170 karma · joined February 23, 2017
Reailize that what you call "security" isn't there to protect you. It protects Google's interests. Google wants to minimize the risk of hackers compromising any google service; and if doing so might destroy your livelihood, well, that's a risk Google is willing to take.
Figure out your goals/principles/mission today. Then make that happen now.
There's never going to be a right time to do anything other than now. Because you're never going to be any younger.
To gain the experience necessary to know when your significant other is behaving in ways that are exceptional. Everything is normal until then
This is how you develop the emotional intellegence to both appeciate them long-term and the wherewithal to deal with abuse.
I hate it when time travelers pollute my news feed.
The hackers are criminals and extortionists. No more. The impact of the crime is embarrassment to businesses, time and money recovering from data loss, and an inconvenience to workers across all industries.
NPR played up an angle that doesn't exist in any meaningful or significant way. Why? More clicks.
I expect criminals to be assholes.
I expect more from NPR. They used to have more integrity and objectivity than they do today.
The only statistic in the article that gives a clue how many hospitals were affected appears in the statement:
"In Montana, more than 250 nurses at Missoula's Community Medical Center have missed out on pay due to the hospital's decision to pay employees by duplicating an early December paycheck"
So in this particular company, some nurses were forced to accept their expected regular+OT pay and will have to wait a couple more weeks for any extra overtime they might be entitled to.
How many healthcare workers were affected? No more than any other industry. I couldn't find any news on the internet actually revealing how many workers in general were affected other than "up to thousands". So how many might be health care workers? Up to hundreds? So maybe 0.005% of healthcare workers have been inconvienced?
So my question is, why has NPR specifically addressed the impact to "hospitals"? Why is the impact to healthcare workers more important and news-worthy than to the impact to everybody else?
> "The outage is an unneeded administrative nightmare timed precisely as the omicron surge is hitting hospitals, Riggi said."
Ah! The outage was "timed"!!!!
The evil hackers intentionally timed the attack to threaten COVID victims!!!! My god! They're MONSTERS! attacking and murdering the weakest of us! It's outrageous!
What should be done? Is it's time to fire up the gas chambers for these inhuman hacker terrorists? Or maybe it just time to click on NPR's clickbait title?
They get: meaning, status, influence, connections, reputation, and opportunities
The free and open nature of their contribution makes it much easier to get all these benefits than they would with a paid and proprietary solution.
They cast the world as a worse place that it actually is, and in the process make everybody a reading their rant just a little less happy and content. But the virtue signaller gets that sweet, sweet attention they crave without actually having to produce or earn anything.
Maybe 2 years ago, they were deciding on their corporate identity: maybe ABC, DEF, or GHI, ...
They decided on ABC even though they knew ABC.com wasn't available. THEY KNEW IT, so they took ABC.net instead. They could have made you an offer at that time, but maybe they weren't ready because their business wasn't profitable yet. No point in putting money into something isn't proven valuable yet, right? So they kicked that can down the road; delayed that decision to buy your domain.
So, now they want it, and they're engaging you now. They know they have no more claim on it than they did 2 years go.
No doubt that they did think of that. Instead they decided on intimidation as an opening strategy.
> ... as I was using the name 7+ years before them with a similar product
So they are guilty of what they are accusing you of. You could: 1) threaten to counter sue and settle for a price, or 2) sell them your .com
They've no doubt anticipated these responses as well and are prepared to negotiate. They simply decided to open the negotiations at $0
If Life360's mission is to keep children safe, exposing their location data simply cannot be part of that. These two activities cannot coexist without undue risk.
No parent is ever going to be okay with sharing thier kids location with countless 3rd parties. Pretending otherwise is just disingenuous.
> This is the most twisted reporting that has ever happened to us.
You're being obtuse and confusing "twisted reporting" with reporting a twisted business.
I certainly hope that's the case
> One of which involve paying a bunch of $$ to Life360 and trying to filter the data by age.
The fact that the data is being made available to larger audience than it needs to fulfil it's stated purpose is a violation of trust. The expectation of the parents is that the data is exposed to minimum of people - employees of Life360. Instead, the data is shared with the employees of potentially hundreds of companies. None of whom need pay anything to Life360.
> About a million things. ... Like walk around the neighborhood ...
