lawnchair_larry

There is no profit. It’s a 501(c)(12).

This isn’t how the real world works. If it’s your kids who have a terminal illness, and require a surgery with a low survival rate, and you have the resources, something tells me you’re not going to populate your short list of doctors with the “economy” options.

As for curing diseases, I can’t imagine why anyone would care why someone developed a cure. As long as Doc saves my life, I do not care if he did it for the money or for the feels or because he had a weird fetish and liked the shape of the mole on my rear.

No, this almost certainly would not achieve the outcome you’re hoping for, and would likely create new problems.

By your standards, zero companies have a proper “culture” then. That’s just not how things work anywhere. You might think or even assume they should, but they don’t.

Well, nothing like that even happened, so why are we talking about it? solarwinds123 was a password for a public ftp server. It did not let anyone sign anything and it didn’t push updates out. It isn’t even related to the solarwinds breach.

Are you a college student? Or an independent contractor? I don’t know how anyone who has worked in the real world can have these misconceptions.

1) Every password policy allows for dumb passwords in certain places. Because password policies are only enforced on systems that integrate with the password policy enforcement mechanism. Which never covers everything. Even with a password policy, it’s easy to make dumb passwords.

2) It doesn’t say that the intern chose this policy or that it belonged to something critical. There has been no link established between that password and the breach. A random researcher said they found the password a year ago and reported it. It could have been used, but there’s no reason to believe it’s relevant.

3) Nothing suggests that they did.

Conclusion: It’s better to not be an armchair quarterback after a breach, especially when it’s still under active investigation by actual professionals with access to actual data, and they aren’t even making the claims that folks here are making.

This is a silly standard that nobody is held to in the real world. Nearly every company can have a breach due to an intern or another employee leaking credentials. There’s nothing the CEO can do about that.

It is often the case after these breaches that HNers start assigning blame in ways that indicate their lack of practical experience in the security world. After 20 years working in security, from startups to fortune 500s, including the most well funded security teams in the world, EVERYONE has stupid password problems in some corners of their company. The password leak was absolutely not the CEOs mistake.

Single-car family. As in, this has to serve the transportation needs of a family who relies on it as their only vehicle. That entails far more than their daily commute, and has to support a reasonable worst case, which is what his number represents. A car that only supports your average case is not very useful. And range is diminished in winter.

In other words, if I’m living in Dallas and I have to choose 1 car to meet all of my use cases, I’m not going to pick one that precludes me from ever being able to take the wife and kids to visit relatives in Houston, even if I only make that trip occasionally.

They don’t in the US, so I doubt it.

Your whole argument is a straw man. You’re blaming Metallica suing napster for a sony rootkit. It’s nonsense.

I pirated the shit out of music on napster. But Metallica was still right to shut it down. I didn’t have any right to that music. I didn’t have any right to the $10 people paid me to burn CDs of napster content for them either.

Who in this discussion was advocating suing children?

> Wealthy and powerful copyright interests want to control what customers get to do with the product they purchase.

No, this is not a story of the evil capitalist overlord oppressing the little guy. Save the hero narrative. Even the broke bands (which is most of them) want people to pay them for their work. The good news is there are actually a lot of them who don’t, and that’s their personal decision. You’re allowed to take it for free if they set their price at zero, but you’re not allowed to set their price at zero for them.

You’re comparing a routine transaction of paying someone for their performance, to an unrealistic hypothetical involving the monopolization of a critical resource required to survive more than 3 days. It’s hard to take that argument seriously.

You’re misusing the word monopoly. Everyone has a monopoly on their own labor. But they don’t have a monopoly on music, and neither does Metallica. You’re not entitled to a man’s song and dance under any circumstances that don’t involve him entering into a mutually agreeable transaction with you. If this makes life not worth living, hopefully you can find someone else willing to accept your offer of giving them nothing in exchange for it. If you can’t, well, tough shit I guess. You still don’t deserve it for free. It’s not Lars’ problem if you will die without his music.

Your arguments on this whole thing are completely nonsensical. None of what you’re claiming to be mad about has anything to do with Metallica. You’re basically complaining that you can’t freely use the work of artists without compensating them.

Metallica had nothing to do with what your issue is then. Not a single thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compact_discs_sold_wit...

As a teenager, I thought I had a right to enjoy their work without paying for it. But this attitude surprises me from adults. Why don’t bands deserve to be paid for their product?

Your understanding of baseband attacks is not correct. Having a baseband exploit would not facilitate this. Nor would exploits/backdoors in any particular app.

