restingrobot

So only public universities count, but not private ones? School ID's are not considered valid identification for any other government form, (I-9, W2, etc), so I don't think it makes sense to say they count here as well.

We need to have harsh penalties for this. People who don't understand the complex systems they were able to access, might introduce vulnerabilities that more malicious entities can exploit. An example of this would be a student at a university accessing internal network from a physical terminal in a building, (intranet), and accidentally disabling a firewall, (say to play a video from a remote location). In doing so, its no longer just a prank as they may have exposed the entire internal network to outside internet.

This is a super basic example, but it serves to illustrate my point. It's not just a prank bro, even when it is.

>Facebook has taken on the role of managing the distribution of information to billions of people. It handles communications between groups and individuals. Given how critical those activities are to a healthy, liberal, free society, we should take steps to protect the rights and duties of individual users and platforms. Maybe we'll coalesce into a roughly cooperative country sometime in the future an accomplish that.

Facebook has specifically designated itself as a platform, not a content provider. IF what you are saying is true, we need to remove Section 230 protection and force Facebook to be accountable for all of its content.

Personally I think there are countless alternatives to Facebook and trying to nationalize into a utility, or regulate it with an agency will only serve to foment authoritarianism.

First of all, Facebook is not a utility. No matter what you think, it is literally not classified a utility at this time.

Second, just because governments, companies, or people choose to use it to communicate, does not mean it is a utility. There is a choice and many, many alternatives to Facebook. Utility status is reserved for things like power water and gas, (even internet in many places), as there are physical barriers to choice.

Third, it is not unconstitutional for utilities to ban customers in the United States.

Basically every Fortune 500 company is guilty of this. Most corporations loyalties go Shareholders, Employees, Government, Customers in that order. It is more shocking to me that anyone is surprised Facebook puts profit over people. I would be surprised if they *Didn't* do that.

Should we ban all telecoms too? I mean people used phones on networks to commit genocide as well. While we're at it, we should ban iPhones as well because they used them to communicate. What a stupid argument.

It is not illegal to ban someone from using your product, (assuming they are not being discriminated against as a protected class).

This is a TERRIBLE idea. Turning Facebook into a government entity, (or even making an org to regulate it), is as anti-American as it is unconstitutional. Take away 230 protection status and if the company survives great, otherwise another one will take its place.

I don't care what you say, any person CAN live without Facebook. Yes it might be painful for some, but in a free market society, some company (most likely many disparate companies), will cover those needs.

I just wanted to point out that obtaining a security clearance is not nearly as hard as you make it sound. For most organizations prior recreational drug use does not preclude you from the clearance.

>Assuming the competitors are currently or have incurred expense in dealing with it, the only reason left (as I see it) would be altruism on their part in banding together with a competitor.

Its not just altruism. If you expend resources on something, you want to get the most value out of it as possible. It would be extending the value of their investment into lawyers/settlement/etc. to band together and get a possible reversal of judgement/recompense. There is definitely something to gain from taking down the troll, including recouping any initial settlement.

I think you're drastically overestimating the competitive nature of business. I don't know your personal experience, but this sounds like a naive perspective. The number one thing a business cares about is the bottom line. None of these options specifically help the bottom line, especially considering that OP is a one person shop. There is simply no way they are big enough to matter to a large company, (why would they worry about this if they had large pockets), and other small companies wouldn't take the risk of themselves getting sued. The advice was to see if the same troller targeted someone else, and I absolutely would help my competitor take down a patent troll.

I can't agree more, 6 kids, (5 under 7), and my wife had to give up a low 6 figure job as it didn't make financial sense to pay childcare. Things will get better...

To me, this seems like a convoluted way to hide malicious actions as research, (not the other way around). This smells of intentional vulnerability introduction under the guise of academic investigation. There are millions of other, less critical, open source solutions this "research" could have tested on. I believe this was an intentional targeted attack, and it should be treated as such.

We have expected productivity requirements on a bi-weekly basis. The expectation is that if you finish 2 weeks worth of work early, then the next iteration you will get slightly more work. Of course this isn't 100%, (obviously someone could just take longer on purpose), but as a manager its pretty easy to tell when your direct reports are slacking off.

Personally I don't think having 2 salaried jobs is immoral. If you're not caught, I feel like it is indicative more of bad leadership than your skill. A good manager should know what someone of X skill level should be accomplishing. If you're only doing half of that, (assuming the other half was spent on another job), it should be fairly easy to notice.

I think what he meant was that by being together and discussing problems we solve them a lot faster. This is absolutely true in my job. If I didn't know my team loved being remote so much, we would have been back in the office as soon as was safe.

You're looking at market share among consumers. Check server marketshare and come back.

>The article references sexual harassment, the commenters care about market share.

Alleged sexual harassment. Granted I don't know the whole story, but it doesn't seem like there has been anything more than accusations. I don't think its right to fire someone based on heresay. Once he is proven to have crossed the lines, then I'm all for holding him accountable. Until then, I think people should keep the pitchfork in the shed.

Also I'm not defending his commentary, but people are entitled to their own opinions.

wow, i've been using this for years, (it was originally pulled from an old Ribot prep script). Glad to see this finally getting some love.

