bigwavedave

For cases like that specifically, it's probable. But those are just like the scam emails where they say "hey, I know your password is ${OLD_PASSWORD}, I recently hacked your account on a popular 'adult recreation' site, remotely put Spyware on your computer, and recorded you 'entertaining yourself' while browsing videos (you have good taste lol). Send me x bitcoins or I'll email this to all the email and linkedin contacts my spyware found in your computer."

It's just an old password found in a breach years ago, they don't have anything else that's real. The difference here is that if they call and leave a voicemail with personal info, go to the police. They're not gonna bother tracking down a social engineering email, but they may be more inclined to go after verbal blackmail.

Those are likely simple robo scam calls. Robo dialers call an absurd amount of numbers on various schedules in something of a brute force social engineering scam. To keep their dialers from getting permanently blocked or reported easily, they spoof the caller ID (usually with an area code similar to the recipient's area code in the hopes that someone will be more likely to answer a call from an unknown number if they think it's local), which is why you will sometimes get texts or calls from people who ask you to stop calling them. These kinds of people are just other recipients of spam calls and your number happened to be the number the robo dialer was using as a spoofed caller ID for them; that kind of thing doesn't really have anything to do with leaked info.

> Apple has announced they are only rolling this out to iPhones in the US. That makes it look like a legal requirement to me.

I'm just some guy with a beard, I honestly don't know anything about anything- in my eyes, it looks like less of a legal requirement and more of a stepping stone. Granted, those things aren't mutually exclusive and I'm not privy to any information others don't have, I'm just cynical.

> Then learn to socialize or get another job.

I rarely rant on hn or espouse strong feelings, but you've made a couple of dismissive comments like this so I'm afraid I've lost my composure. Socializing isn't the problem. The problem is an open office plan filled with constant noise, the stench of whatever the guy five desks over is eating for lunch, the music being played loudly through four different peoples' headsets in an attempt to drown out the constant chatter, the team building exercise Accounting is doing in the fishbowl (this designated meeting room earned its nickname by being in the center of the open office plan with all four walls completely transparent), the crashing of weights from the 24hour Fitness on the floor above ours, the 45 minutes wasted in traffic each way every day, and the constant backlash of people with attitudes like yours who somehow think this is better, who somehow believe that I not only need this environment to write code, but that I and my teammates (half of whom are remote in another country anyway) need this kind of environment to thrive!

There are plenty of reasons to work in the office and there are plenty of reasons to prefer working from home, but pretending someone doesn't want to be around the environment I just described because they have poor social skills is tonedeaf, childish, dismissive, and demoralizing.

I would like to echo the sentiments of another commenter in another thread who said something along the lines of how the wfh debate has been a great litmus test for who they would and wouldn't want to work with.

> "To avoid race conditions", indeed!

Ha! True enough, "a good pun is its reword" ;).

> First degree murder is a little much (do you really think this is equivalent to taking a gun and shooting someone with pre-planning and full intention to kill them?), but certainly involuntary manslaughter fits.

IAMN[even_close_to_being]AL, but I think you're right about it being involuntary manslaughter. My very limited understanding is that when a drunk driver kills someone, it's involuntary manslaughter because they're undertaking a risky behavior with intent neither to kill nor cause bodily harm, but death occured as a result of that behavior anyway. I think it could only be voluntary manslaughter if the circumstances were wildly different, like if the man got swatted, had a heart attack or stroke or something life threatening after the police had left, and the perpetrators were the only ones watching the stream and decided, in the heat of the moment as they watched his death unfold, that they would let him die for some reason, like they were angry at him for having the audacity to keep streaming right after the swat... I dunno.

I believe it could only be murder if in the premeditated steps ("hey, let's swat this guy!"), the guys deliberately planned on using the swat to give this man a heart attack or serious bodily injury.

At least, that's my very limited understanding; I'm just some guy with a beard, I don't really know anything about anything.

That makes plenty of sense, thank you for the explanation!

