skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The point wasn't about gender, it was that there don't seem to be any conflicting opinions. At least so far, no one is denying that the link was spyware, or that the spyware in question was made by Candiru, or that Candiru is an Israeli company that makes spyware. So there is no he said, she said.

If Candiru were to issue a statement saying "this was not spyware made by us", then yes, it would be a case of he said, she said.
Can you elaborate what in your opinion changed in the geopolitical scene?
Not available in India :(
The 10$ gift cards were just hilarious. How could they possibly expect anyone to take them seriously?
More to the point, there actually is evidence of a connection to the Israeli government, inasmuch as "Candiru" was financed by the same people behind NSO, "Founders Group", and both of these entities have very clear ties to Mossad:

https://www.dimse.info/candiru/

"TheMarker Claims that NSO is also a customer of Candiru as it is often seen contacting the surreptitious firm for some espionage-related projects. Two industry sources said the main Candiru financial backer was Founders Group, cofounded by one of the three men who set up NSO, Omri Lavie."

And then, there is its Board of Directors:

"As surveillance industry sources also told Forbes, one of the lead investors is Founders Group managing partner Isaac Zack. According to Pitchbook, Zack is also a board member at wireless charging startup Humavox and at Sepio Systems. The latter is a cybersecurity company, focused on doing the exact opposite of Candiru: protecting hardware from being turned into silent surveillance devices. Its board also includes Tamir Pardo, the former head of the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/10/03/meet-...
there is a good reason that most of the people prefer apple for its simplicity, its because apple only shows you what is required. i agree with you there.
AMD Ryzen 9000 Series Launch Delayed to August
Hacker News, 1939:

Armies don't just charge out because Hitler has his "dream", and certainly not sustaining the sort of punishment that the Germans have had to undergo in Poland. We can see from the response to Ernst Röhm that the military actually supports the Führer to a significant extent; if it was unpopular then Hitler would have been rolled by now. You aren't trying to understand the German motivation; this is unhelpful straw-manning and caricaturing.

And othering the Germans with irrational motivations is stupid. As a culture we've passed up too many opportunities to calm the situation down because of a Germanophobic attitude out of the US. Years of unhinged rhetoric from 1930 onwards turned out to be unhelpful in de-escalating a dangerous situation.

And I note you didn't link to speeches by Hitler. That'd be wise, it is rare to see a Anglo-American media outlet accurately representing even Anglo-American politicians. Not as a partisan thing, but as a blanket failure. It is better to go to the source material.

If we entertain multiple theories though, the "Hitler is just crazy!" theory fits, but so does the "gee, it is pretty easy to see why they'd be scared of France and Britain, look at what France and Britain did to them at the first opportunity" theory. Especially since it has been a factor in conversation for decades. People have been pointing out that the Treaty of Versailles was raising tension with Germany since the end of the Great War.

If the Treaty of Versailles wasn't involved in German Rearmament it does seem likely that nobody would be talking about the Treaty of Versailles.

But to argue that Germany isn't acting with reference to the Treaty of Versailles is just displaying a void of strategic empathy. What they've been doing makes a lot of sense through the lens of a group of people panicking as France and Britain keeps tightening the noose on them.
Employee owned is pretty rare. There's some exceptions like where you're encouraged to buy your employer's stock to make them richer.

There's a reason why a union with a presumptive whole crew who could start a competitive business never ever does it. Nobody wants to be the owner.
Plenty of companies at various times have shareholder agreements that make it a breach of contract to sell shares, or that regulate conditions under which you can be dragged along on a sale on terms you have no say in. It affects risk, and so will affect your ability to raise funds on those terms but structuring it ways that allows the company to buy back but ensures an investor or lender with shares as security will get sufficient profit potential to outweigh the risk is still entirely possible.
> The point of a company is to make a product that customers want, and make it as accessible as possible.

Who says? What if we said the point of a company was to make its employees' lives better?

> In the US a vast majority of adults now own index funds

in proportion to their wealth. That's the problem - ownership is distributed unevenly, and the inequality causes social problems.
might I suggest that 'allowed discussion' isn't at all a metric by which to judge whether or not there are efforts to delegitimize a topic.

might I also suggest that sufficiently skilled efforts to direct a conversation will not be detected by most conversation participants.
have you heard about DMs?
Sigh. I was hoping not to have to add a "/s", "jk", or smiley.
Strybo Digital – An interactive music course platform
The problem is that you think that those managers are nice and reasonable people like yourself. They are not. What will happen is that some manager will yell at some other manager that will yell at some other manager that will yell at some tester that works on the cheapest virtual machine possible, on which it takes 5 minutes to log in and it disconnects after 2 minutes of idle. All the while, not changing anything.

