mkal_tsr

This is exactly what I was getting at, glad someone else saw that. I didn't see posting relevant credentials that are easily found through usernames containing PII to really be doxxing because it's "self-doxxing", and the fact that those credentials are relevant to the discussion.

This is the problem I have with HN moderation, they have rules that they selectively enforce but it's all built on their heuristics which they never flesh-out. Neither of us can go to a page on HN and run through a checklist to determine if content in a post will or will not be considered flaggable/bannable because it's a "closed source heuristic" if you will. There are guidelines sure, but the enforcement seems very wishy-washy and selective.

All hail King Musk

> The fulfillment of the job

Irrelevant

> The privilege to work on cutting edge tech

Irrelevant

> The satisfaction of their customers

> Their salary and so on and so forth

Irrelevant, that is/was part of their contract regardless of outcome (otherwise R&D departments wouldn't exist, failure tolerances wouldn't exist, etc).

Musk merely gave directive, he didn't implement or do this R&D on his own. Calling this Musk's success is like saying Einstein design and built the atom bomb thus he is solely responsible for the death of many a Japanese. But society doesn't take that point of view, instead only that he contributed to it, not that he owned it through and through. A good leader leads their subordinates, but they are not the sole factor in their subordinates achieving success. If a leader does not recognize their subordinates, they will soon find they have no subordinates to lead.

This information is very easily found from searching based off their username. Is HN actively preventing people from registering with usernames that are on other sites and services? If not, what are the limits and connections between one's username and one's username on other websites? Further, what is the limit between one's username and full name and/or projects that are indexed on every major search engine? Should we not title this post "Tesla CEO" else we dox that individual?

I remember when hackathons were all about "here's some buggy code I wrote that does random/obscure feature/task X because look at how cool that is" and not "look at this pitch/product I'm trying to make to earn prize Y" Shame those days seem to be fading into obscurity.

Maybe YCombinator needs diversity in political beliefs on top of gender then? Get some anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-communists, a few facists/juche, sprinkle in some socialists, a hint of traditionalists, and a few neo-reactionaries. Hehe, that'd be fun to watch.

Diversify all the attribute :-P

I am indeed talking about the 1/2 second before. Even if it's 0.00001 seconds before the trigger word (I feel dirty saying that phrase), it's the technicality that I'm discussing. Once we allow those technicalities to slide, the truth is easier to bend and/or ignore. Reinforcing that PR/marketing is not an acceptable excuse to lie (even if it's a minor technical lie) is one of the few ways to prevent this sort of subtle-switcheroo.

Because every time Amazon echo comes up, people always rush it "don't worry guys, it's not actually recording anything until it has to send to the cloud" and by Amazon's own admission, that's patently false.

> including a fraction of a second of audio before the wake word.

Interesting that they are able to transmit audio-data that occurred prior to the wake word being said (in essence to transmit the wake word). Looks like Amazon is keen to redefine "collected" just like other groups are...

It seems even with the separate efforts for once-browsers-now-OSes (Firefox OS/Chrome OS/etc), we're still getting feature-creep in the browser. I understand that webRTC is a spec from the W3C, but I'm not sure that's the ... best ... solution.

Maybe I'm a bit too old-school in this regard, but I view the WWW as an interactive document repository (sites/forums/rich-apps), whereas the Internet is the network that the WWW operates on. So for me, a browser is used to explore/use the WWW whereas individual applications and tools are used to explore/use the Internet.

I feel this is an important distinction because I would like at least one modern/popular web browser to retain this philosophy, which is difficult when each browser (and parent umbrella org) decide to push more desktop-app-like functionality to the browser.

10 years ago the internet was quite different (and 10 years prior to that too), I'm curious / worried / cautious how it'll be in another decade. At least it'll be an interesting ride :-P

Piggybacking on this...