Haha, you went there. Brave! But some good points. But how do you determine when all the facts are out and it’s appropriate? When circumstances do not favor the deciders as a class or their allies, the facts will probably tend to take far longer to come out. When they are favorable, they would likely determine that all facts are known immediately.

I think I disagree with the statement that misinformation causes real and demonstrable harm. The vast majority of misinformation does not. Saying that we faked the moon landing, or that the sky is a layer of impenetrable foil, while silly, is ultimately inconsequential and does not cause harm.

There are of course rare cases when someone acts on misinformation to do something harmful. I can easily think of several examples of bad reporting from supposedly reputable media outlets that caused a ton of damage over the last year.

Conversely, most true information does not cause harm either. But some true information does cause harm.

In that sense, I think the veracity of the information has little to do with the risk of harm, and that we should not allow this trojan horse for free speech regulation to take hold. For whatever problems free speech has, trying to stifle it is just not going to provide the benefit that people think it will.

The Iraq war was based on misinformation. It did cause perhaps the greatest harm in the last several decades. However, that was “officially sanctioned” misinformation directly from the government (whether they believed it in good faith or not). I think before doing anything to limit the flow of information, consider whether the proposed framework for suppression of misinformation have caught this. Worse, if someone knew that the WMDs were not there, and could have corrected that disaster, would they have been considered misinformation?

We have already seen this in action with the tech companies giving very loose directives to their content moderators to remove certain types of misinformation. A popular youtuber was censored for telling people that masks are a good idea back in March. The official information at the time was that they do not help. The truth was that they obviously do, and now you get censored for saying that they don’t help. If someone asks honestly about something suspicious related to the election, or believes a voting rule change was procedurally unfair, without paying any mind to the weird conspiracy theories, they get moderated. Because it sounds like “claims of election fraud” and the 3 seconds that the moderator spends on it don’t allow for nuance. Or the hunter biden “misinformation” that wasn’t. That basically means that the word of the US Government (particularly the Democrats) is the “true information” and anything else in conflict with that is misinformation. And that’s a pretty bad place to be. In practice, this just doesn’t seem to work, and does more harm than good.

> There seems to be some consensus that MacPorts has the better architecture

There isn’t, Homebrew is far superior in my opinion, and everyone I know using a Mac. We all left MacPorts ages ago.

It’s safe to say that has nothing to do with him not getting the job.

You’d be wrong, and you’re making the same error.

Yes

How was it a lie? You didn’t have an account there. And you’re very mistaken on the “make some cash” theory.

> It was a clearly partisan highly censored place where anything other than right wing commentary was not tolerated.

This is just false. Did you have an account there?

You might not realize how many companies make this mistake and worse. Dropbox? LinkedIn?

What is it you think was wildly irresponsible exactly? Not stripping exif data? Facebook did that too. And has had many account takeover bugs.

Huh. Front page? What is everyone looking at exactly?

Since you seem to have been inappropriately influenced by Robin DiAngelo’s White Guilt scam, I suggest you also get the perspective of a far more qualified black man and check out “White Guilt” by Shelby Steele.

Anyone who makes ridiculous statements like White men are so fragile and the mere presence of a Black person challenges every single thing in them should not be taken seriously by the intellectually honest. It’s an absurd statement and deserves excoriating - as would you, in my opinion, if, as you say, you made such an asinine and racist suggestion, especially as a white male who should know it’s demonstrably false (you haven’t seen it happen by the way, what you saw was a failure in your own understanding and the limits of your capabilities to empathize).

Yet it deserves neither a warning nor a ban. Even more ridiculous than the statement itself is the idea that someone needs to protect our eyes from seeing it, and that FB’s random content moderator contractor knows what is best for us and will be our protector. I am familiar with someone who used to do content moderation working for Cognizant in AZ. He seems plenty likable, but he is certainly not someone who knows what opinions will hurt me. And even if he were, I shouldn’t expect to be protected from hurt feelings when engaging controversial topics. That’s for me to navigate, and if it proves more than I can handle, it’s incredibly easy to block people.

Nothing in the article demonstrates irrationality or hatred. It’s not that there is something factually correct, it appears to be factually correct in its entirety. There is nothing wrong with it other than people assuming they don’t like who is saying it and reflexively trying to squash it on that basis alone.

Oddly, all of your replies seem to be focused on “canceling” this source for dubious ad hominem reasons.

Wow, this is why the left needs to pay more attention to the right. This whole premise completely misunderstands the issue.