I'm pretty sure that all their resources are allocated to lawyers right now and their managers try really hard to gaslight their customers by telling them it was not that bad, they came up with the fix really fast (ignoring the fact that the fix was not possible to be applied) and so on.
The article you're limiting your assessment to, doesn't say anything about who is using it, but there are very clear links to Mossad if you dig further:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41067026
> - Is it reasonable to have more than 70% of the computers/servers that run important infrastructure on the same OS / software ? How about the mitigation of the risks etc…

This is the problem as far as I'm concerned. Industry "best practice" is "use the same thing everywhere"

A diverse ecosystem is the best defence.

You could run 100% FreeBSD and be hit by say a hidden kernel bug which occurs on Jan 15th 2027 when unix time goes from 1.7b to 1.8b (I've seen that code before where time is assumed to be below X)

If you run 50% FreeBSD and 50% Windows you will only lose half your service.
This is hinted at in the post but if you're using C++ you will typically have access to quickselect via std::nth_element. I've replaced many a sort with that in code review :) (Well, not many. But at least a handful.)
Then the exec should be held responsible?
With all this front-end elaborate architectural smartassery, supporting Firefox is too difficult. Was it developed in Berlin?
Was this possibly some way to influence liability limitation? If you accept a $10 gift card, could that be argued as an acceptance of compensation?
So has DuckDuckGo (the search engine) https://duckduckgo.com/?iaxm=maps&q=Manchester
wait, that was not a joke?
But, who sent the attack is the news. Sure we’re always bombarded with attacks by random cyber gangs, but when you’re targeted by an organization with official credentials that tends to raise some eyebrows.
One-dose nasal spray clears toxic Alzheimer's proteins to improve memory
Plus, Amazons search is garbage. Available items that exactly match the query get ignored. Actually the query only vaguely resembles the results. There is basically no filter functionality (even simple things like which item I can get tomorrow), and the few filters that do exist are ignored. It's like they're playing some funny psycho game with you in order to make you buy stuff that's not quite what you want, even though they do have what you want.
Can someone explain to me why the protections that Falcon provides, are not provided by the OS itself? I am not completely naive, I've secured quite a few critical Linux servers, but with Windows it seems that there do not exist the same clear roles of security. Contrast with Red Hat or even Canonical, where is feels like I'm (correctly) fighting the security of the systems to get them into a state where my users can use my applications.
In that case I would suggest that 't0lo provide us with receipts considering that most of us are not skilled enough to detect these efforts
You can’t write complex TypeScript types in JSDoc, which is what GP said.

The moment you need to declare or extend a type you’re done, you have to do so in a separate .ts file. It would be possible to do so and import it in JSDoc, but as mentioned before it’s a huge PITA on top of the PITA that writing types can already be (e.g. function/callbacks/generics)
The EC/girocard thing is real though - those POS devices usually don't work with my American Visa - just my Deutsche Bank "EC" karte.
> "It is not an isolated incident. The same thing happened few weeks earlier with the CrowdStrike agent on Linux, nuking the system and there may be other occurrences before."