In less time than it takes to search one neighborhood by foot, someone can use big data to search a million neighborhoods. And thereafter rerun that search day after day, week after week, year after year. With no effort.
There's a reason so many companies are tracking everything, and so many companies are paying for that tracking data: it's powerful.
A company that ostentatiously presents its mission as making children safer actually makes money by making children less safe
Historically, such systems are legislated against and are often made illegal.
Example: Suppose you are a cashier working in retail. If at the end of your shift your drawer is short for whatever reason, you cannot make up the difference out-of-pocket. Your managager would be commiting a crime by accepting your money.
If someone tells you one of your tools is suspicious or could be a liablity for whatever reason, the most efficient thing to do is simply discard it.
> "with the added trust of Microsoft"
Hijacking a competitor's page demonstrates that Microsoft lacks integrity and cannot be trusted
Goodle production: "We're not responsible for your livelihood"
Same from Microsoft
You can't create regulation requiring anyone or anything be competent and responsible.
If you entrust your livelihood to a company that cannot be trusted, that's on you.
No. He's describing a distributor's options. You are describing a consumer's problem. Specifically pirate comsumers.
He doesn't need to find his own file; he needs to distribute it. Publishing is a separate issue. With napster, you only had one publishing option: napster.com. With torrents, you have many. As he said, "just dump the magnet link somewhere".
> Unfortunately, bad design won.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Napster and bittorent are different tools that solve different problems.
He's describing general issues involved in distributing something.
You're describing specific issues involved in stealing.
Saying "bad design won" is like saying hammers are a bad design compaired to hypodermic needles because you can't use a hammer to inject yourself with heroin.
It's not so much a problem of "scale" as simply poor architecture, neglected technical debt and outright incompetance
What is the experiment? Honestly? What's the point? That two people enjoy different advantages and that's unfair and needs to be addressed?
Here's a take on that "issue" by Vonnegut that actually is well thought out and interesting:
I agree that article addresses a real problem that should be exposed and dealt with.
However, the NYT does not appear to.
The title of article is "Americans’ Appetite for Leather in Luxury SUVs Worsens Amazon Deforestation"
It implies the problem isn't that you're ignorant of where the leather comes from. Rather, it's your appitite that's the problem. You hunger for the leather and you don't care about the consequences of harvesting it.
What's more, it's not just the glutonous consumers of Luxury SUVs in general. It's specifically Americans. Americans are the problem.
NYT decided to up it's viewership by using a clickbate title that panders to an audience that likes reading about how gready, irresponsible and contemptable Americans are.
I think the NYT editors are a hateful bunch. They profit by instulting on the very country and infrastructure that supports it.
How about the NYT publishes this article:
"The New York Times' Misleading Titles and Appetite for Viewers Unfairly Worsens America's Worldwide Image"
I think that's the point of the article.
"feature flags" = "gates" = "circuit breakers" = "knobs"? really?
> This was a problem especially for newer engineers, who would get (unsurprisingly) confused as to whether they should be using one or the other, and even senior engineers would regularly forget that the flag they’re looking for is actually a gate (happened to me five times a week). Ideally, these would be just be one concept
That's what you get when you try to be clever with your vocabulary rather than using longer and less ambiguous terms
NYT chose to misrepresent the purpetrators in it's article. That's not journalism.
NYT's conclusion of who is to blame could have gone either way:
1) be manipulative by support americans and their interests regardless of the truth 2) be objective, report the facts, identify contributing factors without overtly blaming 3) be manipulative by damning americans, encouraging americans to hate each other and their country, feed into everybody's victim mentality
I much, much would 2. But if I can't have 2, I'd prefer 1 over 3. My kids futures will be better off if they are encouraged to appreciate what's good in their country rather than always looking for reasons to hate it
New York Times conclusion:
* The criminals are not to blame.
* The country not enforcing it's laws is not to blame.
* The rest of the world is not to blame.
* Only Americans' and their gluttony is to blame.
My conclusion:
* Fuck you, NYTimes
But if most of your discretionary time is spent doing unimportant things, that can contribute to depression and anxiety.
"Dial tone mode" sounds a lot like the checking out alcoholics, drug users and other people suffering from compulsive disorders waste their lives doing.