shockeychap

Does anybody know how this compares with other reverse proxies, like Caddy?

"discovering vulnerabilities in devices in order to extort their owners, even if claimed as “research,” is not in good faith."

If I had just discovered a vulnerability, and didn't have a written contract authorizing me to do the research, I wouldn't feel the least bit of additional protection from this policy change, and would probably refrain from extorting the owner.

Edit: I had read "extorting" as "extolling" and associated with notification, not extortion. (I even typed "extorting" in this response.) I stand corrected, as extortion changes the tone of the qualification.

How, exactly, when you qualify it with, "However, the new policy acknowledges that claiming to be conducting security research is not a free pass for those acting in bad faith. For example, discovering vulnerabilities in devices in order to extort their owners, even if claimed as “research,” is not in good faith."?

Seems the rando researcher is subject to the same liabilities as before.

> The policy for the first time directs that good-faith security research should not be charged.

> Accordingly, the policy clarifies that hypothetical CFAA violations that have concerned some courts and commentators are not to be charged. Embellishing an online dating profile contrary to the terms of service of the dating website; creating fictional accounts on hiring, housing, or rental websites; using a pseudonym on a social networking site that prohibits them; checking sports scores at work; paying bills at work; or violating an access restriction contained in a term of service are not themselves sufficient to warrant federal criminal charges.

> However, the new policy acknowledges that claiming to be conducting security research is not a free pass for those acting in bad faith. For example, discovering vulnerabilities in devices in order to extort their owners, even if claimed as “research,” is not in good faith.

What exactly does this policy change even mean? Who was being charged with a federal crime for checking a sports score or paying a bill at work? And since the claim to be conducting security research is not a "free pass" for unauthorized research, I'd really like to know who exactly was being charged under the old policy that is protected by the new?

This "change" just seems like a bunch of pointless grandstanding.

I wholly agree with this analogy. But it doesn't help that the populist press, schools, and various other institutions always try to paint every instance of failure, job loss, and economic pain as a referendum on a broken system rather than a necessary part of the economic circle of life.

I wholeheartedly agree about it not being unique to CNN. However, I don't think there's anything odd or misplaced about focusing on CNN, since the entire context is very specifically that of CNN+. I've seen many a similar comment here on HN about the toxicity of Fox News (which is just as bad) that made no mention of other new services like CNN and MSNBC. Your political leaning might influence which batch of toxicity you describe more, but they're all a part of the same putrid stew.

I think that the characterization of "free speech absolutist" is misleading and facile, and this is reinforced by the idea of testing it with "the most grotesque and offensive things". Very few people are absolutists who would favor a platform that allows everything - kiddy porn and snuff films included.

I think what Musk wants to see is the Overton Window opened up more than it is now, and that's not a bad thing.

This just sounds envious and resentful.

> Personally, I'm hoping all this share-everything is just a trend, that will pass by itself. Future users will look back at it with a sense of wonder: did people really post pictures of their food online? "Yep, and then we had buttons to tell each other that we liked seeing it. It was a weird time. Some people still miss it and argue we should go back to Web 3.0."

This. 100%.

> Why would you say that? Did you not see the second line that you quoted from me?

I saw the second line. It was a reluctant acknowledgement that "they probably should not have covered the outrage itself until the later reporting was done", which is the most tepid and gentle characterization that can be mustered without lying. On top of that, you also proceeded to say that $2 billion in property damage and "mostly peaceful" can co-exist. Sorry, but $2 billion (with a "b") in property damage and a much larger - but difficult to quantify - amount from lost business and other collateral damage is far too great to make the allowance of "mostly peaceful".

If you still think that the media isn't trying to gloss over all of this, look at the coverage of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. I'm not a fan of the kid, and I'll gladly argue that, as a 17 year old, he shouldn't have been there. But he was trying to help in a peaceful manner, and in the events that unfolded - all seen on video - he clearly was cornered and forced to defend his life. Yet the media tried to paint him as a racist monster who chased after others to commit murder. Facebook wouldn't allow discussions of his innocence. GoFundMe refused to let him raise money for his defense on their platform. And night-after-night, the media, who had access to the original video the whole time, told us of his murderous exploits rather than give an honest accounting. In the end, a jury, having seen all of the evidence, acquitted him.

It SHOULD give you pause. What if, because of being deplatformed, he couldn't afford a competent defense and was convicted because of the media's actions? Who will be the next collateral damage in the narrative wars?

The major media outlets - on all sides - are corrupt. And we tolerate it.

> No, because that's pretty inaccurate and tendentious framing. I highly doubt they "lied." IIRC, the media, in general, reported on social media outrage which was actually happening and then later reporting corrected the misconceptions that were fueling that outrage.

