I feel sorry for this guy. His Reddit inbox is probably fucked, and he's absolutely going to get doxxed and hounded by news people, and I wouldn't be surprised if even worse things happened to him.
Good on him for reporting what he saw. He also went to the police the next day and reported it directly. But now the media machine is going to make him regret he ever said anything, which is unfortunate.
He’s already public, but he can make a new Reddit account.
> Now the media machine is going to make him regret he ever said anything
We’ll see how it turns out, but I don’t see why even the internet mob would hate him. He probably can’t live in Brown’s basement anymore, but maybe with the reward money and recognition he can find a real place.
This is admittedly very tangential only, but as a non-native speaker / not a US-American, I found this sentence from the NYT reporting[0] a bit confusing:
> John said that the suspect’s clothing was inappropriate for the weather and that they had made eye contact.
Why is the report mentioning the eye contact? Is that culturally significant, as in, in the US you don’t normally do eye contact with strangers, and if a stranger does make eye contact, it’s suspicious?
I think the eye contact in question was a prelude to the two of them kind of following each other around and a minor verbal altercation, so the later context shows that it was probably kind of suspicious eye contact, rather than a friendly "what's up?"
I agree with the other comments that this sentence is just poorly written.
In cities people tend to not make eye contact while walking by each other, though in smaller towns it is more common to acknowledge each other in passing.
In neither case would it be accurate to find eye contact suspicious. The sentence appears to be a summation of several things the person saw, convincing them poorly and creating the ambiguity.
Seems to me that the obvious business model here is that they will need to have their AI inject their own ads into the DOM. Overall though, this feels like a feature, not a business.
Clearly there’s a tension on this venture-capital-run website between some people using their computer-nerd skills to save money and improve their experience, and other people hustling a business that requires the world to pay them.
> Clearly there’s a tension on this venture-capital-run website
Yeah. If they have a problem with that, they can kill HN. You can't have hackers/smart people in your forum and decide what they will do. Moderation can try do guide it but there is a limit when meeting smart + polite people.
This is not about the AWS Console. It is talking about the customer's site hosted on CloudFront. It is possible to cross wires with user sessions when using CloudFront if you haven't set caching granular enough to be specific to an end user. This scenario is customer error, not AWS.
electricity_is_life's comment on reddit seems to explain it:
> Not sure if this is what happened to you, but one thing I ran into a while back is that even if you return Cache-Control: no-store it's still possible for a response to be reused by CloudFront. This is because of something called a "collapse hit" where two requests that occur at the same time and are identical (according to your cache key) get merged together into a single origin request. CloudFront isn't "storing" anything, but the effect is still that a user gets a copy of a response that was already returned to a different user.
> If your app authenticates based on cookies or some other header, and that header isn't part of the cache key, it's possible for one user to get a response intended for a different user. To fix it you have to make sure any headers that affect the server response are in the cache key, even if the server always returns no-store.
---
Though the AWS docs seem to imply that no-store is effective:
> If you want to prevent request collapsing for specific objects, you can set the minimum TTL for the cache behavior to 0 and configure the origin to send Cache-Control: private, Cache-Control: no-store, Cache-Control: no-cache, Cache-Control: max-age=0, or Cache-Control: s-maxage=0.
