joekrill

There's certainly nothing wrong with that. But this sounds a little defensive. And if you're going to promote the "Community Edition"/open-source nature of the codebase, this should probably be made more clear to your users/contributors. (Maybe it is made clear and I'm just not seeing it, though - this is my first time hearing about this product).

For one thing "Mata Hari" did not record voice. I believe Warren's was one of the first to record both voice and data.

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting we destroy every last living cockroach on the planet. This is more about keeping them out of living/sleeping/food areas. They can carry disease, for one thing. These aren't things you want freely crawling around a restaurant kitchen, for example. It's no different than not wanting your home to become infested with bees, or ants, or anything else that's also very important to our world.

Would they have known about the wiggle room without opening the safe, though? I figured they found this out after inspecting the lock once the safe was open. So if they didn't know about this wiggle room -- or know what amount of wiggle was allowed -- could they have benefited in any way?

So what exactly makes a "proper programming language"?

Wow. I mean, I like a lot of punk and hardcore, too. I was never a huge Rollins fan in that I idolized the guy or anyhing, but I was never NOT a fan. I mean how can you not respect the guy? Black Flag is iconic. Rollins himself, as far as I'm aware, is a stand-up guy, true to himself, no bullshit dude. What, exactly, is overrated about him?

You're suggesting that there is no other appropriate handle they could have come up with beyond "sussexroyal"? And beyond that, what gives one person the right more than any other to a particular handle? Even with your POTUS example.

So yes, I think they should have at least asked first and tried to resolve it amicably.

We may not have the full story here, but it doesn't seem like Instagram is disputing that they simply took it. I don't see anyone suggesting that they even attempted to contact the guy first. Outrageously poor way to handle things. Also, at what point does an Instagram account become "inactive"?

5th Paragraph in:

> The backdoor was wisely hidden in the 3.2.0.3 version that was only published to RubyGems and no source of the malicious version existed on the GitHub repository and allowed remote attackers to dynamically execute code on servers hosting the vulnerable versions.

> I don't have much sympathy for Netflix since you can't acquire a standalone copy of most of their content (TV yes, but I believe to date they've yet to release an original movie on physical media) - you must subscribe to watch the videos. They sort of release in theaters, sometimes, whenever they feel like it, but the majority of their content is locked into their platform. I feel like Netflix would love for there to be zero requirements to show their movies in theaters.

But that's not the thing Spielberg, et. al. are saying disqualifies them. It's this vague idea that it's a "TV format" and something about amount of time in theaters:

> “Once you commit to a television format, you’re a TV movie. You certainly, if it’s a good show, deserve an Emmy, but not an Oscar,” he said at the time. “I don’t believe films that are just given token qualifications in a couple of theaters for less than a week should qualify for the Academy Award nomination.”

I just don't understand how Spielberg and others can argue that there is some appreciable difference between a "TV Movie" and "Real(?) Movie". Except for maybe historical reasons? But they just don't make sense any more. Is there really any major difference in the way a movie is created, acted in, etc?

People would find it absolutely ridiculous if, when CDs were introduced, the Grammys said "Well, we only count cassette sales - you'll need your own reward show for CDs". It's effectively the same thing, isn't it?

That's just not practical for most people. Wiring a house is difficult and/or expensive. It's also not necessarily an applicable argument for z-wave/zigbee (there may be similar attacks, though, I'm not sure).

There's also "hybrid" options for usecases like the "unconnected camera": a wireless camera that has local storage, for example.

Looks like it's not actually ready yet? PIA has a great track record, though, so this seems promising.

I also like this when you give them your email:

>> This is not a mailing list, and your email will be permanently removed after we send a one‑time notification when PrivateStorage is available to the general public.

It is pretty striking how similar the UI is starting to look compared to iOS. And I say that as someone largely on the Android side of the Android-iOS debate. Also add to that the shift recently to move navigation to the bottom of the screen in the form of tabs.

I guess ultimately there's plenty of examples of this happening both ways, though.

I don't understand how we're jumping to the conclusion that Musk is responsible for this. No one seems to be claiming the "anonymous call" was made up, as far as I can tell. For all we know Tripp made the call himself to make himself look like more a victim. It's no less plausible than suggesting Musk made the call himself, or had someone make it on his behalf.

Ah the title changed? That makes sense, then. I only saw it as "System requirements".

All they are saying here is "these are the browsers/OSes we can offer support for, and that we test our site with". I mean they specifically say:

> Some features and functions may not operate properly with unsupported browser versions.

I don't understand why folks are so surprised this works elsewhere, or why anyone is getting super upset about this. If they were filtering based on user agent and explicitly preventing it from working for you when it otherwise probably would, then I could see the issue (ahem Apple icloud, anyone?). But this isn't that.

But if they have information that leads them to a completely different conclusion, why aren't they sharing it? I'm having a hard time coming up with a scenario where they have more confident data, but can't share it (or if not what, at least share that they have it).

I disagree that it's a knee-jerk reaction, drop of the hat, or whatever you want to name it. We are talking about hundreds of human lives. We are talking about an industry that consistently chooses safety above all else, regardless of profits and minor inconveniences. And for some reason that just doesn't seem to be the case here.

