John Carmack is my spirit animal. I like reading his thoughts because they give me strange insight into the way he thinks "sideways" sometimes - even if I disagree with them, I always enjoy an outside perspective.
Well, that's potentially horrifying. I would love for someone to attempt this in as controlled of a manner as possible. I would assume it's possible for anyone using Google DNS servers to also trigger some type of metadata inspection resulting in this type of situation as well.
Also - when you say banned, you're speaking of the "red screen of death" right? Not a broader ban from the domain using Google Workplace services, yeah?
> Also - when you say banned, you're speaking of the "red screen of death" right?
Yes.
> I would love for someone to attempt this in as controlled of a manner as possible.
I'm pretty confident they scanned a URL in GMail to trigger the blocking of my domain. If they've done something as stupid as tying GMail phishing detection heuristics into the safe browsing block list, you might be able to generate a bunch of phishy looking emails with direct links to someone's login page to trigger the "red screen of death".
falsified paperwork is better than no paper trail in the event planes start falling out of the sky - spotting one moderate falsification could very well lead to further verification when it comes to investigations deemed important by the public.
Ah, yes, no paperwork, I completely forgot about that. It's even more common than fake doing stuff.
Don't be so confident that falsification can be spotted. It usually can't. Or require very time-consuming cross-checks that I never saw happen in my entire 20y career, such as comparing the number times an internal control was run vs. the quantity of consumables used in the process that were bought.
In case of Boeing, the other problem is... who's going to look before the plane crashes?
Yeah, but sometimes "if your negligence kills these people we will put you in jail" is exactly how you get people to pay attention. The vital part is closing the loop.
I disagree. That's not how it works. Responsibility is a product of education and environment, not a product of fear. Fear makes people avoid responsibility, not assume it.
Fear is a phenomenal backstop to responsibility, and in fact most aviation safety relies on the fact that pilots don't want to die.
Paperwork should be regularly audited and discrepancies investigated. The other nice thing about fear is that it should be very specific - people should know exactly what they have to do to not feel it.
I've had this conversation at least three times on HN. I'm convinced anyone who says that Firefox has a thousand issues simply doesn't use Firefox. But, I'm always open to being wrong. Can you point out the specific issues Firefox has that make it a second rate experience?
Fx user here since it was called Phoenix and cookies were called delicious delicacies in the options, and Mozilla browser before that. IMO as a power user, it is a second-rate browser. The bar is set by [Opera v12](https://get.geo.opera.com/pub/opera/linux/1216/).
* no spatial browsing, not even as an extension. This feature alone I would use literally thousands of times a week.
* no fit to width
* no cycle display images enable/disable/cached
* cannot edit menus or icons as simple configuration file
* no tab thumbnails
* reader mode that actually always works every single time, not just when the browser feels like it
* no editable key bindings
* no shortcuts for highlighting next/prev URL, next/prev heading, next/prev element
* no presentation mode
* no panelise web page
* no navigation bar
My argument is primarily against commenters on HN who claim Firefox to be unusable, bug-filled, and then blame Mozilla for the current Blink-based browser apocalypse.
You feel that Firefox doesn't have a bunch of features that you would use - but those are not bugs. I recognize this is HN - where there will definitely be a higher percentage of power users, but an open source project not having the features you want doesn't make it a second-rate browser, it just means it would take more work for you to customize. Listing cred of having used FF in the Mozilla days is the same as saying Linux is second rate because you installed Caldera back when people were still scared of Y2K.
As a daily FF user - Firefox is great. And more users should give it a whirl, especially ones that haven't used it in a decade.
Can you give some examples? Because personally, I don't remember any period where personal projects weren't normally hacked together, but my experience only goes back to the early 2000s. It would be interesting to hear your memories of it.
I'm not alone in this and we don't need to go much further back than the early '00s! Great time to sample from.
I had a Mac at the time so here's some from the top of my head that I remember being very popular: Quicksilver and LaunchBar, NetNewsWire, Coda and Transmit (anything from Panic, really),
Growl, AudioHijack and Soundflower, Unarchiver, iA Writer... these were insanely well crafted apps with no real competition from big companies in that regard.
Apple infamously capitalized on this indy development phenomenon with the creation of the AppStore model in 2008, first on the iPhone and later on the Mac.
Outside of this ecosystem I can remember WinAmp, Total Commander, WinRar, 7-zip, VLC, Foobar, mIRC, Paint.NET, μTorrent, FileZilla, Reaper, SublimeText...
Macromedia was a medium sized company with huge global success for their size, and they had some of the best software out there at the time before their acquisition. Adobe immediately polluted it.
Thoughtful, ad-free, bloat free, passion-driven software with attention to detail, good design and great performance was an attribute of small independent teams, not big software companies.
If senior management feels their destiny is not in their control, they're doing it wrong. The best management don't always have the most expertise - but the good ones have an uncanny ability to know when they should defer, when/who to consult with, who to trust, and what to delegate.
I agree with this article. But, I do think it's important to understand that these tools do have value - especially when learning. I also think a lot of the issues raised will improve when we can increase context length. Googling problems, and having obsolete answers from 2007 also slow down progress, but we're not saying Google is worthless for serving those results.
These tools will get better, and they will eventually allow the best to extend their ability instead of both slowing them down and potentially encouraging bad practices. But it will take time, and increased context length. The world is full of people who don't care about best practice, and if that's all the task requires of them - keep on keeping on.
Ironic that JPMorgan Chase demands suppliers improve security while neglecting basic practices, like crediting vulnerability researchers [1]. With 18% YoY profit growth in 2024 [2], they could easily allocate additional resources to drive meaningful industry-wide change that would benefit all of us.
Maybe the real issue is they choose to bring in lower quality suppliers that they deemed to be "good enough", instead of hiring quality, and building robust internal process to make sure the type of feedback is brought to the suppliers directly - with examples, and well thought out suggestions instead of this notice posted on the office fridge.
To me, this looks like a lack of will for financial commitment rather than an industry-wide plague that's impervious to the ultimate resource to fix nearly every problem we face - willpower and an increased budget.
