a "software engineer" but there's a world of difference between the two types.
For the first group code was never the hardest part. For the second group there was never any other part.
Tying any solution to specific companies is the major problem. Because even if the rest of the age verification scheme is well thought out in the user's interest, tying it to Apple and Google not only forces people's dependency on foreign private companies, it also invalidates any pretense of privacy.
At the time of the Iraq war the US was holding all the cards. It had a perfected playbook, the optimal technology, and support from the population. In the Iran war the old playbook is ineffective, the technology is too expensive to keep it up, and the popular support for a war demanded by another country isn't there.
And yes... you have the current crop of leaders who couldn't lead their way out of a wet paper bag.
P.S. My personal opinion is that Windows could be a great OS but MS keeps intentionally saddling it with more and more shit in the name of getting more from the user, instead of giving more to the user.
Hardware-bound is not a problem, limiting that to only iPhones and some Android phones is. Plenty of hardware can keep a key safe and it doesn't need Apple's or Google's blessing.
Moments ago it was "misunderstandings or malicious compliance". Did you misplace one on your apologetic quest?
I'm really trying not to assume the worst about you. Is there any reason you insist so much on giving the benefit of the doubt to every law breaker out there? Especially when we're sometimes talking about very deep pockets who can afford lawyers?
You can extend causality as far as you want if you're willing to sound like this in the open. If there were no cookies, there'd be no banners. There, found you a new target.
So on one side you have decent regulation that tries to balance the interest of the user without over regulating and becoming too prescriptive, and on the other side you have abusers who most of the times are actually in malicious non-compliance... and you find a way to blame the regulation.
Good thing it's in the rules that HN is not Reddit.
> Ellis’s assignment was to break into the data center and steal around 80 servers that hosted the incriminating files
The hit was contracted by the bankers who broke the law. Why would they need a copy of the evidence?
If the goal was to know what the prosecution has on them they took the worst route. Hiring petty criminals to steal the damn servers and giving them more details than they need to know is a stupid idea. Instead of hacking the data out of the servers (which would have been even easier in 2007), you now have a trail of inconvenient witnesses who can't wait to spill the secrets for a lighter sentence. He might have been just a decoy for something bigger.
The story smells like a book promotion and a petty criminal further bolstering a high profile (but stupid) robbery.
So are serial killers. A small minority of people can affect the lives and health of a lot more. A handful of people roaring through a neighborhood at night like this can mean nobody ever gets a proper night's sleep.
If someone plays with a laser in your eye, being told "it's just light, it's one guy, can you just ignore him, he'll grow out of it", won't be a consolation. You'll want him stopped.
> Most people grow out of it after one car like that.
Someone else grows into it.
Do you really think the US and US big tech in general have a leg to stand on in this regard?
Too busy being acquired by SpaceX?
Remember that this means he's not the "hands" but he's still very much the head. You'll only know what Valve really is without him when he's no longer around.
That's a big leap you made. But I'll tell you what, this is a question you'll be able to answer when you are in your 80s, not your parents. I have a strong feeling you'll understand what I mean without needing to jump to conclusions.
Don't you miss the simpler times when people could just frantically applaud Musk's genius and not be inconvenienced by the truth of how big of a role deception, grifting, and outright fraud played in his success?