1,065 karma · joined March 27, 2011
A big part of what makes Twitter interesting/worthwhile is the ability to interact with lots of different people you wouldn't have stumbled upon.
But also, especially when you're just starting out on Twitter, people you otherwise wouldn't have been able to get through to.
On Twitter I get to have a conversation with someone famous (in the industry but even bona fide celebrities like the author). People who I could never send an email, letter, call and actually get a response. On Twitter, I have a really good chance someone like Stephen Fry will actually read my tweet and even responding. I'm guessing the odds I'd be able to get him on the phone or have him accept my Facebook friend request are rather low.
If Twitter builds a filter bubble around all famous/verified users, it loses a big chunk of it's a appeal to the nobodies. Which includes both trolls and decent people. And I think Twitter can't do without the civilized nobodies.
I'd think, in theory the ECMP router could keep track of the MTU on a per IP basis (rather than per TCP connection) based on it having received the ICM unreachable packet. And from that moment on, sending a spoofed ICMP packet back whenever one of the servers it's routing for sends a packet the router knows won't reach the host.
But even if that works, I'm by no means a network engineer, your solution of simply broadcasting the packets is probably more efficient in the real world.
Plus, they might be able to figure out how to iterate and count an array but they might also figure out how to use implode instead which is less code and programmers tend to be lazy. And suddenly they've opened their app up to SQL injection because they forgot or are unaware they now need to do escaping despite using prepared statements.
And since their app might contain my data, I care about this and not just think "those idiots brought it upon themselves".
It has nothing to do with passing security audits or withstanding attacks, there's not a security flauw in the way PHP handles this because PHP or specifically the PDO framework relies on the user to implement this themself. There obviously can't be a security flaw in something which does not exist.
A quick Google search suggests it is not at all obvious to many how to do a parametrised query with an IN-clause using PDO. The highest ranking answer is this SO post: http://stackoverflow.com/a/1586650
Having to iterate the array yourself adding the right amount of placeholders and binding individual values is secure but a lot of boilerplate. Escaping values in PHP and concatting them in the old fashioned way ought to be safe but everyone switched to parametrised queries for a reason: in practice it's often fucked up which leads to security vulnerabilities. The last one, the find_in_set trick, is a clever kludge but a kludge nonetheless.
People shouldn't need to roll their own way to do this because that's where unnecessary mistakes get made.
I've pretty much learned to accept it's something I'll have to deal with for the rest of my life, rather than "I was fat once, I got rid of it, it's no longer a concern, the end."
It totally pisses me off to see people who can't manage to do the same being judged in awful ways by people who were lucky enough not to have to do it in the first place or for whom it was apparently relatively easy and assume it'll be just as easy for everyone else.
I count myself amongst the lucky, I'll never say "I could do it, so you can too." It's counter productive and an awful thing to hear when you're already really trying.
If there's a good reason for it, it's just as much of a good reason XML isn't suitable for what you're trying to do.
In my case, I can't eat certain foods (I'm still trying to work out which, but it includes chocolate) when I'm stressed. I get severe cramps, bloating, pain and even hot flushes (intense sweating). It happened to me on a train once and people thought I was OD-ing.
And stressed doesn't mean "close to the edge". Just a bit of nerves about something, definitely not enough to keep me up at night, will do the trick.
When the evidence suggested chocolate made me really unwell, but only if I was a bit stressed, it was really hard to accept because it just sounds so weird and implausible.
As I remember it, they were in a stale-mate. The market was pretty much divided up. Most people were loyal to their brand and that was that. Despite that, they were spending a massive amount of money on advertising even though their market shares remained unchanged.
The reason was that if one of them stopped funnelling massive amounts of cash into advertising, they would lose a big chunk of their market share to the others. So they were all paying mostly to maintain the status quo.
With the ban on advertising, the amount of money saved greatly outweighed the revenue lost as others couldn't advertise either so it really only affected new smokers rather than convince current smokers to switch brands.
I see a similar thing happening in my line of work. In our niche of e-commerce every player of importance works with the same online marketing networks and paying rather a lot per sale or click.
There's a whole lot of sites out there which basically exist to infest organic search results, send traffic to us and our competitors and collect their referral fee from the advertising network. They add no value[1]. Without them, the customer would have been similarly divided amongst the competition as well without having to pay for it. Yet, if we stop paying them, we'll lose a lot of business as our competitors will continue to do so.
Disclaimer: this is all as I understand it and in no way my employers opinion or persepctive ;)
1) Some do, by providing extra information or ranking the shops by what's best for the consumer (price, reviews) rather than the most cash-per-click.
You could flip your argument around and say the fact it took so long for Heartbleed to have been discovered means even OpenSSL didn't have enough people checking it. Which it probably didn't. And Telegram has even less people combing through its source than OpenSSL did pre-Heartbleed.
The only valid reason I can think of is a small and obscure proprietary crypto algorithm and implementation isn't worth the bad guys/agencies' time for finding the inevitable bugs. But Telegram has gained more than enough popularity for that ship to have sailed months ago.
And that's incredibly frustrating for both sides of the student/teacher relationship.
The reason (at least, for me) is the rather insensitive way in which you expressed your opinion. Take a few steps back and reconsider what you wrote on what is essentially a thread about a father losing his daughter.
And you shouldn't trust them either, so you need to assume they have if they could have. That means definitely reinstall when you find out you've been vulnerable to e.g. a local root exploit, regardless of user accounts have been hacked.
Sure there might have also been a local privilege escalation vulnerability, so rootkits are definitely something to check for. Depending on the situation, re-installing might be less work, so then it'd make sense.
But especially if you're not the only one using the machine, having to reinstall the OS every time a single user fucks up and has 'password' for a password, it's going to get really tedious really quickly.
There are some new features, some of them useful for a lot of people, some of them not so much.
It's good, but full of goodies? Nah. That's overselling it.