> They probably should not have covered the outrage itself until the later reporting was done, but that's a far cry from "lying."

This is a bit of linguistic gymnastics. I don't know your exact politics, but I'm pretty sure that if Fox News did this kind of thing (which they also do) you'd be plainly calling them out for it. If you can't see that the very reporting that CNN and others did was fueling the very outrage on which they were reporting, and that it was a self-perpetuating cycle of their own making, then I'm at a loss.

This! Also, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21105625

Book burnings were hardly exclusive to the Nazis. They just showed us how it can be part of the progress to something much bigger and uglier than ever imagined. And I have to disagree on your cigarette analogy. This is so much bigger than regulation of advertising. This is about using the platforms to enforce censorship of anybody you deem offensive. This is not the same thing at all.

Isn’t the goal - blocking access to certain content - the same?

That’s not playing the victim. It’s the plain truth.

I remember well an interview with a company where I was asked a lot of questions that pertained to scaling characteristics of algorithmic solutions. For example, I was asked to describe ways to implement a solution for determining all of the words that can be composed from a given combination of numbers. (similar to how early texting was done on flip phones with numbers but no keyboard) We talked about how a conventional lookup would entail 3 possible letters per key and that the order of growth for checking words in this fashion would be 3^n. I was asked if it could be optimized, and I proposed a sorted list of number combinations in which you could do a binary search on the number sequence and get all of the possible words. I explained that this would facilitate a single lookup in logarithmic time. They asked if I had other ideas, which I didn't, and they brought up the use of a hash. I hadn't thought of it, but that also made sense, as it would result in a fixed time lookup. (Not a major improvement over logarithmic time, especially at scale, but an improvement nonetheless.) We discussed a few other things, and all in all, it felt like a very good interview in which I thought I had demonstrated good working knowledge of the concepts they were asking about - and was comfortable doing so.

Then came the second interview. They asked me to, in real time, using a shared coding system, construct a javascript program that would, given any input string, print out a list of all the possible letter permutations. (eg. "abc" would show "abc", "acb", "bac", "bca", "cab", and "cba") The challenge didn't scare me, and I had an idea of what I wanted to do algorithmically. I certainly knew it would be a recursive sequence of calls moving along the string until it was done. Using the "abc" example, you'd rotate "a", "b", "c" into the first spot, then, with each of those rotations, you'd do the same on the next digit, and repeat until getting to the last character. When you get to the last character, on each rotation, you'd have a result, which you'd store. You'd then unwind back up the chain storing the results as you went along. So it involved a recursive sequence that was rotating letters in each spot and then on the unwind aggregating the results.

I sat there, with the interviewer watching my every keystroke as I put together a first pass that didn't work. I added some diagnostic output and worked through a few things. For some reason, the interviewer, apparently thinking I was "close", jumped in with a couple of things to change, which I did, but there were still problems. After about 45 minutes, he called the interview over. Shortly afterward, I got an email from the company thanking me for taking the time, but declining any further interest.

That evening, I sat down to write the exact program they had asked for. It took me the better part of two hours, but I got it working, and working well. Having no prior experience with this problem, I wouldn't have solved it in the time they were expecting. I was going to email my solution to the company, but I figured they'd just dismiss it and assume I had cheated, or, perhaps not be interested anyway since it took me so long.

To this day, I think the company misjudged me. I'm not one to produce rapid-fire, bug-free, algorithmically magical solutions in a first pass on the spot. But I do pride myself on the quality of what I write and how well I'm able to address and understand the very problems I was being asked about in a variety of contexts.

In this scenario, I felt that "leetcode" skills and speed were given too much weight over other factors including the thought process and eventual solution. I don't disagree with the use of some "leetcode" competency tests, but I think a company should be careful not to eliminate a candidate who doesn't sling code fast enough in an interview, particularly if, through probing questions, you can establish that they have a sincere and thorough understanding of the problems at play and how to solve them with code.

My two cents.

Please tell me that you don't consider the later appropriation of "Let's Roll" to somehow mean that people like Neil Young had committed the original sin of supporting the wars. By that logic, is Todd Beamer guilty of the same?

It's startling the ease and quickness with which some people will see a way ascribe some perceived right-wing guilt to someone like Neil Young. I'm not a fan of Young, and my politics are very different than his, but I certainly won't lay blame at his feet for being too right-wing or supporting wars, as this was never the case.

You do know that left wing misinformation is a thing too, right? You understand that both ideologies can be taken too far and that they both have elements engaging in misinformation. You understand that, right?

As I recall, that song came out in the days following 9/11, and was based on the account of Todd Beamer and others who fought back on United 93. It was not about support for the Iraq or Afghanistan wars.

