- Point of friction is to have it as a filter against people who really need your help.
Helping people necessitates taking some action, spending resources, potentially making some errors that can be taken against you.
But on the other hand, refusing to help people without any reason or flimsy reason is also frowned upon.
Adding friction is a perfect solution, now you want to help everyone but this stupid/pesky/lazy people just aren't able to follow simple(they ain't) instructions how to properly follow process of acquiring etc.
Now it's their fault, so no action is needed on you behalf.
- Google doesn't provide "entire operating system source code", it provides some parts, while other they keep closed. Also they are continuously removing parts that are essential from AOSP (that are either open or closed).
Removing support for Pixel devices makes AOSP even less useful for developers, because belief that VM will be a good replacement for real hardware test environment is a fairy tale next to sleeping beauty.
So no, they don't provide "entire operating system source code", what they provide is a caricature of open source project. So maybe they should call it COSP.
- If death is a suicide it doesn't automatically means that third parties weren't involved. It's possible to push (temporally) vulnerable people over the edge, even if when helped/left alone they wouldn't.
Especially if one party have incentive to discredit/destroy such person, so court/jury won't take their testimony seriously(or there will be no testimony at all). After all it's almost impossible to connect such actions with subsequent suicide.
While suicide is by definition action of individual, what leads to it isn't always the same.
- > Qualcomm showed Linux working in October 2023 yet here in October 2024 Linux does not work. I don't get it.
Curse of Android, Qualcomm lived for so long with permanently forked kernel, that there is no pressure on code quality, only thing they know is how to sling minimally viable platform code at their unfortunate customers. No one cares about maintainability of it, because even before code has a chance to stabilise, there is already new model to be released, new hardware to be supported. At this point no one cares about old hardware.
- > It really is a werid feeling remembering the internet of my youth and even my 20s and knowing that it will never exist again.
User facing ability to whitelist and blacklist websites in search results, ability to set weights for websites you want to see higher in search results.
Spamlists for search results, so even if you don't have knowledge/experience to do it yourself, you can still protect them from spam.
It's recreation of e-mail situation, not because it's good, but because www is getting even worse than e-mail.
- > One of the first things I learned in film school is _nothing_ in a production at that level is coincidence or serendipity. To get to the final script and storyboard, the writers would have gone through multiple drafts, and a great deal of material gets either cut, or retooled to reinforce thematic elements. To the extent that The Simpsons was a goofy cartoon, its writers’ room carried a great deal of intellectual and academic heft, and I don’t doubt for a moment that there was full intention with both the joke itself, and the choice to leave the character’s motivations ambiguous.
Not everything, for example I read somewhere that chess "fight" in Tween Peaks was random and didn't adhere to chess rules because no one really paid attention to record or follow moves.
- > Okay? I'm not surprised that a conservative judge is part of a conservative ideological legal organization. That doesn't mean the same thing as saying they're a politician who is funded by someone.
Doesn't it make it looks like he is a ideologue supported by ideological organisation that happens to be a judge and uses this occupation to further his ideology instead of basing judgements on law?
And that organisation conspire to promote judges that are ideologues first?
- > Good point. But the audit seems useless now. It's supposed to prevent the carelessness from causing... this thing that happened anyway.
> Sure, maybe it prevented even more events like this from happening. But still.
Because the point of audit is not to prevent hacks, it's to prove that you did your due diligence to not get hacked, so fact that hack happened is not your fault.
You can hide under umbrella of "sometimes hacks happen no matter what you do".
- It depends on what your position is. Are you there to actually provide security to your org or to tick a in an audit. If both which is more important. Because failing an audit have real consequences, while having breaches in security have almost none. Just look at credit score companies.
- > "How do we stop people from sharing (what I deem to be) fake news?" is the wrong question. The right question is "How do we give people the tools to identify fake news?" If you give people the tools and they still spread what you deem to be fake news, then you've done what you can. Tough cookies for you.
When you teach people to recognise fake news they will be able to recognise your fake news. What you want is to cut people from enemy fake news (or truth, they are enemy, it doesn't matter) so they will believe everything you say while enemy can't influence them.
- If you want to get something fixed whine a lot and bother everyone who can't run away from you. Also what a git I was... https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101061
- > That means that somewhere there's a written policy defining where they should and shouldn't be doing these things, and that the policy wasn't strictly observed this time. They weren't just doing this randomly; they had procedures designed, ostensibly, to protect public safety, and the procedures weren't followed. A failure of leadership occurred at multiple levels, but, as is so common these days, nobody will be held accountable. It'll be given lip service and hand wringing, but ultimately nothing will be done.
Procedures are there to look nice in the book, what matters is culture of use. Because culture always wins with procedures.
- > It's not a question of ignorance, it's a question of intent.
> If you walk into Walmart and intentionally walk out with a banana without paying, you can't get out of prosecution by claiming that you didn't know it was illegal to do that.
> If, on the other hand, you accidentally neglect to scan the banana at the self checkout then it is a valid defense to say that you thought you'd already scanned it in and you must have gotten confused by all the other items you were handling.
> Theft requires intent.
No one will care what you say when you will get caught. https://www.good.is/lawyer-explains-the-risk-of-using-self-c...
- > Would that be what’s best for everyone?
> If you’re being serious, I genuinely wonder if you realize the consequences of this drastic a decision.
It would be best for everyone who isn't Boeing. But we all know that the second it would happen, Boeing would run crying to politicians they own how unfair this action is/how it endangers their market position/how it threatens national security.
- > Do you have their names memorized? If you met one dining with their family at a country club, would you know what they did?
> Their personal reputations are still largely intact.
Well person who would be attending country club would know that they raised shareholders value and more than likely helped to them to gain X millions of Dollars.
- > Can you really do that though?
> You have to trust your workers to not undo some random bolts here and there at some stage.
Why? We don't trust surgeons to remove correct limbs, why we should trust some contractors thrice removed from actual accountability? There are checklists for a reason.
It will not work, part of compensation is being hired as lobbyist after you "retire" from public office. So either go fund me will do the same or it will fail.