> If I pay someone $100 to come clean my house and they take my money and don't clean my house, its no different than if they came into my house and stole $100.
It is not OP's house though. He is just another employee, so it's none of his business to worry about this. Your argument sounds just like an excuse to morally justify snitching on co-workers.
If someone paid me to clean their house and the person I'm with starts stealing, I I would not be okay with it either. I would say something if I saw someone getting pick-pocketed or call the police if someone is being mugged. Theft is theft and its wrong. If I have a chance to easily address an injustice I will certainly consider it. This moral relativism has really gone overboard.
You're selling your work. If what you sell doesn't cost as much as you asked for it, then you will lose ability to sell it, eventually. It's not a theft, it's how market works and it doesn't work in any other way.
> And unless you were writing drivers, that major OS version wasn't going to break anything.
Just a minor nitpick, but the NT device driver API has in fact stayed largely the same since Windows 2000 and in comparison to the various technologies that came and went in userland.
And then MS got pissed at Creative for having drivers so bad that crashes from Creative sound card drivers accounted for a non-trivial % of all Windows crashes. The result was MS changing the entire Windows audio stack and eliminating Creatives most lucrative product line.
Python has probably the worst most miss designed package manager out there.
I mean it doesn't even really have support for proper package versioning, instead it just magically hacks the environment. Which happens to work, but is also kinda a nightmare.
I have no idea why python programmers still mostly accept that as a viable solution.
If you publish software you have responsibilities and no "provided as-is" clause can fully free you from it. Especially if you do so with the intention to cause harm.
> It's your fault if you blindly trust random 3rd-party code on the internet and have your mission-critical software depend on it.
The problem is not to "rust random 3rd-party code on the internet" but the "blindly" part.
Like never ever deploy without locking dependencies and testing any new dependencies before updating the lock and preferable even give the changes/diff a shallow review.
I think anyone providing programs (instead of libs) installed though npm (or "blind" untested CI builds for releases) is as much a problem as the one who caused the problems this time. Maybe even more as they also open the door for other more malicious attacks.
> If you publish software you have responsibilities and no "provided as-is" clause can fully free you from it. Especially if you do so with the intention to cause harm.
Says who?
I can publish whatever the heck I want to my project and unless you and I have a contract that clearly defines expectations and resolutions, you're SOL.
Intentions matter. The 'provided as-is' helps cover the author for unintended behaviors that are a result of some non desired bug.
You can't just update your extensively used code to add some ransomware or virus and be let off the hook because you warned users in a text file. The legal system will check what did you know and what your intentions were.
In this case, not that the author did a bad attack, but it's still a jerk move when the intention was uniquely to disrupt others and break things.
Well, at least in the United States, it's the default the other way (there are implied warranties) unless licensed otherwise. That's exactly what most open source licenses do to protect the author. That being said, I could imagine in some jurisdictions, the law limits the ability for people to disclaim such warranties. It would be an interesting case.
The fundamental problem is that the interests of Google do not align with the interests of it's users.
Google is not interested in serving us the "best" search results possible, they are interested in serving us their customers ads. In other words, Google search results are crap, because Google wants them to be crap.
That's far too simplistic. Google must also compete or they lose their free users followed by their paying users (ad buyers). I also think it's a multifaceted challenge that failing some genuine ingenuity won't really get solved.
Like I said though, maybe they are just riding their wave (dominance) at this point, but then I'd expect to see better results from a scrappy competitor already or soon. Here's hoping, but even as a discerning user, I haven't yet.
I'm confident that even if Google doesn't solve it, for whatever reason, someone else will eventually. In the meantime, results continue to degrade and the desire / reward to fix it will increase.
> Google must also compete or they lose their free users followed by their paying users (ad buyers).
I have no idea if that's even possible. The number of people who (a) Google pays to be the default engine for and (b) aren't even aware there are other engines is huge. If the various google search domains went offline, the number of people who wouldn't even be able to find facebook is probably a double-digit percent, let alone those who cannot figure out to fail over to bing, ddg, yahoo, whatever.
There are more than enough users aware of search to support a fledgling competitor that managed to deliver higher quality results.
That competitor simply doesn’t exist yet, and I think that’s because no one has figured out how to beat Google at search (which is why I think real ingenuity is required).
That whole story is debatable at best. Here's just some of the things that make you scratch your head and wonder how much of it is really true:
- Author of the fork claiming that he recieved 70+ calls on his pinephone and jokingly said it didn't crash. [1]
- He deletes said tweet moments after someone asked him how anyone might've found his pinephone number despite it not being on his website or social media. [2]
- Then he says he doesn't have any proof becuse he had to wipe/reflash his phone due to his pinephone crashing (this directly contradicts his previous tweet). After being called out, he immediately deleted his HackerNews post. [3]
- The author was posting f-word and r-words on his github bio. [4]
The only answer I have to you: I learned not to give a damn about trolls. Maybe start something useful with your life instead of claiming things that aren't true?