I could be mistaken, but I don't think Neil Young ever came out in support of the wars. He spoke out plenty against the Iraq war, including the song "Living With War".

Are you seriously making an equivalency between child pornography and raising objections to masks?

Given the rapid and profound spread of Omicron against all efforts, I also question the effectiveness of masks and other containment measures being used. Should I be blocked for typing these words on HN?

How long ago was it prohibited to talk about the lab leak origin theory? Kyle Rittenhouse, who was ultimately acquitted by a jury, was blocked from discussion on Facebook and couldn't raise money for his defense on GoFundMe. Numerous news outlets wrongly asserted over and over that he chased his assailant, when the video plainly showed otherwise.

Is this really the world we want, in which everything held up by one side is sacred and anything said by the other is heresy?

One think I don't see getting discussed in the pros and cons is the simple fact that you can't even tell what titles have been rewritten. Google gives no information in the search results to tell you what is original and what they've rewritten. This matches other trends like how it's become ever harder to discern sponsored ads from organic search results.

I used to love Google for how it presented relevant results and made it easy to discern sponsored ads. Today, I avoid Google products like the plague. (I can't escape all of them, but I'm about 90% off.)

I remember reading a while back something like, "It used to be that you could mostly pay for college with a summer job. Today, the only summer job that could pay for college is being Elon Musk."

The real question is, do you think “Ridge Wallet” will continue to sponsor him?

Okay, I get that "brand" means "reputation", but why should a highly useful technology be worried about it's "brand". Is the "car" brand out of vogue? What about HTML? I mean, that stuff was used in crickety old sites from the 90s! Should we throw away our hammers, because screws are all the rage?

This whole notion of RSS' "brand" being the problem just reeks of a used car salesman trying to convince me that spare tires are for chumps.

I'm trying to figure out if this is serious or parody. You do know that RSS is a spec, not a brand, right? Right?

The "we" is everyone who wants to build dense, multi-unit housing based on their own assessments of how it will perform, but can't because of single-family zoning laws.

Expensive housing in many areas is a result of laws that keep would-be developers from increasing the supply, fueled by the toxic NIMBY mindset.

I found this to be many words with little information. It largely boils down to "when Amazon increases wages, other employers follow suit, to varying extents."

There was almost nothing about the myriad of other effects, including things like inflation, effects on already higher wage earners, effects on automation, and more.

They touched on the increase in unemployment from competitors, but that was it.

These "I'm not allowed" assertions are all over the map.

You can't "recklessly speed" down a road, but are you not generally allowed to drive along any public road for any reason - or no reason - so long as you're not "reckless"? Should you be made to justify your need to be on the road, or your choice to drive rather than ride a bus? After all, these things impact public safety and the climate.

You're not allowed to fire guns wherever you please, but you're also not allowed to even HAVE a lawfully obtained gun in many settings simply because those in power have deemed it so. Try getting a concealed carry permit in NYC. Should it be that way everywhere?

You can't live in "any house you please" perhaps, but you're certainly allowed to live in any house that you can afford. Are you trying to justify bringing back things like redlining or neighborhood exclusionary rules?

I won't go over every single "I'm not allowed" item. But I'll finish by saying that "recklessly speed" and "drive where I please when I please" are different things. Almost every rule in existence finds SOME degree of justification in necessity, which is why "necessity" has always been the go-to justification for any authoritarian regime or ruler throughout history. And it never stops until people push back.

> Where are the anti-clothers protesting in state capitals?

> Why is being required to wear a mask in public any different than being required to wear pants?

I was one of the people defending the mitigations early on, speaking out against the "conspiracy theorists" - those who said the new controls by those in power would never be given up and that this would be the new normal.

I slowly came to see that they were right. Sentiments like this prove it.

The original post that started this thread was:

> Isn't this more akin to saying, the window broke before the hammer hit it, so the hammer couldn't have been the cause?

Agree or disagree, it's an interesting thought exercise that took the original analogy in an interesting direction. Whether or not you agree about it being interesting or useful, it certainly wasn't "arguing the metaphor", just adding to it in a way that you may or may not appreciate.

I get that, but I think you might also be missing something in the urgency to derive one particular meaning from the metaphor.

Imagine coming upon a window that was broken, and inferring that it must have been broken by "a thing". So you look for evidence - a rock, a hammer, something - all the while proclaiming that the cause was a given. All the while, you overlook that the initial fracture was there from the beginning and carried along every day by comparatively small amounts of thermal stress.

Could that also be a metaphor for some of the climate change hype? (I don't use the word "hype" to imply false. I use it in the context of "to promote or publicize extravagantly".)