> Minimum wage is a ridiculous concept. Why make it illegal to accept wages below certain levels? The only thing it does is increase unemployment.

I'm not very strong on economics so mine is likely a foolish perspective, but I always thought minimum wage existed to prevent a race to the bottom where the bottom is asymptotic? Since there are companies getting away with paying minimum wage now, doesn't this indicate that they're fine paying as little as possible but also aren't lacking in employees? Corporations already have such one-sided power over job seekers (I know that I as a dev am guilty of forgetting this from time to time), I find it very difficult to believe that without a mandated minimum, there would be no shortage of companies eager to get away with paying even less. They're doing it now and being successful, why wouldn't they do it then and be successful?

And we can say all day and all night how "the market will correct this, no one will work for them!" but clearly since there are people working for the absolute minimum right now, there would be people working for the absolute minimum then too; the only difference is that the current minimum is set by the government and this theoretical minimum would be set by each individual corporation. I may not have a lot of faith in the government, but I sure know which of those two I'd rather rely on in this case.

But again, I have no formal econ education, so I'll confess I don't know anything about anything. Genuine question: how does minimum wage increase unemployment? Sure, if Alice was earning minimum wage, her boss could hire Bob at half minimum wage if Alice took a 50% pay cut, but how does that actually help Alice or Bob? Yeah, unemployment drops, but welfare claims and poverty levels skyrocket as Alice joins Bob in the welfare system. I just don't see it, but I'm clearly missing something.

> Sort of. DMCA protects service providers against copyright infringement claims related to stuff uploaded to their services by third parties. So long as they adhere to DMCA requests, they’re not violating copyright law themselves.

This is probably an extremely stupid question as I'm neither a lawyer nor an ML dev (merely an humble backend developer), but let's say that the above situation applies and that Github has taken down Bob's repo as per Alice's DMCA request. However, let's say that in between Bob uploading the offending code and Alice submitting the DMCA request, Github used Bob's repo as part of a training set for Copilot. Now that they've complied with the takedown request, does Github have to restore Copilot to an earlier state that hadn't yet been trained by Bob's repo? Does this question even make sense since I only know the absolute barest bones of ML?

>> “Undank ist der Welten Lohn”.

> I couldn't find a common translation or appearance of this saying's equivalent in English. Ungratefulness is the world's wage?

I believe it means something akin to "nothing is so hard as man's ingratitude." It's an expression that's not dissimilar to "no good deed goes unpunished." They're not quite the same, but they're tandem in the general principle of ingratitude.

> It’s just “a spike” or “spike”.

I imagine the OP meant "spikes" and either accidentally hit the 'd' instead of the 's' or simply fell victim to autocorrupt.

Yep, you hit the nail on the head. In All-Star Superman, Lex Luthor was described as "not the smartest man in the room, but the smartest man in every room." Originally, that's how I wanted to be described, but s/smart/larg/. That evolved into the need to compete, and after finally taking first in a tested competition and finding it didn't bring me the fulfillment I'd been craving, I realized that external validation wouldn't help me see my body in a positive light and turned instead towards the goal of personal satisfaction. That might be the right lesson from after-school specials, but trying to self-validate through a mental lens that filters out all "positive" progress and highlights the shortcomings can't bring a person any real personal satisfaction- I needed to get help as well, and (fortunately) eventually I did.

Exercising. I'd exercise to an unhealthy degree, eat an unholy amount of food each day (to "get my calories in"), and constantly take my measurements. The problem was that my mind didn't recognize any of the positive results I was killing myself for; the more I worked out, the fewer results my mental filter let me see. It got to the point that I would actively avoid looking at reflective surfaces as much as possible because of the knowledge that I'd look even worse in my mind's eye the next time I saw myself. It was not a good rabbit hole to get stuck in. I eventually sought help and with therapy and a support system, I was able to let go of most of the compulsion.

Now when I exercise, it's to be healthy, not to chase some dream of "perfection" that my mind wouldn't be able to recognize even if I managed to reach it.

