klingon79's comments

Or people just make it look like they’ve made mistakes.

Maybe this was an elaborate honeytrap set by the hackers for the hacker hackers.

Possibly an AI independently hacked the hackers.

A hacker may have convinced an AI to hack the hackers while posing as the hacker hackers. The AI then hacked the hackers’ honeytrap which exposed one single piece of data included by mistake. Only the AI knows why, since the hacker was brainwashed by a secret society of vegans.

News at 11.

How about Pat? That’s ambiguous enough.

I still don’t understand what the problem is here.” With Google doing this.

We don’t know that this whole thing is not invented by the author or that they were indeed not doing anything malicious.

All of this, as credible as it may seem, could just be invented bad PR against Google, which if true should make us take a hard look at whomever is behind this.

Seriously, read the Lessons Learned again and tell me for certain this really happened. How in the world would it look so staged, with the bold words and thought-out structure. I’m not going to jump on the bandwagon everytime someone makes claims.

My point is: How do we know what the sit author is saying is accurate?

How would Google know that a site is curling another site?

Why would they flag that as a phishing site?

I’m just having a difficult time determining how this situation is not the fault of the site/app; we don’t even know that any of this is true and it looks more scripted than an offended rant.

I’m less concerned about the footprint and more about security.

It can be assumed that anything running on the desktop has or will have vulnerabilities. The rise of web applications has been partially due to the assumption of great sandboxing.

I look forward to this project doing well, but it’s not the first time I’ve seen an electron competitor on HN promoting it being Node-based. Node isn’t sandboxed by default.

Exchange is often externally open in some way for OWA.

One that server is hacked, you may be wide-open internally.

I’d be at least as concerned about an Exchange vulnerability as I would be about Outlook, but probably more.

> the law should be written to ban both using a phone or playing harmonica while driving without specifically mentioning either, except perhaps as examples.

Slippery slope arguments shouldn’t apply to specific provisions in the law that target likely scenarios.

Let’s say you said that the driver shouldn’t drive distracted. You have now outlawed listening to radio, music, or others talking in a way not conducive to giving full attention to the car, perhaps even while the car is being driven automatically, if there is any chance of the driver needing to drive manually such that they must be ready to drive.

That said, I agree that the method of generating the outcome need not always be defined. For example, in some legislation, companies/vendors are named specifically, which may lead to de facto support by the government of some private institutions, which seems anticompetitive.

While it’s the less plausible explanation, I think this theory should be explored further.

With a photo like this, what can we do to assist in proving or disproving the theory that it’s indeed flying?

Also, is the headline incorrect if it indicates that it’s flying when it’s not, if it appears to be?

And “Castles in the Sky” was about the development of radar in England.

Yes, we’ve had hovering craft for a while; they typically appear to be closer to the water, though.

It likely was- but probably the terrestrial, non-xenobiological kind.

I wonder if these headers were applied to the majority of C projects in, let’s say, all projects that were part of a Linux distribution- how much would fail to compile. My guess is: a lot.

> Is it that the possibility of being let go after a large project that you performed a relatively specialized role on feels just about right for a consultancy, but not for a business that carries themselves like a long term player?

This. Someone there could hire me onto a project that fails for some reason out of my control, and then, because I’m older, I wouldn’t get picked up by another team.

I don’t know if project-pickup retention is still how they operate; it’s several-year-old anecdotal information from a past worker there before they were acquired by IBM.

As mentioned close to the bottom of that article, another take on it was that it involved UFOs:

https://losangeleno.com/strange-days/battle-of-los-angeles/

I was told that internally at Redhat if you’re assigned to a project and the project becomes unsupported by the company, you have a certain amount of time to be picked up by another team, after which, if you aren’t, you are let go.

I know that this is kinder than just firing someone outright if the project they were on failed, but the thought of it makes me feel uncomfortable.

Yes, and Scrum done well can promote a sense of well-being through fulfillment of points and provides rhythmic but varying work for those that like process.

Done poorly it may create a wealth of problems. The cadence may create undue sense of urgency that may lead to unhealthy levels of stress or to depression and desensitization of missing work targets. Nonsense competition may arise due to points and velocities.

Japanese also came up with Kaizen, which Scrum should be about but isn’t, along with Kanban, the process- not the generic term for workflow that some use it as.

While we’re on the topic of Agile, though, it’s best not to forget its eXtreme Programming roots.