anang

Aren't those all examples of civil engagement?

What will a community group change?

What's your answer?

I think I answered that question, note I didn't say "comment online" as a solution.

I guess I don't know who else it's directed at. I think it's important to understand the legality of our law enforcement's actions. I don't think that's an especially controversial take.

I can't really follow. You say "I think the annoying part is that it is clearly illegal under most understandings of the Fourth Amendment," but at the same time say "I also think it's a pointless exercise to understand the legality of it."

I get the feeling the question being asked a bit leading, since you've been pretty hostile to me so far. I don't have a great answer, civil engagement and supporting politicians that also think it should be illegal for private companies to create gigantic mass surveillance dragnets?

There is a certain degree of irony in entirely misrepresenting my point by asserting it's somehow "bad faith."

I don't think it's fair to say that trying to understand if something is legal is a "dance in the ivory tower." Isn't a pretty important part in enacting change understand WHAT needs to change?

My point is this: Flock does not provide access to ICE, if using another person's login is a legal loophole around this then it needs to be specifically addressed and closed.

In no way am I justifying mass surveillance by arguing "if it's legal, it's fine."

I don’t think anyone is implying that it not being illegal would make it ok.

It doesn’t seem like any criminal charges being brought in this case. So sure, an argument could be made that this violates the 4th amendment, but under the current application of the law this seems legal. Which means all and ICE agent needs to get access to flock data is a friend with access. Surely trying to understand that isn’t lazy or justifying anything?

A lot of downvotes for this comment but I think it's an interesting question and shouldn't be downvoted.

It's easy to argue (as lot of people have in this thread) that there is a huge moral difference between sharing access to a streaming service and sharing access to a mass surveillance tool.

But was any criminal law broken? Is it just a violation of Flock's ToS and the biggest consequence is the police department losing access for violating the contract?

It's an important question, because if there isn't really any legal consequences for any of the parties involved then it's worth understanding that and, hopefully, addressing!

If we interpret OP's question in good faith, I don't think they are implying that it should be legal, just asking if it is.

If YUM! brands demonstrated a pattern of negligence that led to frequent food safety issues I think absolutely there should be severe consequences.

Nobody is advocating for a one strike you’re out policy, just that at some point there should be more severe consequences than a fine.

What do you mean “what is a labor market?” That we’ve had an open labor market is fairly modern, and even more modern is the idea of broad workers rights. Would you rather work in a factory now, or 150 years ago? Not everything is always getting better and there are ups and downs, but over a long enough time frame we’re clearly always trending towards better.

I guess I thought it was clear that I understand that soldiers still rape and pillage. But it being illegal anywhere is a fairly modern development.

The implication was that we are worse off now because we have to pay for education, my point is that a black person now may have to pay for education but hundreds of years ago it would have been illegal for them to get any education. To be clear, I don’t mean to imply that we’ve solved all the world’s problems and everything is great, just that I think right does win over wrong over a long enough timespan.

I’m not sure what you mean by “only,” it was just an example.

I just want to understand:

Are you saying that a black person born in South Carolina today has a worse life and with less justice than a black person born into slavery a few hundred years ago?

I don’t think slaves got university educations for free.

Black people were bought and sold in the US just a few hundred years ago.

For years one of the perks of being a soldier was raping and pillaging, now that lands you in prison (depending on the country of course).

The world isn’t some utopia where everyone is treated fairly and there are no oligarchs, but I think it’s hard to argue that the amount of justice is unchanged for all of human history.

I would argue the opposite is true. We’ve gone from despotic theocratic regimes controlling essentiallt every living human in the world to democratic self determination being one of the most prevalent political theories on the planet.

The tolerance for slavery, brutal warfare, institutionalized racism and much more is way lower now than it has been in the past.

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

In my experience success in a project isn't about the amount of code that can be produced, it's more about the thoughtfulness behind features and fixes. A lot of the work going into reviewing pull requests is understanding it in the context of the project's broader goals.

This gets a lot harder when there is a giant wall of text that the pull requester doesn't understand and can't really discuss outside of asking AI (and probably getting "The reviewer is right to push back - I was too aggressive in my blah blah blah" as an answer).

A lot of (but maybe not all) pull requests are fundamentally a human to human task, even if there is a lot of technical details involved.

I don't entirely follow your response, but I was just trying to add an argument as to why an abundance of caution when flying might not be a bad thing, in the same way that most people are cautious and avoid certain risky behavior during a thunderstorm, despite the low statistical likelihood of being struck by lightening.

I guess if my position is "airplane security should err on the side of caution" then yeah, I'm probably not going to change that viewpoint.

edit: Ah now I get it, you were accusing me of being AI.