Now when I eat, it's because I enjoy the experience, not because I'm trying to cram 5,000 calories down my throat in a day.

Now when I look in the mirror, it's to make sure my clothes match, not because I'm focusing on all the "progress" I haven't made.

Might not sound like a big deal, and to most people it probably isn't, but it changed my life completely.

> [snip] I would guess a very small number ever use up their vacation time, an exceedingly difficult thing to do in any American job outside of tech (and maybe even for a lot of tech workers).

It is? Maybe I've just been very lucky in my jobs- even before I was in tech, when working night shift stocking shelves at Walmart or doing customer retention at a call center, I've never had a problem using PTO. I'm sure everyone's experience is different so I'm not saying you're wrong, just that this is a surprise to me.

Yeah, I've moved a couple of times and still have the phone number I got in the second state I lived in. The nice thing is that, for the most part, the only people calling me from that state's area code are robocallers who are spoofing what they hope is my local area code. I very rarely answer unknown numbers anyway, but seeing these kinds of area codes on my caller ID almost guarantee it's a spam call.

> In terms of discussions over beer, many companies successfully create taboos around comp. Larger cultures that are squeamish about talking about money, which includes many of those prevalent in the US, make that even easier for those companies.

<-- US-based. In every salaried position I've held, discussing salary with coworkers was very taboo. At the second place I worked, on my first day on the job, the head of the department pulled me into his office before I even met with my team (aside from the two I'd met in the interview) and told me that I should be aware that "here at $COMPANY, it's against policy to openly discuss salaries with coworkers." Then he winked and said, "we wouldn't want to have to lower you to the standard rate."

I was too shocked to do anything except chuckle awkwardly, nod, and leave. I was a pretty junior dev- if my salary was above their standard rate, I feel badly for anyone who'd been there longer. Though I'm sure it was a joke to lighten the encounter, keeping salaries down by discouraging discussion about compensation is a very real thing.

> Wow, I wish I could just go on sick leave for 4 months because I was feeling depressed...

Well... If you're indeed depressed, I wish for that too.

However, if you're actually healthy and just making a snarky comment, then I hope you never experience depression- it's hell. No amount of descriptive imagery or keen adjectives can ever convey what it actually feels like, so I understand how people who've never been in its jaws can be so dismissive. After all, just like it's hard to tell that stuffed inside a ballerina's blood-filled shoes are cramped, broken, _aching_ feet, it's hard to wrap your head around pain that isn't readily seen, much less try to empathize with the person feeling it.

The only way I can think of to describe depression is to describe suicidal ideation: when you have a moment, go to your garage, get a hammer, and smash your thumb with it. Not a pleasant thought, right? I'd be willing to bet that if you were to legitimately try, you'd find it almost impossible; the instinct for self preservation is one of the most basic, powerful instincts. Now, imagine a situation where you're in so much pain that this instinct is completely overwhelmed and you actively try to kill yourself to stop it, a situation where you cannot believe you'll ever be able to be happy again, a situation that feels truly hopeless.

That's depression. While suicidal ideation is one of the extremes, depression is something that drives a person to that point.

In all honesty, I sincerely hope neither you nor your loved ones ever have to face such despair. "That they experienced loss is not a gain, and that they experienced pain is not a victory."

But hey, I'm just some guy on the internet- YMMV.

This really resonates with me. When I was just starting out, I was assigned a mentor- a senior dev who refused to pair with me, who would ghost me for days at a time, always promising that "even though he was busy now, he'd get in touch with me this afternoon" and then vanish until I'd ping him after stand up the next day, where he would make the same promise. All the while, I'd try hard to learn the codebase and fix bugs without help (fairly difficult for a brand new, fresh out of college grad) but without help from my assigned mentor, all I got was shame and derision in stand ups for not producing enough and for "being afraid to ask for help" (no one really believed that such an amazing senior dev would refuse to give me the time of day). This convinced me I was stupid, that I couldn't be a good developer, and that I should go back to QA. Burned out and dejected, I gave my manager a heads up, put in for a transfer to another team as a QE, and tried to deal with the heart-crushing reality that I was too stupid to learn something new and that I needed to go back to what I was at least marginally acceptable at.