> Unfortunately it's impossible to have an adult discussion about that kind of thing on the internet.

So unless everyone agrees with you it isn't an adult conversation? Entire countries are grounding these planes. The evidence is pretty clear that folks are worried and aren't interesting in risking the loss of a few hundred more lives because a bit of money may be on the line, or there may be a minor travel disruption.

Edit: I see the original poster has since removed the bit about not being able to have an adult conversation on the internet. I quoted and responded to that before it was removed.

The drop of a hat?? 2 plane crashes killing 346 people under eerily similar circumstances within 5 months is the drop of a hat?

It's not mentioned because SEPTA still accepts cash. You aren't required to buy a Septa Key card to ride.

Yes but Ferrari has no intention of making their product affordable for those that want it, even if they were able to.

Tesla wants to offer an affordable car that more folks can afford. It's been making steady progress in getting to a lower price point, but there are still A LOT of people that would buy a Tesla if it were just a bit more affordable.

When I was typing that comment, I was actually going to elaborate on this point, but decided not to for brevity.

The reality is, if a developer can generate greater reach, it gives more options to the consumer. And so in that regard it does solve a problem for the end user - they have more software options to choose from. Perhaps there is more competition, which I think we can all probably agree is good for users.

Microsoft failed in a completely different way: their entire mobile platform failed. I'm not sure it had anything to with UWP specifically, and as far as we know that had little to do with it. But regardless of the reason, I still don't think that should prevent others from trying to solve the problem in different ways.

> This is nice, but what problem does it solve?

It solves a _development_ problem, in that it reduces the amount of work needed to allow an application to reach a larger number of devices. Basically the same reason for things like React Native and PWAs.

> Ubuntu tried this - how'd that go?

So because someone else failed at solving a particular problem in a particular way previously, we should simply give up on it?

That was certainly something they talked about and focused on. But I recall that they also talked about how landfills take up such a ridiculously small amount of land, and they are so efficiently managed these days, that it's not even really an environmental issue either. I'll have to rewatch the episode, but they may have even suggested it was _better_ for the environment to throw it out, because the energy involved in recycling was actually worse.

Similarly: I have a friend who recently told me they were trying to get away from using disposable paper towels and instead use cloths. Again, this episode immediately came to mind. I couldn't help but wonder if the amount of energy, detergent, etc used in washing the reusable towels was _worse_ than simply using paper towels.

I don't know that there is any true way to definitively answer either of these questions. There's just SO MUCH involved, that you can go down a million rabbit holes (the manufacture of the washer uses X, the design required a team that required an office that was built inefficiently, etc). This is currently a premise on The Good Place: no matter how hard you try to be the best possible person, you can't control the entire pipeline of ramifications.

Whenever I see stories revolving around this sort of thing, I'm always reminded of the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episode they did on recycling (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0771119/). They argue that landfills really aren't that bad and may actually be better than recycling. Of course the entire _premise_ of that show was that you shouldn't just blindly believe everything you're told -- INCLUDING what the show itself tries to argue for. So I have no idea how valid any of their argument actually is.

Interestingly (and obviously anecdotal) I've found the opposite has been happening in Philadelphia. And the main driving (no pun intended) factor, I think, was the introduction of our bike share program (Indego). Drivers were so much more hostile to bicyclists before these were introduced.

We now have more dedicated bike lanes, which helps immensely. We've introduced signs and indicators ("sharrows") that indicate to drivers that bicyclists have the right to use the lanes just as much as drivers. It's a noticeable difference from 10 years ago. I can't say for certain these other things would have happened without the introduction of the bike share program, but it seems to be what really changed things here.

I think in these cases it's simply a numbers game. I mean it's just spam but slightly more targeted. It's the same rules, though. The more of these they send out, the more likely that _someone_ is going to respond. And I don't think these types of recruiters care much about whether you are a good candidate for the position in question. They just want their commission.

And maybe you respond and tell them to remove you from whatever list they have you on because they clearly haven't done their research on you. Or maybe you figure "one phone call hurt just to see", and you chat with them. Well now you're in their database, only slightly more targeted for the next time around.

They don't want to tell you about the position details because they don't want you bypassing them and applying directly to the position yourself. They don't get paid that way.

It's no different than salespeople. They span the spectrum. Some salespeople are slimeballs who will tell you anything to make a sale. Some are actually good and will make sure you get a quality product and are happy. The vast majority are somewhere in between. It's just like any other type of business, frankly. These guys, though, are just playing a numbers game. They are basically the telemarketers of the recruiting business business. Or the shady car salesman. Or whatever parallel you prefer.

There ARE good recruiters. Particularly those that specialize in more higher-level positions. But unfortunately these crappy recruiters tend to drown everyone out, so it becomes hard to separate the good from the bad.

OK but if that "known good" DNS server goes down or isn't available, you still have others you can fall back to. The device shouldn't just become completely useless. But that's what Google is doing here. It's their DNS servers or none, it seems.