Is there a link with this incident?
The number of US tech businesses that are surprised they need, or think they can ignore the need, to obey employment and data protection laws when working in other jurisdictions is simply bonkers.
How about the good old analogy of giving your house/car/safe keys to a total stranger while going on vacation?
In general JSDoc is just much more verbose and has more friction, even outside complex types. I recently finished a small (20 files/3000 lines), strictly typed JS project using full JSDoc, and I really miss the experience of using the real TypeScript syntax. Pain points: annotating function parameter types (especially anonymous function), intermediate variable type and automatic type-only import, these are the ones that I can remember. Yes you can get 99% there with JSDoc and .d.ts files, but that's painful.
```We release MINT-1T under a CC-BY-4.0 license, designating it primarily as a research artifact. While the dataset is freely available, users are responsible for ensuring its legal use in commercial settings. Users must independently verify compliance with applicable laws before employing MINT-1T for commercial purposes.```
It's absurd that you have to become a being of continuous price comparison in order to be considered conscious. This is predatory behaviour loaded with decades of psychological research around manipulation strategies to increase purchases (e.g. price anchoring, physical positioning on shelves, store layout).

These things only work because of innate human biases and cognitive defects. The idea that anyone less than a pure rational being lacks consciousness is just silly. There's a huge power imbalance which is systemically leveraged against the consumer and it's more useful to see this as a designed aspect of the system rather than the collective individual failures of "nearly all the consumers"
Also does that on Firefox on macOS
A nice idea in theory, in practice it becomes a bureaucratic nightmare though - even just offering shares is extremely difficult between different countries, tax treaties, etc.
I wonder what happens if the damages exceed whatever assets they have in France.
“We’re not sure if this will work or not, and we don’t want to deal with you if it doesn’t, so we’re not even going to let you try.”
robots.txt has always been a gentleman's agreement and for such a large site to abuse it in that way is ridiculous, and possibly, anti-competitive.
Not a lawyer, but the cynic in me assumes that it is legal bait: if someone at the company cashed the $10 gift card one could argue that compensation for damages has been accepted and no further liability applies. At least legally speaking, obviously this is completely morally bankrupt.
I'm having a really hard time lately distinguishing between memes and actual news. The news sound a lot more meme like than the actual memes.
On windows, you forget that it wasn't the case historically that windows could run on ARM, and it took years for MSFT to make it work (hence it was a real moat), and now that it works it is a real threat to Intel's grip on the PC market. So it exactly proves my point that you want to know how locked in your customers are to your product.

And as Bezos says, your margin is my opportunity, and nvidia makes humongous margins right now. It will attract investments in competitors. And if a competing GPU is half as powerful but a third of the price, it will eat market shares and compress margins. Unless customers cannot switch, but I don't believe that to be the case.
I wonder if the obsolescence of such heat pipes corrode just outside of the warranty period...
Sorry, but I feel the author is reaching for a conclusion.

From OP, in the OVH-case liability seems to override the contract / waivers when OVH was both the storage And backup provider and did not actively underline that this solution is suboptimal, in a situation where multiple data centers are physically very close. That's a chain of evidence.

For CrowdStrike, it is clear that the offering is to more mature counter parties (thus raising the B2B standard of evidence) and that CrowdStrike very essentially did not do / support staging, whatever. This is indeed bad industry practice, but one that can thought to be explicit from the start of the agreement. At least in my locale you either make explicit agreements OR industry standards are leading. We do not do industry standard X is pretty clear. Read the list in OP, replace CrowdStrike with Microsoft and then think of the international liability cases you've heard from where Microsoft was found liable for downtime, hacks and other issues.

Look, liabilities will always arise in such situations. But I expect only minor liabilities will arise. Mostly (AFAIK IANAL) the terms & conditions are applied in B2B-cases. This case is pretty obvious: you got what you signed up for. CrowdStrike with full scale access to your machines and no guarantees. On the other hand, Crowdstrike lost 125 billion in market cap. That's an indication of {liabilities + loss of future profits}. Pretty massive event for not being willing to do staging. But I expect it's mostly that CrowdStrike is tainted from now on. A friend of mine had a very bad stint as an employee of CrowdStrike recently and from what I learned from that case, I'm happy that the nature of the firm is somewhat more in the open now.
> Twitter tried a long-term playbook to reverse their unprofitable sinkhole of a website.

From what I recall reading at the time, Twitter was finally becoming profitable before the sale (last two years? It’s hard to find a source now since every story since is about some shit show or other post sale).

> That ended up with them being undervalued and sold to the highest bidder.

You make it seem they were in dire straits and had to be sold for scraps, but that’s far from the case. They sold for more than their valuation to the only bidder because they understood what a good deal it was for them. They forced the buyer to not back out, after all.
The Right Way to Quickly End the War in Ukraine
Yeah, and I answered. Did I ever say you were guessing???

It's just that the best reply you got was a(n educated) guess; that's the best you can get, until and unless the original commenter themselves replies.

So you can take my reply as at least something to go on, or... Idunno, live out your life thinking this was one of life's great unsovable mysteries?
That C-word was a great joke in seventh grade.
From my point of view America is much larger than the US. I wouldn't write 'european' and mean 'polish'. Between usian and usaian I prefer the former.

Right, why would one try to learn about oppressed groups? One reason could be to develop a sense of solidarity and community with larger portions of humanity than whatever social strata one has been allotted in one's local society. Another could be to find patterns of oppression to make it easier to see them in one's local society, where one is hampered by being like a fish in water. It could also flow from some stance on ethics, or slogan like 'as long as there are unfree people, none of us are free'.

Now you explain why this is profoundly unreasonable and obviously not a good idea.
Why Levittown didn't revolutionize homebuilding