Turns out, my request to change teams was approved but my request to change positions was denied and they kept me as a junior dev. But this time, my team actually responded to me. I found a senior dev who not only didn't mind answering questions, but he actively got excited when I'd reach out for help because in his eyes, I wasn't a nuisance, I was proactive. And it was infectious. All of a sudden, instead of dreading going to work or getting a ticket assigned to me, I got excited! I learned more in just a week with that new mentor than I had in three months with my old team. I never became a 10x rockstar code god, but I learned to love my job and found out a lot about myself. I didn't realize it before all this, but apparently I'm the kind of person who needs something from my team too.

Funnily enough, in the TV show "Prison Break", the main character's brother's prison nickname is "Kitchen Sink" or "Sink". We're told that he got this nickname because if you get in a fight with him, he will come at you with everything but the kitchen sink!

> That's because Microsoft got caught censoring the results, then they lied and claimed it was a "human error," which absolutely nobody believes.

Oh, I don't know. If we can label "accidentally using the wrong scope" as a human error, I could easily see a situation where someone meant to remove something from Chinese search results but accidentally did it worldwide. I don't know what their infrastructure is like, what kind of safeguards they have in place, or even what they do to block a result from the all-seeing algorithm. Which is more likely: that Microsoft would allow China to dictate what the rest of the world can/cannot see or that someone made a mistake and blocked something globally instead of regionally?

> The issues I see are: [snip] Working class shoppers. Sure, it’s elitist, but people like shopping alongside people in their own stratum.

When I was very young, I liked talking to my dad about possible business ideas and how to make millions of dollars so I could buy a castle for our family to live in when I grew up (yeah, yeah, I was a kid). One evening, after proposing yet another crazy idea (I can't for the life of me remember what it was), my dad sat me down and asked me which kind of customer I thought Walmart would prefer to have: 1 customer that spends $100 or 100 customers that spend $1. I naively answered "The $100 customer, because it's a guaranteed higher amount!" He corrected me, saying that they'd prefer 100x $1 customers for two reasons: 1) there will always be a market for them and 2) it's less detrimental to lose a customer when each one pays $1 than it is to lose your only customer.

I don't think attracting the average Joe instead of the elitist is a bug, it's a feature.

> I don’t see how his words based on the article were anti Semitic. They were anti Israel. And I find that you and everyone here and at google are having a hard time distinguishing between the two.

People are having a hard time distinguishing between the two because he had a hard time distinguishing between the two. Saying "If I was a {memberOf(someOrganization)}, I'd be concerned about how {adjective} I am," is calling out every member of that organization.

If he'd said "If I was an employee of Buy N Large, I'd be concerned about how much I love to destroy the environment for personal gain", that's a blanket accusation of all BNL employees being greedy anti-eco monsters.

If he'd said "if I was an exterminator, I'd be worried about how my complete and total lust for killing things is eventually going to accelerate into becoming a full fledged serial killer", that's a pretty clear indictment of all exterminators, regardless of who they actually are as individuals.

Saying "If I was a member of BLM, I'd be worried about how much I love torching businesses and assaulting bystanders" is a sweeping attack on all BLM activists, not just anyone who was looking for an excuse to loot and riot.

"If I was a dentist, I'd be worried about my insatiable bloodlust for hunting lions that were rescued and rehabilitated." I mean, come on.

"If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war and killing in defense of myself. Self defense is undoubtedly an instinct, but I would be afraid of my increasing insensitivity to the suffering others. My greatest torment would be that I’ve misinterpreted the identity offered by my history and transposed spiritual and human compassion with self righteous impunity."[1]

It's not "If I was an Israeli governing official" like you claim, it's "if I was a member of an ethnicity/religion." It's a little unfair of you to be so dismissive of people who interpret his words the way he wrote them.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20210602000424/https://www.kamau...

