It's in the comment that the person was replying to:
"...it will be much easier to run analytics on usage from web access logs..."
Headers don't normally get logged the way that URLs do. Having easy and cheap analytics is very helpful in making the right calls. "Expensive" analytics is really painful with APIs because some people rightfully get scared about the impact of making changes while others will just plow ahead.
Headers are hard to spot in code examples, in traffic sniffers, in logs, and in this case a version can alter the behavior of an API from subtly to drastically producing endless amount of WTFs for your dev team because they can't easily spot what is going on.
We need to strive to make an API obvious and "immutable" (i.e. under one path you get one specific behavior). This in affect means the good old boring /v2/ in the URL path tends to be best if you can't keep everything under one roof by deprecating/removing/introducing single endpoints in the initial version (due to lots of name collisions).
One could also argue that driving to work is premature if you have two perfectly good legs. All ridiculousness aside a person can invent any absurd excuse to hide from the common practices of their profession.
Because it's generally recognized that calling something gay is funny and a way to insult it, at least here in America. Is that not the case in other places? I've heard at least some of it in south and central america, though it tends to be taken more personally there than in
No other bad actors can get it, but we don't know if it's already been found, and now that it's gone we have no idea what data is out in the wild. And as you note, we can't trust the companies to accurately report it themselves.
I think you make an important point though - deleted or not, there is no real way to know what's been exposed, and no guarantee that they'll ever admit it; so torch all the data expeditiously, and we'll just have to comb through 'successful' leaks just as always.
Another side is that with their database blanked, that will force more companies to explain their downtime or complete loss of data, rather than quietly secure it again and pretend nothing happened
Maybe this actor A downloaded the data, then deleted the database, preventing others from accessing and selling the same data? Only A can sell this data now?
maybe the authors of meow should "improve" it with a feature that reports every instance to HIBP before deleting it. that is if their intention with this malware was a benevolent one :) but I guess feature iteration in malware that is "supposed to be good" would be tricky
Oh, they'll have to say something when they suddenly stop doing business until a backup can get pulled, and the new db instances actually secured before putting them up again.
Even a bland 'we lost parts of our data and we will have to start recovery processes. please stand by' is a signal.
Ideally they'd report it so that password managers could warn everyone, but with just the database URI there isn't necessarily any obvious way to know what domain or business its associated with.
man is universally known in the industry, and supported (to some extent, at least) by project authors/maintainers; this project will be forgotten by almost everyone (and start decaying) as soon as this post is off the front page here.
They're often used, but I suspect most people who read them don't know how to write or even modify a man page. (What format is it?) Also, Stack Overflow probably gets more traffic.
Whether documentation gets read or not probably depends on its Google ranking more than anything.
They're publicly well known, and as far as I'm aware they don't have any rules against telling people you're a member. Many of their temples/lodges/whatever you want to call them are identified somewhere on the facade (Freemasons' Hall in Edinburgh for example is available for hire as an event space).
However, what they do and talk about within the lodge is secret.
Whoa, personal attacks aren't ok and will get you banned here. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here? We'd be grateful.
Op gave a personal opinion about how onboarding is ‘Total bullshit’. Commenter asked for OP to not throw their personal bias as truth. It is confirmation bias. I had this one experience so all experience are this one experience. Commenter two called commenter one out saying that commenter one is completely off the mark and that op was not speaking gospel due to one sentence they wrote at the beginning.
I merely pointed out how Saying one sentence does not change the sentiment and tone of the rest of the story.
Ie; ‘In my personal experience’ does not negate preaching nor gospel talk.
Sure I may have told commenter two to stop contributing, but that is because commenter two was also violating the rules that you so eagerly linked.
Agreeing with a commenter who calls someone out on their attempts to sway others through logical fallacies like straw man etc, is not breaking the rules. There is a huge problem in modern times of manipulation and when people are trying to manipulate others it should be brought to light.
There was nothing wrong in the example I provided and that was not meant to be taken literal, so the example provided does not break the rules.
Again, what is the point of dogmatically following rules, when rules aren’t a catch all to begin with? They are guidelines to help form a better community. The rules need to be analyzed in the context of the whole, not in some isolated measures. Nor garnered through a ‘reputation’ via downvoted. I bet most people who can downvote felt attacked when a personal experience was labeled as gospel because they are the same people who often find themselves preaching.
HN would be better off without downvoted in total rather then some gatekeeping effort to put downvotes ‘in the right hands’. Honestly this is silly that my comment was even flagged.
If an apology is wanted for telling commenter two to stop contributing I will do so, but commenter two should also apologize for making others feel they cannot contribute. Arguments are fine but when you take the stance of I am right and you are wrong without any evidence or support or argument at all, you are not starting a debate you are just contributing to the wide pool of logical fallacy.
Lastly I will defer to Paul Gharam’s Hierarchy of disagreement, which btw op and commenter two failed to reach the top:
Other people posting bad things doesn't make it ok to break the guidelines and certainly not to escalate into personal attack, which you did. If you feel like other comments didn't get moderation replies and should have, we're always open to looking at specific links. If you flag one, we'll probably see it—but if you email us at hn@ycombinator.com, we'll definitely see it.
It's hard to tell from what you wrote here which specific other comments you're referring to. I tried, but got confused.
If you see a bad comment that didn't get moderated, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. We don't come close to reading everything that gets posted to HN—there's far too much—and we usually read the threads in more of a random-access than a linear way, so a post that seems glaringly obvious to some readers may just have escaped our attention.
You've posted a lot of good comments here! I just want to acknowledge that. You have a nice way of finding something interesting in what other people have posted and replying with something interesting of your own. That's the most desirable quality in HN threads, the idea of which is to be good and fresh conversation. It's nice and surprisingly rare in this sort of exchange to look back through a user's comment history and see that.