> The idea is that some null hypotheses being true is actually interesting because it challenges an assumed belief.

??? As I had said originally, that's one of the primary situations where a negative result should be published.

But the huge, huge, huge majority of negative results are trivial and uninteresting. Thus the fundamental issue with negative results is that you have to provide rather more compelling justification for why such results should be published.
By definition, the average person consumes as much as they produce. Generally speaking, the poorer someone is, the more they produce relative to what they consume. Making life better for producers improves the lot of the poor; making life better for consumes improves it for the overconsumers (i.e. the rich).
Thanks for your comment. Do you have at least one repository. Those who are not will get an error.
Closure is almost a forgotten child of Google now. Does not even fully support ES2022 as of today. We are working hard to get rid of it completely. Surprise, lots of important projects still rely on it today.
I can't work out if that was sarcasm or not, but isn't that just corrosive buildup?
That responsibility (and associated risk) is often the justification for C compensation. Whether that is a good argument I have no opinion.
The explanation is in the first sentence. How much clearer could he be?
> If you include black market economic activity

I don’t
> The minute you start optimizing for employees instead of customers, you’re delivering less value to customers (the world) and asking to be disrupted. This is good.

You’re describing a race to the bottom for quality of jobs. But in this system we all have to have jobs, so you’re describing a race to the bottom for quality of life for most people. I think it is reasonable to question and discuss how we can better optimize our goals so that people’s material needs are met but jobs also don’t suck.

> So workers do own the companies, in proportion to how much value they deliver to the world due to market cap weighting.

This claim hides a great deal of assumptions about economics that are highly contested. For example the idea that how many shares you buy is proportional to the value you deliver assumes that workers with zero shares deliver zero value, which is obviously false. This also assumes that wealthier people, who own more of the shares in index funds, and delivering proportionally more value. Lending does have value, but it has limits. Imagine in the extreme case a company with 100 employees where 100% of the shares are owned by one person. Does that person provide 100% of the value?

My point more directly is that worker’s labor has value unrelated to ownership in shares, and simply offering stock options is not the same as a worker owned company, in practice.
Sure wasn’t. $10 Uber Eats card

https://m.slashdot.org/story/431090
Alas, you didn't need a global incident of this scope to draw those (perfectly valid) conclusions.

The hallmark of intelligence is to observe a situation and the structure of a system, reason about it, draw analogies with past experience and pre-emptively take corrective measures.

The stark truth is that we don't live in a "reasonable" world.

Poor governance, short termism, lack of transparency, incompetence, captured regulation, obsolete ideology etc. are not exceptions but rather the essence of how things "work".

The existential question is whether our demonstrable ability to achieve some learning will be sufficient to deliver solution on the face of increasing risks.
> Is it reasonable to grant such privilege access to a [ company ] that ultimately is a black box ?

This is common enough in the corporate world and precedence in similar circumstances will come into play in various lawsuits.

Examples:

XYZ Security Guards: a third party physical security provider that hires people to watch and patrol buildings, assets, with access to keys, timetables, security logs, etc.

ABC Armoured Transport: third party physical transport provider for cash, sensitive documents, etc.

When AcmeCorp Inc. hire XYZ & ABC it's on the basis of reputation, contracts, and things generally not to do with peeking inside how the cake is baked (hiring records, etc).
OpenSSL New Governance Structure: A Call to the Academic Community
> Does CrowdStrike do any testing whatsoever? Obviously they didn’t or the incident wouldn’t have happened.

Eh, parts of this article aren't very reasonable. Even if they did a buttload of testing, it only takes one failure in one part of the chain (near the end).

They didn't test something they should have, sure, but obviously they didn't do "no testing whatsoever"
"CrowdStrike broke Debian and Rocky Linux months ago", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41018029

"CrowdStrike's Falcon Sensor also linked to Linux kernel panics and crashes", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41030352
hopefully the lawyers are demanding payment in advance

in many countries there are very strict limits on excluding liability for negligence
Well, it'd be a lot easier if most US entities understood that M/d/yy(yy) format is rare, or that default to Frankenstein degrees is pretty much the same/awkward (even Microsoft reset their weather widget to F on regular basis).

The root of issue, not understanding local laws/culture, is very similar - surrounded by a vast market/culture (US +Canada) dulls your senses for the rest of the globe.
I mean that's why there's a "battle", if it was easy, there would be no battle.

i.e. the trust can many times be changed via consent of the beneficiaries, the primary lever that Murdoch has to get beneficiary consent is other forms of assets that are not under said trust (ex: each child get 25% of this asset, without consent that can't change, but if there are many other assets, the benefactor can basically say, if you don't play ball, you won't get anything from the other assets, depending on the size of the other assets, that can be very persuasive).
The parent comment isn't complaining about the amount CEOs are paid, but the amount they are paid relative to the value provided.
Why do you think that prioritising worker happiness would lead to refusing to excise unproductive divisions? Do you think people like working for a company that doesn't do anything?
I like Bun a lot, but Deno is (still) the more mature, stable, capable (e.g. stable workers, http2) and depending on the use-case more performant option (V8 > JSC). DX and tooling is top-notch. Deno can perform typchecking, btw. They bundle the TSC IIRC. Bun is the hype, but Deno is currently clearly the better option for serious endevours. Still, the vision and execution of Bun is impressive. Good for us devs.
How do you actively detect a malware agent running in user space using stealth or a kernel. Authors of such are fully aware of Linux hardening like SELinux / AppArmor and work around it.
I read an article that stated that Microsoft lost an anti-trust court case against the EU in which the EU mandated that they allow third party competitors to provide this service. Microsoft has its own solution called Windows Defender.

https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/22/windows_crowdstrike_k...