If you shop with Amazon.com, you can use the subdomain,

smile.amazon.com

to donate to your favorite charity, of which EFF is a part! So, if you'd like to 'passively' donate to the EFF, you can change your smile.amazon.com settings (and ensure you shop/checkout w/ the Smile subdomain) and a portion of your purchase will go to the EFF.

There are many organizations and charities that are a part of the Smile program, so choose whichever you'd like to support.

You're implying that I don't care that Google and Opera are doing it too. That is false.

I agree.

I'm very against the style of discussion about these topics, it's very "you agree with this feature 100% or any criticism is seen as an attack" rather than an attempt to debate the merits of features / implementations.

I am also against webRTC, I don't think it's mutually exclusive. Mozilla is signalling with this that they're looking to push applications that leverage their feature-set.

Can Lynx activate this feature at all? Lynx may have bookmarks, but as far as I can tell, Lynx does not have WebRTC support, which means it can not be exploited to share private LAN IP addresses, nor can it access web cams.

Firefox, like Chrome, is going overboard with non-web-browsing features. Some less technical users surely will appreciate that, but at some point it becomes less of a browser and more of a pseudo-OS.

If people don't voice their opinion against this direction, then Mozilla will continue down this path. I don't think it's too much to ask a web browser to be a web browser and nothing more.

I've updated my user.js helper/repo to disable Hello/"codename Loop" - https://github.com/m-kal/PrivatePanda

-----

Dear Mozilla,

Firefox is a browser. Can you please stop with the feature creep? That'd be lovely. Remember, you're a browser, not an operating system. Oh, you'd like to be an operating system? Cool, then make an OS (o hai there Firefox OS) and keep that functionality there. Stop adding extra features that are not needed to browse the internet.

It seems only Lynx cares about an authentic node-to-node / client-to-server relationship without all the privacy concerns :-(

I did see the "I think" part, but I also saw "no introvert" which was taking an absolute stance, regardless of it being your opinion or not.

You could have used "some", "most", "many", "a sizable portion", etc, but you took an absolute term rather than a malleable term. It's not my fault you're unclear in your communication.

> I think no shut-in nor introvert gets satisfaction from such behaviour.

It's amazing how you're acutely aware to how every introvert feels about this, when did you manage to contact them all and convince them to respond to such a question? Otherwise, how can you make such an absolute assertion?

I've heard he drank water, we should look into banning water. It's the only way!

We can get it to an even $20T, I believe in us. USA USA USA!

> It's telling that you're so quick to support your argument with the same misleading and over-generalized summary which has been circulating heavily in the Men's Rights community recently.

Never heard of that, this was posted and upvoted on a Reddit thread a few times. What's the Men's Right's community? Does the idea-association with this "Men's Right's Community" mean that any idea is thus tainted and rendered \0? EDIT: What's actually telling and scary is the attempt? to discredit an idea or study simply because someone else or some other community referenced it. That's a nice easy way to censor ideas one does not agree with, "X agrees with Y, and X are bad, so don't believe Y" /EDIT

The only reason I brought this study up is to point out that definitions can be skewed and treating people equally can be seen as not treating people equally. If that is true, than any conclusion reached with a faulty premise and definition would need a re-examination, no? It's weird people are hesitant to re-examine their beliefs, why is that? It's not a personal attack on people, it's a desire for everyone to get along more peacefully through more factual information. Surely that's not a bad thing?

> The second study found that simply prefixing that paragraph with “I’m a firm believer in equality between men and women. And because of that” removed much of the ambiguity which lead many people to conclude that the author was probably a misogynist.

But that IMO is huge. If you have to prefix action A with a clause yet that same action A without the prefix is seen as manifestation of the irrational hatred of 50% of the population, then what does that say about the ability of people to look at an action with an unbiased perspective?

It's not an elaborate strawman to want clearer definitions and a cleaner scope for discussion. Further you have not proven,

> then you construct this elaborate straw man about how the technology itself is gender agnostic [...] and that the gender issues are in society as a whole

is factually wrong. You admit that technology as a whole is gender agnostic, so you actually agree with my premise.

