ziddoap

9 ms·

61.
by ziddoap 1y ago
It's hard to "maliciously comply" or be obstructive to someone giving you 55% less budget. They just... give you less money. That's it. I guess you could slow down the firing process for a bit? That would be a minor obst
62.
by ziddoap 1y ago
"Hide perishable foods (fruit) in discreet locations of common areas" That's helpful for the conversation! Should I just keep clicking through this entire site until an answer related to my question appears? (It's a ne
63.
by ziddoap 1y ago
> I'm going to stay and fight and try to make whatever impact I can. Can you give me some examples of how you would fight? Boss comes in (or whoever more powerful than me, e.g. someone acting on the president's orders), says s
64.
by ziddoap 1y ago
First it was logs weren't mentioned. Then it was, well, logs were mentioned, but only to be turned off for the account creation process. Now it is, well, it was someone else who requested it and everything is speculation. > Try
65.
by ziddoap 1y ago
> You are being selective in your quotation: Rich, coming from the person who left the sentence about logs out of their comment and then said "No where in the complaint does it allege anyone asked for an audit-less account". &
66.
by ziddoap 1y ago
Like two lines up from your quote: "He specifically was told that there were to be no logs or records made of the accounts created for DOGE employees" That sure sounds like no logs. If you don't believe the whistleblower, j
67.
by ziddoap 1y ago
> "Tenant-admin" isn't such a radical thing Admin accounts without logs is extremely radical. I have literally never seen it, or had anyone request it, in my decade+ of consulting in security. Unless you think the whist
68.
by ziddoap 1y ago
> I think some people might be reading this as dismissive criticism. This is exactly what I thought. I downvoted (now removed) thinking that it was a random passerby being dismissive.
69.
by ziddoap 1y ago
> That comment has exactly what you're asking for No, it doesn't. I was hoping to read something that addressed this specific paper. All of those links are papers published before Lior Shamir's paper was published. The co
70.
by ziddoap 1y ago
> Yet, my privacy rights always imply a lessening of someone else's right to knowledge. Is there a "right to knowledge"? I'm aware of rights to speech, thought, movement, conscious, religion, expression, assembly, as
71.
by ziddoap 1y ago
Thanks. I was hoping for something a bit more authoritative than a reddit comment being copy/pasted to HN (e.g. an actual retraction, or a paper directly disputing the findings), but I'm guessing most of the community just ignored
72.
by ziddoap 1y ago
I looked around (Smithsonian, space.com, astronomy.com, etc.), but nowhere has any mention of people disputing the findings, do you have a link? Who is "people" in this case? (I was/am skeptical just because it's a singl
73.
by ziddoap 1y ago
> My point is that's pretty much all arguments, except maybe some very obtuse ones no one really cares about. There is a distinct difference between a person having emotions while arguing, and using an appeal to emotion as a rhetor
74.
by ziddoap 1y ago
> The the GP was using "emotional" to dismiss the kind of arguments I'm dismissing arguments that are designed to appeal to (and manipulate) the emotions of the person listening. Such as the three examples I gave, which a
75.
by ziddoap 1y ago
> RUB For those not in-the-know, this is "Ruhr University Bochum". https://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/en They have quite a good reputation in the security research space.
76.
by ziddoap 1y ago
> Are you some galaxy brain, coldly observing humanity from some ivory tower constructed of pure software? I just think arguments based on appeals to emotion are very often fallacious. But sure, I guess that means I'm a... whatever
77.
by ziddoap 1y ago
I don't really want to hash this same thing out for the... At least hundredth time. You're not going to convince me, I'm not going to convince you, and we'll both just leave less happy if we keep going. > Whistleblowe
78.
by ziddoap 1y ago
> Meta is literally on trial right now For the social harm to children that they cause? I thought it was to break out WhatsApp & Instagram into their own entities from like a monopoly perspective, but I admit I am not keeping up on
79.
by ziddoap 1y ago
I'm not sure how this is answers my question at all. How many whistleblowers would have been killed without a secure way to blow the whistle? How many journalists and journalist sources would have been killed? Etc. These people aren&#x
80.
by ziddoap 1y ago
> where weaker encryption would have saved hundreds and hundreds of lives. Can you do the same thing, but in the other direction? How many people would have been harmed if weaker/no encryption was the standard?
81.
by ziddoap 1y ago
> but China is very much not our "friend" Sorry, but which part of my comment implied that I think they are?
82.
by ziddoap 1y ago
Between Meta/X and opioids, the USA is overtly doing serious damage to the USA, and most people don't care. (In all seriousness, I do agree that TikTok is awful, but I find the fascination with TikTok while ignoring all other soci
83.
by ziddoap 1y ago
> I would say this instead "The Federal Gov is making it easier for States to game the system". How is "game the system" not the same as "undermining election security"?
84.
by ziddoap 1y ago
> Then setup the system to be more analogous. Make the publication of key issuance under this mechanism public after a period of time. That (somewhat, barely) addresses one of ~dozen issues with the proposal. > Again, I see us fallin
85.
by ziddoap 1y ago
To reduce any risks, almost everything PKI-related is conducted in public, is auditable by anyone, and is a cooperation between dozens of distinct entities located globally. This is not analogous to a single government having non-transparen
86.
by ziddoap 1y ago
> You should engage with the arguments the other side makes. The arguments are "Protect the children.", "Catch terrorists.", "Catch criminals.". Those arguments have been engaged with for decades. They are
87.
by ziddoap 1y ago
I can never tell when someone posts something like this if it is a joke or not. In case it isn't, there are many weaknesses and vulnerabilities which Rust does not protect from.
88.
by ziddoap 1y ago
> Where do I admit this? About fines? Yes, fines don't work. Yes, about fines. From your post: "Ah, yes, fines for companies are not enough. I agree." > they would lose 100% of revenue. We can't get the governm
89.
by ziddoap 1y ago
> "So yes, I get it: we shouldn’t trust companies, or even FOSS projects, to self-report. Unless…what if we made penalties so large for not reporting, and for getting it wrong, that they would fall over themselves to do so?" W
90.
by ziddoap 1y ago
Yeah, definitely not a bad thing. This just piqued my curiosity and is in a field I'm not super familiar with, so I'm just trying to wrap my head around it. Thanks for the interesting tool!

More ›