None of it really has to be untrue to not draw the same conclusions. It’s possible that the phone crashed after some time, it’s possible they deleted messages and gave up because, as the parent comment suggests, they decided not to feed trolls.
Citing sources for specific claims does not mean that the overall conclusion is inherently true.
Say "I support the AfD." (which is a bit like the German equivalent of saying "I support Trump") in Germany though and you are villified beyond belief and declared an Unperson, so while I may agree with your point in general, Germany certainly isn't a great example to support it.
Where I live, people pulled down AfD signs or defaced them. The unpersoning is not helpful. The ideas won't go away, and the people who think the AfD raises good questions will only feel persecuted (because they are).
The worst part is that the ones who hate the AfD don't know why they do and are unable to counter their arguments.
I see everyone's forgotten the reason the far right are banned in Germany. Remember, Hitler won a democratic election, and (by implication) the popular debate.
He was not. Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the president Hindenburg, it is not some obscure fact and can be googled in 5 seconds. I am confused why people keep insisting on such an obvious lie to be honest. Especially in this topic: Weimar Republic experienced the same degree of polarization and the breakdown of political process as the US is experiencing now. Instead of trying to make a new history it's worth reflecting on what is the next step after the political parties decide that their opposition is not worth any argument and needs to be eliminated.
While this is true, that he was in charge of the party which won more votes than any other in an election is definitely something I count as “winning an election”.
While I am also concerned about the breakdown of political discourse in the USA (and, to a lesser degree, the UK), I don’t think it’s reached the level of late Weimar Republic.
It's fine that you count somebody doing something other than winning an election as winning an election, that's why I asked the original poster what did he mean by that.
And, in the same sense, we do not have the same level of polarization: we don't close the opposition newspapers, only websites/social network accounts, so definitely not the same, we don't ban parties yet (just harass them through selective law enforcement and impede their ability to raise funds) and only one party so far has the enforcers (coincidentally borrowing the name and attributes of the one of KPD from 1920s). Also, economically, we have much lower inflation.
> Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the president Hindenburg
In the same sense that Boris Johnson was appointed PM by Queen Elizabeth II; constitutional systems in which the head of government is appointed by the head of state, based largely on control of Parliament, but sometimes with bounded discretion where there is no clear parliamentary majority, are rather common models.
Had Hitler’s party not won the plurality of seats, or had other parties that could work together in a coalition had more seats, he would not have been appointed chancellor.
Controlling the largest bloc that can work together is winning a parliamentary election; not as total a victory as winning an outright majority, but—in the constitutional and political context in which the Nazis did it—a rather sufficient one.
In Germany you can vote for lowering taxes without voting for AfD, while in USA the entire right wing block gets the same hate as AfD does in Germany. That makes the American situation extremely different, most people who vote for Republicans aren't racist etc, they just care about lowering taxes and Republicans is the only party that you can vote for to get that. USA's political system causes this issue.
Unless you get 95% of people to use such an extension, it will be mostly useless. And if somebody succeeded in getting 95% of people to use their extension, they would sell it to the highest bidder in a heartbeat, as has happened many times before. YouTube is dead, it's time to create something new.
> We want 'order' first, which can enable a bit of prosperity, and then the slow grind to basic freedoms, it's generally the only path.
Why did you invade Iraq then plunging it into total chaos and support ISIS in Syria against the Assad regime? Why did you overthrow the Gaddafi regime in Libya. All of these actions have led to an incredible destabilization and power vaccuum in the entire region, completely destroyed the 'order' you claim you want, led to the rise of terror groups in the region and to a migration crisis of epic proportions.
>>>Why did you invade Iraq then plunging it into total chaos and support ISIS in Syria against the Assad regime? Why did you overthrow the Gaddafi regime in Libya.
Both of these governments were attempting to sell oil for something other than US dollars. Threats to the Petrodollar system are NOT tolerated by the Galactic Empire.
Iraq was already destabilized with daily NATO air missions overhead for a decade, Libya and Syria were plunged into civil war long before any kind of intervention.
The Americans don't like it when you mess with their petrodollar, but they're not going to fight a war over it.
FYI not answering the complicated questions about 'why USA invaded Iraq', but rather pointing out the 'Petrodollar' conspiracy is a canard. If you're looking for an indirect strategic issue to talk about you can just say 'Energy Security' was a factor, which of course it is, but it's still only one factor.
Americans are not going to fight a war over it, but they are led to fight a war over it and believing they are not fighting a war over money. I think that's how politics work. Money are used to manipulate Americans and do something so that money can find more money. I don't believe a single American want to destroy another country, but in the end, it is what it looks like. Unfortunately, the military industry is too powerful in this democratic country.
Obviously the populist case for war is different than the strategic case, but that doesn't mean it's about 'money' directly. US engagement in M/E is about a number of things, Energy Security being one of them, which is a legitimate interest of the US.
And of course, the US did and does not control the Oil Fields in Iraq, they didn't cut a deal (like with Saudi) for access to the Oil, all of the energy benefits go to other nations. So in this case, there's scant evidence 'it was about Oil'.
