badRNG

yikes

He's Twitter's largest shareholder, holding 4x the number of shares held by Jack: https://www.ft.com/content/29b9c884-02d7-4d1c-a4ab-c862242fa...

Either way he has consistently used heavy-handed tactics to silence the speech of those he disagrees with. From attempting to destroy the life of a whistle-blower [0] (seriously, take time to read this article) to cancelling the order of a blogger who made negative remarks about him [1] to firing anyone who disagrees with him [2], Musk is a man that repeatedly abuses his power to silence anyone's speech he dislikes.

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-13/when-elon...

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/03/elon-musk-personally-cancels...

[2] https://www.businessinsider.in/thelife/news/elon-musk-ruthle...

Wow. This was written before Afghanistan and Ukraine? That is uncanny; this might as well could've been written in part about the Taliban insurgency.

> Of course, the question is, where is that money coming from and whether anyone is bankrolling them, and if so, what their motives are.

Wild speculation here, but if they are located in a country that is recently a lot less friendly with the west, maybe they decided that being overt isn't a real problem given what they are doing is de facto legal where they live. Being a Belarusian or Russian cybercriminal targeting the west is probably less risky now than ever before (and it wasn't especially problematic before.)

‘No way to prevent this’, Says Only Development Community Where This Regularly Happens [0]

https://itnext.io/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-developme...

For the TL;DR types:

>We are an American NGO based in Washington, D.C. that monitors human rights infringements by authoritarian regimes in Belarus, Russia and other post-Soviet states. Since our start in 2014, we have been in contact with over 2,500 whistleblowers that provided us with detailed reports on various kinds of abuse happening there.

>Due to internet censorship there, one of the web services used to contact us securely was hosted on servers located inside Belarus. Normally, we backup the received content to an external server on 20th day of every month, as this is reasonable given the volume we usually get, but since the start of the invasion on February 24th, traffic to our web service has increased over fiftyfold. Our staff has been working round the clock to accomodate the influx and during one of their tasks, package containing node-ipc module was updated on a production server, which resulted in executing your code and wiping over 30,000 messages and files detailing war crimes commited in Ukraine by Russian army and government officials. Due to the way the files were stored on the server, we are not able to recover any data and it's most likely gone forever. For some of the senders, this might as well have been their last contact with the outside world, as many of them were front-line soldiers that could've been killed in action during the offensive.

>Personally, me and my colleagues are absolutely devastated. All I can say that your little shenanigan did more damage to us than Putin or Lukashenka ever could. Profesionally, our counsel suggested filing criminal charges federally and it's likely we'll be proceeding this way.

> SheCodes which to me seems to prey on women trying to transition to a career in tech by teaching them web development (people specializing in web development is increasing quickly, and the field is becoming very inflated. Telling people that learning web development will get them a job or high salary may not be true in a few years.

Kind of an aside, but what's the consensus on this? It does seem like folks are swarming to web development nowadays (though it's felt like that for many years now, and market growth thus far seems to outpace the newcomers.)

That's...that's literally the point my comment made

This shouldn't be confused with the retail locations currently pushing to unionize

https://www.businessinsider.com/workers-first-union-push-at-...

So where's the line? How much scientific evidence must we suppress to avoid offending reactionary sensibilities?

The fact that climate change is human caused is deeply political in the US. Should the IPCC suppress this fact too to cater to a tiny minority of science deniers?

This presupposes that scientists are the reason that "not left-wing" people (in reality a small fraction of US conservatives) aren't listening to scientists. The fact that climate change is human caused is political in the states, should that, too, be left out of the IPCC report to make it more palatable?

> Unfortunately these are not scientists.

Are we really at the point where we are going to claim that the IPCC aren't scientists? This seems to be little more than reactionary backlash at a sound observation of the social impact of climate change on communities (and the report does a great job of elaborating which communities and what impacts.) Must we "eject" every scientist who observes a social impact that someone disagrees with? Should the IPCC stop the discussion the human impact of climate change to avoid offending certain sensibilities?

With this text as explanation:

> Briar was briefly removed from Google Play because we didn’t provide Google’s review team with a username and password for testing the app. We provided Google with a username and password for testing and the app is now available again.