Boom, hit the nail on the head. There is absolutely no other reason to include this information in the blog other than to set up this (lack of) narrative.

I think most sane people agree with this; its a tweet, delete it and move on. But we live in a world where supposed virtue and feelings matter more to some people than rational thought. If I were an interested party in Figma and this tweet cost the company a big sale, of course I would fire the employee. This whole "feelings before business" is asinine and I hate that these posts are becoming more and more common.

You're forgetting the stock is 125% over shorted. There literally isn't enough stock for shorts to cover their current positions. That's why there is potential for infinite, (huge) gains as long as everyone holds.

You can verify the installed version on Android with the Github repo version. Yes you can essentially check a hash.

The software on the server doesn't matter, as long as the encryption is solid on the device. That's the whole point, the devices handles all encryption/decryption so the server can't understand any of the data coming and going. The reason they don't store the data is because it would be pointless. The Github repos contain the device source code which, for most platforms, can be verified.

I think he meant "iPhone models" when he said "devices". I'm not the op, but they definitely do optimize per model, not individual device.

Technically they could get the signature key, but they can't force Signal to publish it via the store. Users would have to download an .apk file and install it directly. At that point there is no reason to have the signing key at all as the phone will recognize a sideload as a third party install. As far as I know, the government cannot compel a company to do something like update an app.

I didn't make the equivalence of iOS to XP, the commenter did. I did pick iOS 12 to make a point, but you're right it is apples to oranges, and that's also proving my original assertion.

The original comment was that Apple should charge for iOS versions, to which I was saying that is a bad idea. By your comment, (I think), you would agree with my statement.

I apologize I don't have time for an in-depth response, but a quick note is that you have some fallacies in your arguments:

>it would also make console business model or Amazon Kindle business model illegal.

My interpretation would not make console business illegal, but rather it would make limiting the product so that you are the only means of distribution illegal. I can currently side-load books onto my kindle without any sort of jailbreaking or modification. On my android phone I can download an .apk file and install it with no issues. The Google Play Store still makes fine profit, and the App Store would as well, even with competition. This most certainly would fall under the definition of a monopoly.

>For example, Apple Watch only works with iPhone. A person bought Apple Watch a year ago cannot buy a Android phone a year later and have the Apple Watch work as advertised when he/she first bought it.

You are comparing Apples to oranges. This is a lot different as a watch is hardware, not software. Plus we are talking about 1 apple software app vs another apple software app.

>For example, if iOS is going to have third party App Stores, it has to be designed in the OS.

No it doesn't really. It's not apple's responsibility to make it easy for third parties. If their apps do not work, it isn't apples responsibility to account for them. Furthermore, the OS can already handle "third party apps", it just has to be Jailbroken, or side-loaded via an MDM account. Any third party apps still have to use the internal SDK's of Apple in order to function.

> you realize when Google built Android it actually has to spent the time and the energy to design the system that enables Android's flexibility and "multiple App Store and install any app package" system.

Google did not build Android it was purchased by them in 2005. The system of installing any app is the same as installing google apps. The same with apple. There is no extra work that you're claiming, as they have to do this in order for the respective stores to work as well. This, and the comment above, are a different point that I was not making. This would be the case if Apple only allowed Apple software on their device, in which case I would not say this is a monopoly as there wouldn't be any competition for them on the iPhone. However, they do but they do not do this, so your point is moot.

>they need to think do I spend the time to engineer and maintain systems to enable interoperability?

This isn't a question of interoperability. These are all iOS apps. The question is simply the distribution source. I can make an app on my mac and load it directly onto my phone, but the only option I currently have for distribution is the App Store that Apple controls.

Right now they charge 15% of all my purchases. Would you change your opinion if they charged 50%? I guarantee that would put some people out of business. What if apple decided to charge me 15% but you 50%, which would be perfectly within their legal right? Would you agree then that the appstore is not a monopoly?

>btw, if Apple is going to allow other stores and ISVs to offer users application packages to download and install freely like it is on Windows, any company of significant size is going to start bypass Apple's stores and asking users download Exe's or their own app launchers.

Yes and why shouldn't they be able to do so? That's the whole point of the lawsuit, Apple is enforcing this to cut their competition, they are effectively proping up their own monopoly. They currently own the base product, the means of distribution, the means of access, and the means of repair, (although right to repair rulings are becoming far more common).

Before the decision, jailbreaking was not considered a violation of the DMCA. Apple sued and lost trying to make it one. So your premise that Cydia was somehow in violation of DMCA at the time is completely false.

>But people buy the devices knowing that that's not an option.

A manufacturer cannot dictate the consumer's options regarding the owned devices, even though they have it in their terms and conditions. Apple is currently being gobsmacked by right to repair claims under this very principle.

I might be biased as an app developer, but if apps are done properly they can provide a much deeper experience for users. I understand your point that most things can be done in a cross platform manner, however in my 10 years of mobile development experience, cross platform is great for 90% of things, sucks at 5%, and simply cannot do the last 5%. If your tech needs fall into any of the 5's then a native app is simply the better solution.

They killed flash because it was a bug riddled, security nightmare, owned by Adobe, (one of the greediest corporations in existence). I will never understand the flash nostalgia, good riddance.