And the Petrodollar is a small thing, it's a side show.
>>>Iraq was already destabilized with daily NATO air missions overhead for a decade
Air missions which didn't prevent Saddam from switching from dollars to euros.[1] Clearly a more permanent solution was needed. General Wesley Clark stated as early as September 2001, leveraging post-9/11 sentiment, the US had decided to invade Iraq.[2]
>>>Libya and Syria were plunged into civil war long before any kind of intervention
The Libyan protests evolved into armed conflict/open revolt roughly around February 21st, when Qaddafi's Air Force bombed Tripoli.[3] Operation Odyssey Dawn began on March 19th, less than 30 days later.[4] In Syria, we didn't take overt interest in regime change, we merely occupied the most oil-rich portions of the country, which the central government lost control of early anyway.[5] Assad can't threaten the Petrodollar if he doesn't have oil to sell, and regime change would mean threatening Russia's access to the warmwater port in Latakia, arguably the reason Russia intervened. That would be an escalation with the Ruskies that I don't think we are prepared to risk.
>>>The Americans don't like it when you mess with their petrodollar, but they're not going to fight a war over it
Sure we will. Even the French will go to war to prop up the sphere of influence of their currency.[6]
Saddam's selling in Euro's had nothing to do with anything, and yes, there were obviously people who wanted to complete the overthrow of Saddam, which points to the obvious issue that Iraq2 was a continuation of Iraq1.
Your comments about Libya are not relevant and add nothing to the argument. There was an uprising, eventually it became violent, Qaddaffi ordered an incursion into E. Libya in which he publicly declared the intention of massacre, which practically forced the hand of observing parties. We could be on one wide or the other, there were no good outcomes.
Your speculation about Assad is fabricated, and historical assertions equally so.
1) The US did not 'occupy' any part of Syria.
2) Your claims about Assad's inability to sell Oil in other denominations due to his lack of control of Oil Fields is clearly disproven by the fact that he controls those areas right now, at this time. By your logic, he should be warring against the Petro dollar?
The conflict in Syria has nothing to do with the Petrodollar.
"Even the French will go to war to prop up the sphere of influence of their currency.[6]"
Despite the obvious flaw in your premise in that the French do not have a currency , your claim is not remotely substantiated by the link you provided.
You do understand that providing links to irrelevant information doesn't help your case?
Stop with the fictional conspiracy fantasies and reading as evidence bits of information that have little or nothing to do with the situation.
>>>Saddam's selling in Euro's had nothing to do with anything
So rather than comprehend the second and third order effects of a major oil exporter not adhering to the US's strategic imperative in the oil markets, your debate position is to stick your fingers in your ears and say "Not listening"?
>>>Your comments about Libya are not relevant and add nothing to the argument.
Nice attempt to move the goalposts. You stated: "Libya and Syria were plunged into civil war long before any kind of intervention". We intervened less than 30 days after the commencement of hostilities. So your statement is false. If you are going to step into the conversation calling another's post "total nonsense" in your first sentence, you should probably have the details dialed in, lest ye embarrass yourself.
>>>1) The US did not 'occupy' any part of Syria.
How do you debate with someone who can't even agree on the meaning of words? What else do you call it when SOF and Marines maintain bases IN SYRIA in vicinity of high-value terrain for years? Our presence there is denying the sovereign government usage of those economic assets.
>>>2) Your claims about Assad's inability to sell Oil in other denominations due to his lack of control of Oil Fields is clearly disproven by the fact that he controls those areas right now, at this time.
At any rate, that wasn't the original argument I was trying to make but I can see the source of confusion: @datenarsch mentioned 3 countries (Iraq, Syria, Libya). I commented on the Petrodollar with respect to two of them: (Iraq, Libya), without articulating that Syria's strategic considerations had centered around other problems (Qatari natgas pipelines, Shia crescent, etc...).
>>>Despite the obvious flaw in your premise in that the French do not have a currency , your claim is not remotely substantiated by the link you provided.
I'll admit I completely garbled my point on that one. Qadafi originally stockpiled gold for his African dinar project. The email leak shows that Libyan threats to influence over Francophone Africa were sufficient for French leadership to take military action. So it stands to reason that the world's pre-eminent military power (America), would factor economic incentives into its Use of Force calculus. But don't take my word for it; I'm sure Alan Greenspan is better informed than either of us on the subject: https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=7QUoBM3p87MC&lpg=PA119&o...
> Otherwise I see a very dark future where super large companies kill people's livelihoods and nothing can be done.
What do you mean future? This is already the reality. I recall reading multiple threads here on HN in the last couple of months alone where people lost access to their Google accounts and only got it back because they happened to have a somewhat bigger following on Twitter or elsewhere. I think it's safe to assume that for each of these cases there are many others where the victims don't happen to be influential online personas and their cases just go unnoticed.
It is not OP's house though. He is just another employee, so it's none of his business to worry about this. Your argument sounds just like an excuse to morally justify snitching on co-workers.