To be clear, usually there’s an approval gate. Something is generated automatically but a product or business person has to actually approve the alert going out. Behind the scenes everyone internal knows shit is on fire (unless they have shitty monitoring, metrics, and alerting which is true for a lot of places but not major cloud or SaaS providers).
Speaking from 10+ YoE developing metrics, dashboards, uptime, all that shit and another 5+ on top of that at an exec level managing all that, this is bullshit. There is a disconnect between the automated systems that tell us something is down and the people that want to tell the outside world something is down. If you are a small company, there’s a decent chance you’ve launched your product without proper alerting and monitoring so you have to manually manage outages. If you are GitHub or AWS size, you know exactly when shit hits the fan because you have contracts that depend on that and you’re going to need some justification for downtime. Assuming a healthy environment, you’re doing a blameless postmortem but you’ve done millions of those at that scale and part of resolving them is ensuring you know before it happens again. Internally you know when there is an outage; exposing that externally is always about making yourself look good not customer experience.
What you’re describing is the incident management process. That also doesn’t require management input because you’re not going to wait for some fucking suit to respond to a Slack message. Your alarms have severities that give you agency. Again, small businesses sure you might not, but at large scale, especially with anyone holding anything like a SOC2, you have procedures in place and you’re stopping the bleeding. You will have some level of leadership that steps in and translates what the individual contributors are doing to business speak; that doesn’t prevent you from telling your customers shit is fucked up.
The only time a company actually needs to properly evaluate what’s going on before announcing is a security incident. There’s a huge difference between “my honeypot blew up” and “the database in this region is fucked so customers can’t write anything to it; they probably can’t use our product.” My honeypot blowing up might be an indication I’m fucked or that the attackers blew up the honeypot instead of anything else. Can’t send traffic to a region? Literally no reason the customer would be able to so why am I not telling them?
I read your response as either someone who knows nothing about the field or someone on the business side who doesn’t actually understand how single panes of glass work. If that’s not the case, I apologize. This is a huge pet peeve for basically anyone in the SRE/DevOps space who consumes these shitty status pages.
This is a common problem. Same thing happens with AWS outages too. Business people get to manually flip the switches here. It’s completely divorced from proper monitoring. An internal alert triggers, engineers start looking at it, and only when someone approves publishing the outage does it actually appear on the status page. Outages for places like GitHub and AWS are tied to SLAs that are tied to payouts or discounts for huge customers so there’s an immense incentive to not declare an outage even though everything is on fire. I have yelled at AWS, GitHub, Azure, and a few smaller vendors for this exact bullshit. One time we had a Textract outage for over six hours before AWS finally decided to declare one. We were fucking screaming at our TAM by the end because no one in our collective networks could use it but they refused to declare an outage.
I live in the US. I don’t really get any protections.
I bought two different Bluetooth controllers from them. The first one had a known issue with the shoulder buttons. Like an idiot, I bought a second one. Same problem. SteelSeries support told me it was a known issue and they wouldn’t do shit.
I refuse to support SteelSeries.
What you’re describing is closer to the nuance I’m interested in than WotC’s settings. If you read some of the later Lolth stuff, it’s the exact opposite of that. Evil is bad and the justification for anything always involves this trite movement from evil to good. They’re not presented as counterbalances or equal combatants. Even evil characters seem to always be working under the assumption that good characters are ultimately better.
The 40k universe has a lot of similarities. However, I’d argue its authors are somewhat better at presenting why Chaos is an equally valid choice or why the Orks can do whatever they want. There isn’t a clear choice (some authors are fucking terrible at this and drive WotC-style to the goodness of the Imperium).
The only reason WotC has to remove alignment from races is because WotC has made it very clear there is the thing people should want and there is the thing people should not want. That’s not an even layout of nine alignments. That’s a huge bias and all of their content reflects that.