Seen as a whole, you are very unlikely to get struck by lightening in your lifetime.

If you make a habit of running around in thunderstorms in an open field holding a metal rod in the air, then the likelihood suddenly increases A LOT.

What I mean is, the odds are only low that you get struck by lightening because precautions are taken place during lightening storms. In the same way, we only know the statistical likelihood of a terrorist attack involving an airplane in the current, overly cautious, context.

Sure, a lot of it is probably security theater, but I think the whole "don't talk about bombs on an airplane" is probably a pretty solid blanket rule.

If we stopped teaching kids what to do during a lightning storm, and if we stopped being overly cautious about airplane security, surely we would see both of those statistic move in the opposite direction.

> It's not an impossible thing to happen but it is so unlikely that I don't go around letting the idea dictate anything about my life.

Another take: the likelihood of getting struck by lightening surely dictates what you do during a thunderstorm? In the same way that the likelihood (or lack there of) dictates how often you buy lottery tickets.

If we didn’t attempt to mitigate terrorist attacks at all, would they be as infrequent as they are now? I know that’s not really what you’re saying, but surely likelihood is extremely dependent on circumstances.

The Odyssey is not a documentary that sets out to be as visually authentic as possible, it's a drama. If we exclude black people from any roles in western canon, then doesn't that mean we're also excluding them from being part of western culture?

Yes, people that get upset about racially “incorrect” casting hand wave away casting someone of Irish decent as Greek because it falls into some sort of western bucket.

So when someone complains about a black person being cast as Greek, in a movie filled with people of English, Irish, Scandinavian and who knows else decent, what they’re actually saying is that black people will never have a right to the shared western culture.

We've already accepted a lot of non-Greek casting, and always have. Movies like Troy are filled with people of German, English, Scandinavian whatever heritage, same here with The Odyssey.

I think they get a pass because we see Greek history as a shared western history, even though it's about as accurate as a black person in those roles.

So I think for a lot of people, when they see complaints about black actors playing historically "white" roles, what they're really seeing is a claim that black people don't have any right to our shared western heritage despite the fact that it's almost always a black person that has grown up in and only ever really been a part of western culture.

If I may ask a question…

Nature’s flavors sells both extracts and concentrates that are water soluble. For a brown soda, like rootbeer, is an alcohol based extract preferred or should I go the concentrate route?

I’ve been toying with the idea of making commercial style rootbeer at home, and making soda from roots just doesn’t cut it (even if it’s pretty good). I’ve been eying Nature’s flavors for a while, but since I’m not in the US it will be VERY expensive.

There are no domestics providers of food safe wintergreen or sassafras.

Thanks, and cool career switch!

I think a lot of people feel like people who have one foot in a heavy regulated industry shouldn't have their other foot in the regulatory body that regulates that industry.

I think the general public has a MUCH better grasp on the potential consequences of crashing a car into a garage than some sort of auto-run terminal command mode in an AI agent.

These are being sold as a way for non-developers to create software, I don't think it's reasonable to expect that kind of user to have the same understanding as an actual developer.

I think a lot of these products avoid making that clear because the products suddenly become a lot less attractive if there are warnings like "we might accidentally delete your whole hard drive or destroy a production database."

Just FYI, you don’t have to use a USB stick, you can also use HSM like azure key vault and sign using azure signtool.

Is it ok if a tobacco executive downplays risks with smoking while at the same time forbidding their own children from smoking?

I think that’s a more accurate analogy, and I think it also would be reprehensible behavior.

I don't mean this to doubt you, it is a sincere question. Do you have any examples of that happening? It sounds very believable, but it would be great to have actual sources for future reference.

Is this maybe the play? Facebook has an aging user base, maybe it makes sense for them to target older people who have trouble using traditional computers or smartphones?

Isn't that the idea behind an alternative to DNS? I think OP meant that we need a similar system based on clear rules and international cooperation for social media, in addition to host names.

> Whoever was attempting to log in was using one of the newly created accounts that were used in the other DOGE related activities and it appeared they had the correct username and password due to the authentication flow only stopping them due to our no-out-of-country logins policy activating.

Explains this:

> why would DOGE be immediately leaking just-granted NLRB login credential

The implication is that the credentials were for more than this specific system. It's entirely feasible that a bad actor would immediately try to vacuum up as much data from as many systems as possible, it's just that this system had a geo block that made it clear this was happening.

I don't think we need to assume that this was a targeted attack on this specific NLRB system, just that this specific NLRB system was the one that caught the attempts.

So, what systems DIDN'T block authentication?