5 ms·
No.
by textfiles 2y ago
No.
- ai_what 2y ago> Please don't post shallow dismissals https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- sirtaj 2y agoThe user you're responding to is Jason Scott of TIA.
- ai_what 2y agoOh sorry, I guess that makes it a very detailed and well though-out response.
- Brian_K_White 2y agoIt does, yes. The single word, from that source, on this topic, communicates all relevant information.
- youcantcook 2y ago[dead]
- textfiles 2y agoHackernews, it never disappoints.
- aaron695 2y ago[dead]
- Tao3300 2y ago[flagged]
- decremental 2y ago[dead]
- user_7832 2y ago> Don't be snarky. Also from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Freak_NL 2y agoThat would have been an excellent addition to that comment.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- matsemann 2y agoWhat's the significance of that? (Googling "Jason Scott TIA" gives me "Dr Jason Scott is a Senior Research Fellow in the Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture" which doesn't explain much to me)
- ziddoap 2y agoThe beauty of acronyms/initialisms that people are too lazy to spell out! TIA = The Internet Archive (i.e. the victim of the DDoS). >The user you're responding to is Jason Scott of The Internet Archive
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jkrejcha 2y agoJason Scott works at the Internet Archive[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Scott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Scott
- gumby 2y agoThe Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture are well known for their work on biological models of computer security architecture. I am shocked that any HN reader could be ignorant of this fact. Their director is a (controversial) Turing Award winner.
- ASalazarMX 2y ago
- humanfromearth9 2y agoShallow dismissal anyway, even if he was the Supreme Majestic King of New Americania. He might further explain his answer. And I'm truly sorry for the DDos happening to this guy's organisation!
- sirtaj 2y agoWhat is there to explain further?
- LegionMammal978 2y agoSome evidence or reasoning that there's nothing damning anywhere on IA that anyone could possibly need kept quiet to the point of having ordered this particular attack. Just being the target of an attack doesn't mean you have perfect information about the perpetrator or their motives. This could even be as simple as "Some aspect of the attack pattern is inconsistent with such a motive", or "We spotted the perpetrator credibly gloating about it". But just from IA's public statements, the pattern ("launching tens of thousands of fake information requests per second") is quite consistent with simple denial.
- dspillett 2y agoWhich without context that is not given I certainly didn't know, so it isn't safe to expect others to know to. Are we supposed to dig into people's profiles to derive relevant context?
- Brian_K_White 2y agoOne could also argue that this is merely being conversant on the topic one is conversing on. And not taking on the job of police when you don't know as much as you think you do, such as the speakers whose speech you presume to police. You might not know the significance of "textfiles says no", but you do know that in general it's a thing that on HN, sometimes the rando is no rando, and you do know that you're not dang. That's all it takes to avoid looking like a douche. And soon enough some comment or other would fill in the significance, from someone else looking like a douche and having it explained to them. Jason could have added "Internet Archive here, it's not that." But he would have to say that in front of every comment he ever writes, which I think would get old for him and probably no small number of other people would criticize that too "yesss we know you work for IA FFS get over yourself..." I think it's fine for him to just speak and let everyone else take care of themselves.
- dspillett 2y ago> but you do know that in general it's a thing that on HN, sometimes the rando is no rand Sometimes. More often than many other places we could mention. But in the majority of cases, even here, a rando is a rando. And if the randos see the accepted conventions being ignored without comment it might encourage them to do it more. > Jason could have added I'd argue should have. > But he would have to say that in front of every comment he ever writes Only comments where it is significantly relevant, or in this case where his experience and proximity to the issue at have might be considered enough to ignore the standard commenting conventions.