Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | 781's commentslogin

> But also imagine all the wannabe journalists that would just do character assassinations on long-dead people revered as heroes

That's an easy one. Pretty much anyone of notice living today will be labeled a "savage meat eater" and canceled. They will say "many people were already vegan, why was he/she still eating meat? Clearly a monster. Cancel"


If they fund industrial farming they would be right to make that moral judgement.


> In the private sector, they'd have been fired and probably legal action levelled against them

Tell me again one meaningful action against a data leak in the private sector. I'll wait.


Don't you remember how Equifax was hacked into and their stock price briefly dropped? Then they were burdened with all those email addresses people entered to check their credit... And they had to pay the ultimate price by spamming those addresses constantly with advertisements, and that's not cheap!


And as a free service, I can now have them email me whenever my credit score changes, so I can log in and see that I fluctuate up and down 2 points routinely for "algorithm changes". Take that, Experian!


The issue in question isn't so much the breach, but the misuse of data by the subcontractor. I've personally witnessed people be fired for this, and know of lawsuits that exist for this specifically, and that's just at the company I work for...


This is a losing game (think halting problem). This exact scenario was played by antivirus software versus malware in the 90s/00s. The antivirus was trying to figure out if the binary did something like modify a file on disk, while the virus was trying to obfuscate that or find innovative ways of doing it.

A isolation/capability solution is the only one that could work, leftpad shouldn't have access to anything but basic CPU compute.


And look at that height... This would never be approved in SF, ruins the local character.


They is overwhelmingly used for plural. See how the wikipedia article starts:

> They is the third-person plural personal pronoun (subjective case) in Modern English.

And only after that:

> Although still controversial,[citation needed] and not officially accepted in formal context,[citation needed] it is also used with singular meaning, sometimes to avoid specifying the gender of the person referred to: see gender neutrality in language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They


You say that, but the singular they has been in use since the 14th century[1] with criticism only becoming prevalent since the 19th century.

Also I would pay strong attention to the [citation needed]s.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they


SEO is one reason, but the reduced attention span of today's people surely is another. People just won't bother figuring out what a "mystery title" book is about.


I don't like the idea of attention span in the context of media consumption. It presupposes that the producer has some kind of right to everyone else's attention just because they made something. If you're not going to help filter yourself out from people who won't be interested in you, it will be and should be an automatic no.


> I don't like the idea of attention span in the context of media consumption.

You not liking it doesn't make it any less of a fact...


It's not really a fact though- it's a framework for understanding engagement, and it's a trash framework.

It's used my the laziest shills to place blame for their shit content on some notion of public stupidity.


so you're saying you approve of the longer titles?


Generally yes, I prefer titles that are descriptive rather than "this is a clever title and you'll find out why later"


makes sense


This is one thing that worried me during the Fukushima disaster, they were quite concerned about the safety of the responders and many things were delayed until they could figure out a way to do them safely.

If things deteriorated even further, a mega-disaster couldn't have been averted since the Japanese wouldn't have sent people to die to do what had to be done.


I remember this happening several times during the accident. At one point there was discussion that bubbled up in the media of completely abandoning the plant while meltdowns were in progress because they were worried about workers going over 250 mSv. Even though they did stay, there were critical actions that were repeatedly delayed that contributed to making the accident worse. Sometimes you have to say "your job is to keep people safe, and to do that you're going to have to take some risk."

You see this in the U.S. too with police officers. At Parkland and at the Pulse nightclub, police prioritized "officer safety" over public safety. People just want to follow a fixed rulebook about what is an acceptable risk, when in certain situations, an abnormally great threat justifies abnormal risks to avert it. This used to be understood intuitively.


You cannot expect the actual workers in radioactive disaster area to make such reckless decisions on their own. Such worker typically is not competent enough to decide that the directive of maximum acceptable risk should be overruled to make further work possible. The decision to expose workers to extraordinary risk should be made by the people in charge of the recovery effort, who should either be nuclear/biology experts or largely rely on what such experts tell them.


Of course not. Much of the story has never really been comprehensively told, but just look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...

The Prime Minister calls the plant manager to ask why a valve hasn't been opened that's critical to avoiding a large radiation release. He's told that because they have no electrical power, it can't be opened electrically, and due to radiation, they haven't sent someone in to turn the valve manually. After a call from the Prime Minister of the country, the valve still wasn't turned for another 7.5 hours. From a resourcefulness standpoint, I question why there wasn't enough electrical power to actuate a valve, and from a human standpoint, why there wasn't enough bravery to send someone to do the essential job, certainly involving a far lower radiation dose than is accepted willingly by astronauts who go to the International Space Station, when the safety of their country is not on the line.


Gives a new sense to "fake news"

Now we need a robo-reader who reverses the article back into the source data.


The problem with Szabo is that nobody was able to locate any sort of code written by Szabo - ie, he doesn't seem to know how to program and the first version of Bitcoin is way beyond noob-level - crypto, GUI, distributed networking, ...


In the podcast with Tim Ferriss he said he can code in C++.


Well, none of his code is public. Furthermore, on his blog he wrote about a lot of topics - economics, history, politics, crypto contracts, but not even once about a programming topic.


Szabo was a University of Washington compsci undergrad, and then an engineer at Digicash and a certificate authority company (forgot which). Then he went to law school. So he definitely knows how to code, but it's unclear if he's current with it, or perhaps rusty from not doing daily for a long time.

I suspect Hal Finney was behind the Satoshi handle on the original mailing list, and I wouldn't be surprised if he enlisted Szabo to help him write the paper since Szabo was also on that list, is a good writer, and Szabo's Bit Gold concept is pretty close to Bitcoin. But it's most likely Hal who invented Bitcoin's architecture and coded it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Szabo


I worked at a software company where you were not officially allowed to bring your own keyboard/mouse, but the unofficial policy was that they would look the other way. However they would not support you or help you install it - that was much harder than it sounds, it took me 20 minutes to route the cable.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: