asuffield

10 ms·

31.
by asuffield 10y ago
(Tedious disclaimer: my opinion only, not speaking for anybody else. I'm an SRE at Google. I don't know what's going on in this particular case, and I don't really want to, because it's probably a huge pile of lawye
32.
by asuffield 10y ago
The status quo is that the company whose questions you leaked will never hire you again in the future, and other tech companies who find out about this while researching you as a possible hire might also decide to never hire you. It's
33.
by asuffield 10y ago
The only plausible way for this to happen is for you to check all the "privacy" buttons in the settings, so that no recruiters can find you. Otherwise you should expect to receive a lot of recruiter spam.
34.
by asuffield 10y ago
Citation needed. The following sources disagree strongly with your claim: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.publhea... https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep
35.
by asuffield 10y ago
Antibiotic use in humans has rarely been a problem, it's the way that "restricted" antibiotics are used on lifestock freely and in large quantities that keeps screwing us over.
36.
by asuffield 10y ago
The reason why governments force construction companies to do this is because if they don't, it causes ghettoisation, through precisely the mechanism you describe. As a society, we have experimented sufficiently with ghettos as a city
37.
by asuffield 10y ago
(Tedious disclaimer: my opinion only, not speaking for anybody else. I'm an SRE at Google.) Google's been trying to do this for years, but the Mountain View city council keep blocking it. :(
38.
by asuffield 10y ago
This only works for services using TOTP mode; HOTP prevents replay/cloning attacks.
39.
by asuffield 10y ago
Detail: Google Authenticator is TOTP or HOTP, depending on how the service owner set it up.
40.
by asuffield 10y ago
> When you make something difficult to tamper with, you usually just increase the potential payout of tampering. The real goal is to make the cost of tampering exceed the payout. The standard mechanisms for increasing the cost are comput
41.
by asuffield 10y ago
Nobody would survive that with today's technology. This doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
42.
by asuffield 10y ago
(Tedious disclaimer: my opinion only, not speaking for anybody else. I'm an SRE at Google.) What you want to be thinking is: all of the attachments including malware . Safebrowsing is an anti-malware system. Large collections of unfil
43.
by asuffield 10y ago
Well, it sort of works: massively increasing the wealth of any third world country will shift it from "if you're poor then you starve and die" to "if you're poor then you are begging on the street and sometimes work
44.
by asuffield 10y ago
As somebody who has done this a few times: you run all the tests of all the projects on your change, and you don't feel bad if somebody has code that breaks and doesn't have a test that caught it.
45.
by asuffield 10y ago
I would agree with you here, and I think most googlers would too. We trust people to make sensible choices about this, and tend to be quite angry with blatant abuse, because it's abusing the trust as well as the perk.
46.
by asuffield 10y ago
> The food though...seems like everybody does it. The people who work here are the sort of people who don't, and that's intentional. Enjoy the things that are provided, but understand the context and intent behind them and don&
47.
by asuffield 10y ago
(Tedious disclaimer: my opinion only, not speaking for anybody else. I'm an SRE at Google.) > sometimes mining information to leak to organizer friends > After 9–12 hours on campus I would fill my Google-issued bag with Naked jui
48.
by asuffield 10y ago
It used to be a slightly different app on a different link, but that's gone now; this one is the replacement (and what the reception displays now use).
49.
by asuffield 10y ago
(Tedious disclaimer: my opinion only, not speaking for anybody else. I'm an SRE at Google.) One might describe it as a social botnet: somebody convinced a bunch of people to execute some code on their computer that sent automated searc
50.
by asuffield 10y ago
(Tedious disclaimer: my opinion only, not speaking for anybody else. I'm an SRE at Google.) It's just displaying this: https://www.google.com/trends/hottrends/visualize?nrow=5&nco...
51.
by asuffield 10y ago
There's a more compelling argument: if any of the large state actors were involved, they'd probably have done a more competent job of it. This all sounds pretty amateurish to me.
52.
by asuffield 10y ago
(Tedious disclaimer: my opinion only, not speaking for anybody else. I'm an SRE at Google.) I can happily endorse the company's public statements on this subject: personal data will be deleted within the timeframes specified (for
53.
by asuffield 10y ago
I don't understand where you think you can find the slightest shred of liberalism in this piece of legislation. This is very much old labour: maximising state power and control over individuals, because the state knows best. A liberal
54.
by asuffield 10y ago
(Tedious disclaimer: my opinion only, not speaking for anybody else. I'm an SRE at Google.) We run everything on prodimage, so operating system compatibility isn't really an issue. Realistically, any time somebody sends me a code
55.
by asuffield 10y ago
It's clearly a hug. Has been for decades. Just start reading it that way.
56.
by asuffield 10y ago
That depends primarily on what alternative you are proposing. If you aren't discussing a specific alternative, then it's just the kind of unproductive sniping that I object to.
57.
by asuffield 10y ago
Yes, it is precisely that. It's very easy to take shots at extremely rich people, because they won't bother to show up and defend themselves and nobody else will either. The main problem I have with this is that it's not very
58.
by asuffield 10y ago
Strongly correlates with socioeconomic status. This research is telling us: wealthy children grow up to be wealthy adults.
59.
by asuffield 10y ago
I might be wrong, and somebody who can speak for the company might contradict me in the future. I can only say anything with this proviso.
60.
by asuffield 10y ago
(Tedious disclaimer: my opinion only, not speaking for anybody else. I'm an SRE at Google.) > I've also heard that at Google they require assert isinstance for every parameter of every function. This is not true.

More ›