> I haven't finished Atlantis or Universe yet. They're on my to-watch list.

Ooh, I _really_ enjoyed SGU. Granted, it was the kind of show that I had to try watching once, give up on, then rewatch years later during to really appreciate. It's fairly different from SG1 and SGA, but in my (humble) opinion, it's really good and I'm sad that it ended so quickly. It reminds me a bit of Lost In Space (the movie, not the relatively new tv series- I've only seen half the pilot so I can't make a comparison) but in the Stargate universe.

> Hmm, depends on the definition of speedrun.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SasazfBr5_Y there are speedruns of Diablo 1 like this, and most people wouldn't consider this a fair speedrun because the maps generated are always optimal and have the stairs down right next to the stairs up.

While there are definitely different speedrunning categories where glitching and modding are allowed, the category Dream was speedrunning was v1.16 Random Seed Glitchless, so there's not much ambiguity about what would and wouldn't disqualify a run.

> You can if they fire you though...

As far as I know, that's if you're fired without cause. Who do you think the state contacts to find out why you were let go? Be careful going down that route.

Having been garnished for an amount (thanks to fraud that went unnoticed for too long) that many would consider to be too small, I have to disagree with you.

> Gotcha. I mean even here in the United States, if someone won a court judgement for $300 there's probably no way that they could enforce it.

If they're at the point where they've won the judgment, they've got a fairly easy way to enforce it: wage garnishment. Since they've won the judgment but you still refuse to pay, the next (very easy) step is to get a court order for wage garnishment, after which your employer's payroll processor (like ADP for example) will simply start taking the money before your checks even get deposited. <insert obligatory IANAL statement here>

I dunno, I think this is one case where outrage and rejection weren't too quick in coming.

Let's say you're a software architect (dunno if you are or not). You hire four new software devs, two of them from Colorado State University, and you put the two from CSU on the same team. After a year, you find out one of them has been secretly working for CSU's cyber security research department and poisoning your product with patches that do nothing or subtly introduce bugs on purpose purely so their professor can write a research paper about your company's process. Naturally, you fire the developer and that leaves a bad taste in your mouth and CSU promises not to interfere again. Then you get suspicious and start checking the work of the other CSU dev more closely and find out they're submitting bad patches too! They claim that these bad patches were submitted because their experimental static code analyzer didn't find any issues with them.

What conclusion should you reach?

> How does only allowing yes or no answers increase nuance?

I don't know. It says they're 30-second videos- I imagine it'll consist of people prefacing their answer with "yes" or "no" followed by 30 seconds to elaborate. However, I think this will have the same problem that makes Twitter so unpopular with HN's crowd; Twitter is far too limiting in the length of a single tweet, so all that gets shouted out into the aether is an emotionally-triggering soundbite. That's a key part of what fosters such an echo chamber. It kills discussion and all you end up with are some very loud, angry tweets with no context or nuance.

I have no idea how Polemix plans on bringing more nuance to the political scene this way, but that's probably why I'm still a lowly non-founder/non-FAANG dev. I don't like to be negative or disparaging, but in my limited vision, this sounds like the love child of Twitter and Vine.

> When you swap out somebody who does a decent job for another person who performs at about the same level it's not really that noticeable.

>> Which interestingly is the same effect as swapping out somebody who does nothing for someone else who does nothing.

I disagree. Swapping out a decent senior dev for a decent senior dev doesn't have a net negative effect like swapping out a senior dev who does nothing for another senior dev who does nothing. In scenario one, you have a senior dev who ramps up in a decent amount of time, does the work they're paid for, and isn't a waste of time and money like a bad hire. In the second scenario, you have a senior dev who's just as damaging as their predecessor, but you've lost the time and money you've invested in onboarding them while also paying the ongoing opportunity cost you could have avoided with a decent hire and any technical debt they accrue gets tossed on the pile with the rest of the debt their predecessor accrued. It would have been better to have just kept the first guy instead of wasting time, money, and morale on someone new.