And actually I have acknowledged that there is sexism in tech because it is progressed by individuals (read: people) that come from a society. That society provides the context to their actions and motivations, regardless of which industry they are employed in (though each industry will vary in specifics). When one limits the discussion to only the tech industry they prevent any comparisons to other industries, both at a specific point in time as well as long-term / trends, which limits the ability to judge and measure progress. Limiting the judging to merely internal progress means that one will be unsure if that industry is progressing faster or slower than other industries wrt whatever we're discussing (in this case, gender issues in tech). In addition, it prevents people from discussing where industry A has made progress that industry B can look to, or learn from the mistakes of industry C. That is not possible if the discussion is silo-ed within only a single industry.

Also, what do Caucasians have to do with gender? That came out of no where, how is that relevant to this? You also seem to imply that I don't believe I could ever make a sexist comment or action, yet I never stated that, so why would you imply that? You're projecting yourself onto my words, please stop, it's disingenuous.

Welp, here's a thesis that concludes that men who treat women equally are seen as treating women as inferiors - https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/6958/Yeu...

So if that thesis can be reproduced, then all gender issues need to be reexamined as they'd be tainted by bias of treating men who treat women equally as men who are sexist.

You haven't actually proven anything I've said to be incorrect, you've just tried to take it out of context and ignore some points here and there as a means to discredit my words and intentions. I'm sorry I treat people equally (we're all individual nodes in this big cog of society) and other people do not, but the fact remains, the framing of the discussion is inherently limiting to making progress by limiting the scope and depth of such a discussion.

Upper management look at code, ha!

Every team I've been on has criticized each other's code equally harsh. If coding standards weren't followed (whoops, you missed a space between parenths, try again!) they'd be called out, if someone had a better idea for an implementation / approach, they were free to speak up and heard out. When I started out on one team I thought I was being unfairly criticized, until I saw others make the same mistakes I was and boom, they received the same feedback. As time went on and I was able to better follow agreed upon standards, and my implementations (and test cases) improved in quality, I was called out less and less, unless I made a mistake again. The focus in the reviews was always about the code and never who wrote the code - this is great because it helps break down the idea that the criticism is about the person rather than (correctly) the inert code.

The point I'm alluding to in my OP is to is similar the debate/discussion about AI and spirituality [Jaron Lanier's essay here - http://edge.org/conversation/the-myth-of-ai]. When people frame this tech / gender discussion, it's always "gender issues in tech" and I think that is (pedantically) wrong. The technology (source code, compiler, CPU) have no native understanding of a user nor their identity. They treat the input exactly the same. A node interacting with another node. So it's not really "gender issues in tech" but rather, "gender issues in society, but with a focus on the technology industry / market" It's a pedantic point, but by not being explicitly clear in definitions and discussion framing, there tends to be a leakage of irrelevant facts/statistics/feelings that contaminates discussions and derails productive conversations. When that happens, discussions fall back into their usual talking points and counter-points rather than focusing on producing solutions.

I still haven't found a compiler that compiles source code differently based on a user's gender or identity...

This line of thought works with CDNs too.

Describe the last time you went to the zoo.

I've never seen a compiler throw a compilation error due to a user's genitalia nor self-identification. Can you link me to which compilers are doing that?

When the rabbits become turtles, you've gone too deep.

Faulty intel about nation-state actions as a precursor to intervention has been proven to be an unsuccessful long-term strategy. Examples are left as an exercise to the reader. Questioning assertions should be commended, for the truth doesn't fear investigation.

I wouldn't go so far as saying I was creating a straw-man argument. My point is just that relying on other people to take care of security for you ends up with an "eh" attitude in the long-run, and self-education is more important.

Yes, Github can/should help, but developers should not think they're owed it just because they constantly check in sensitive info to a website, that's all.