I think a huge problem with this is trying to frame everything through D&D as well as our perspective. Fuck modern D&D and its desire to control the entire dialogue. Wizards of the Coast aside, there’s also a fantasy component here. I personally dislike requiring all races to act exactly like humans with human motives. From a specific perspective, we view the wanton murder and sacrifice of wood elves by the drow as a terribly evil thing. From the drow perspective, why can’t the opposite be true? I’m not talking about Salvatore’s one-sided writing that makes it clear the whole thing is a massive con. D&D is very biased toward human motive and perspective. Why can’t both be true? Drow are evil to us and we are evil to them? That’s a much more interesting story and completely changes the narrative around someone like Drizzt.
This is a really nuanced take on speculative fiction in general. I also strongly feel that, the way WotC writes things, removing racial alignment is very important. There is no nuance in their universe. Even when we see other races, we always evaluate their action through a human lens rather than being presented a cogent paradigm contrary to ours.
The only thing you need to know is that Randy Pitchford was involved. This guarantees it’s going to be a shitshow.
Just alias pdoman=podman. I do that with all my common typos.
That explanation runs counter to my experience with VC-funded companies, marketing budgets, and running in the red in general. Trying to hit as much of the total addressable market as possible means burning money. Notice how I expanded and included discounts? You don’t even get a 5% off code. Framework is making a profit so they can lose margin on a low percentage (if they’re not making a profit then there’s no reason to not throw away more to get closer to TAM anyway).
Board games run in the thousands for some of the bigger ticket items. I’m not sure you understand either market. I regularly crowdfund packages that are more than at least 25% of the Framework prices I’m skimming now.
You’ve done a great job summarizing the bad things they’re doing!
Game promos are usually expensive long-term because they’re produced in limited batches.
Most board game companies run off Kickstarter. Your distinction doesn’t really apply because it’s not normal to get external funding. Framework just hit their Series A which, usually, includes money for marketing and running in the red. Board game companies usually can’t run in the red.
I thought that there was no way this was unpaid and that the ambassadors would get Framework tech. Nope. You have to already own it. Doesn’t even seem like it comes with a discount even?
I am a product “ambassador” for several things in the gaming world. I get access to new things earlier and at a discounted rate. I get free promotional items that actually have some value. I sometimes get a per diem if I do certain events. I feel valued. I don’t get that vibe at all from this.
The problem is the underlying API. parseInt(“550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000”, 10) (this is a UUID) returns 550. If you’re expecting that input to not parse as a number, then JavaScript fails you. To some degree there is a need for things to provide common standards. If your team all understands how parseInt works and agrees that those strings should be numbers and continues to design for that, you’re golden.
I thought it was jiff
I’ve already provided you CFAA prosecutions and security professionals, both of which you can go find data on yourself. What more do you want? A third population? You want me to go link you all the data? Do I need to chew your food for you too? Every single time I provide an answer you move the goalposts further and further.
You made the unsubstantiated claim that started this thread and you are continuing to make claims that you yourself have provided no data for. I’m still waiting for you to provide real examples of left-wing hackers focusing on torrents as a vector like your original comment.
You have no idea what you’re talking about and you constantly double down. Have fun with that.
You really don’t know the landscape, do you? Gay or furry hackers do, in fact, make up a significant number of security professionals. There are a ton of in-jokes about exactly this. There are several gay, furry hacking groups active at the moment, probably representing a large percentage of active groups outside of nation state APTs.
Now you’re moving the goalposts. You’re saying left-wing hackers need to go after something other than torrents but you haven’t even show that happens yet. You don’t understand your linked story if you think that applies.
I think stats-wise, less than 10% of those convicted under the CFAA are right-wing. I don’t consider state actors to fall under the category of “hackers;” that’s probably a personal bias. I would want you to categorize those states as left or right and then provide stats since that’s your thing and you brought them in. You’ll also need to define where hacks for clout or cash land, since that’s a huge percentage of CFAA convictions.
What? A good chunk of hackers are left-wing and go after authoritarian or repressive targets. I have no idea what you’re referring to unless you’re talking about the recent Korean ISP story which is so far off from your categorization.
The other option is Poe’s Law.
Underworld die an episode on this (use the YouTube link to find your platform of choice per the creators). There’s a lot of controversy around the whole thing and there’s a chance this is being done to save face. There’s basically no plausible explanation for a major cartel leader being kidnapped in this way so insiders think it was arranged by the parties. Mexico calling it kidnapping is an interesting escalation.