Well, RT seems to be down here (states)

If wars have either winners, losers, or ties, the Iraqis definitely were the "losers" of the invasion of Iraq by the US. This isn't intended to be a moral value judgement on the slaughter of the 1 million Iraqis in the process.

I mean, is Iraq even a loss politically?

The US thoroughly rolled the Iraqi military, killed over 1 million Iraqis, overthrew their government, and installed a new government in Iraq that still exists today.

To say this is a "loss" leaves us at a place where the term has no meaning.

>When buying tests, customers were asked to tick a box agreeing to a 4,876 [word] privacy policy which links to a separate document outlining the research programme, The Sunday Times reported.

Yikes.

I can't help but feel like non-profits who name themselves after decentralized movements are often a grift. They count on people not knowing the difference and giving them money to support a cause they may or may not actually contribute to.

I should point out that this isn't universally true, the woman who set up the initial "Woman's March" event on Facebook, Teresa Shook, founded an organization of the same name, so there is some legitimacy to that org's claim there.

> when he showed hesitation, they got too impatient.

This seems to be the common factor among scams, cons, and social engineering strategies. Rushing people will have them bypass protocol, training, and security practices. It's a universal "hack" for our brains; we do things we otherwise wouldn't when rushed. Security practices are like a rituals, standards of behavior that we just don't have time for right now.

"The funds are only available for the next hour"; "You will be prosecuted if you don't do X"; "Per the CFO, we need to spend these funds before end of day."

> Find a vulnerability for the government, get prosecuted.

In fairness the government is, of course, not a monolith. There are multiple federal bug bounty programs out there [0] [1]. This is probably better stated as "find a vulnerability in the systems of a deeply corrupt, gerrymandered, and unpopular state's government's sites and be prosecuted in that state."

[0] https://www.hackerone.com/hack-the-pentagon

[1] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2021/12/14/dhs-announces-hack-dhs-b...

He directly acknowledges that his piece doesn't address "more salient concerns with advertising," and I'd go as far as to say it doesn't address any of the biggest concerns. Insert some variation of "It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It" here.

I know it is sort of cliché, but believe me when I tell you that therapy and counseling can completely change your life. If you are like me, you may think it might make a small difference, or may make things somewhat more tolerable, but I think this undersells the night and day difference it can make.

There were a number of years where I would have been happy if YouTube just removed the comment section. The "culture" of comments in the early '10s is reminiscent of what you find today on sites like 4chan. Scrolling down to the comments could truthfully be a deeply upsetting experience that can offset the value provided by whatever you were watching.

"Don't read the YouTube comments" was a common phrase, and for good reason. Nowadays, I wouldn't say YouTube comments are especially funny or insightful, but they are certainly tolerable. I imagine having a list of epithets, slurs, and phrases (and accounts that use them) to de-rank would have gone far enough to help fix the nightmare that was the comment section.

It looks like subscription plans are the way of the future for automakers. This follows Toyota making remote start a subscription service retroactively [0] [1]

[0] https://www.thedrive.com/news/43329/toyota-made-its-key-fob-...

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29543194

Even for Facebook, I'm surprised at how deeply upsetting and tone deaf that comment is coming from them.

Gotcha appreciate the clarification. Yeah that's an important distinction between violating some norm regarding how "modest" women are required to be and the overtly violent nature of sexual harassment by men.

> Secondly, whether you like it or not, women are more likely to complain of male nudity in a venue than men are to complain of female nudity in a venue, yet you want to portray the argument as "men are the problem".

Source? Anecdotally living in the South, it is overwhelmingly men complaining about women not properly conforming to their sensibility regarding modesty.

I've never heard it the other way around, and you claiming it is an undisputed fact "where I like it or not" is bizarre to me.

>but if you put it out, some people will always judge you on that merit. It will also net you attention and can overshadow your other feats.

This is actually a common apologetic in defense of Burqas and similar objects of "modesty" for women.

Black markets can be thought of as truly free markets that are free from antitrust action. These markets, if permitted to exist for an extended period of time, are dominated by cartels. "The Little Guy" doesn't get to be disruptive in black markets, because they are fully captured by cartels that will squash, subsume, or merge with any meaningful competition.