Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | nailer's commentslogin

> Stop anthropomorphizing them.

They hate it when you do that.


> The first one is utterly stupid.

OK, why?

> Housing is a very complex issue

OK, why?

> Does the calculation made in the answer makes any sense: absolutely not.

OK, why?

There's no point in participating in any kind of adult discussion if you're not going to provide supporting arguments for your own points.


> > The first one is utterly stupid.

> OK, why?

Come on. I literally spent the rest of the comment on that. …

> > Housing is a very complex issue

> OK, why?

Because you can't increase it enough without also tanking the real estate market. And because homelessness has many factors you can't fix with a one size fits all solution.

> > Does the calculation made in the answer makes any sense: absolutely not.

> OK, why?

Because nobody is ever going to pay a brand new home to each homeless every year (which is what the calculation is about).

There's no point in participating in any kind of adult discussion if you can't read the other's comment. Also brandolini's law.


Feels odd for an infosec blog to use 'doxxing' this way. Doxxing is generally considered to be unethical exposure of personal information.

Identifying a criminal is ethical.


"Doxxing" is from the 90s and was used to describe a hacker unmasking another hacker so they could be arrested. That's almost exactly the same usage as here.

Semantic shift happens over time. A 2026 article is supposed to communicate to 2026, not 1996, readers.

Germany is a bit backwards.

Wut? The headline is from Krebs on Security, not from the German authorities.

I can't find it in the jargon file: http://catb.org/jargon/html/D.html

It comes from leetspeak. Identity documents -> docs -> dox

(someone really needs to make a new jargon file, if not out of practicality then for archival reasons)

I think they obviously just took it as 'exposure of personal information' period.

>Identifying a criminal is ethical.

This outsourcing of one's morals to the state is excessive even by already high western white collar internet standards.

Now, make no mistake, these guys are up to no good and probably should be identified and prosecuted, but to just declare that a bad thing is now good because government is doing it is basically an abdication of one's moral compass. At best this is still a bad thing but a necessary one because all the other options are worse. Like shooting someone in self defense, or putting someone in a cage for doing sufficiently bad things.

Edit: I'll admit I played too loose with ethics vs morality here, but still the point stands.


Certainly, criminals also have a right to privacy. However, the limited publication of personal data of criminals by law enforcement is generally a legally legitimate measure. Doxxing, on the other hand, is generally a process that violates the fundamental right to privacy.

>criminals

>law

>legally

You keep using these words but it causes circular logic as those are all defined by the same entity that is acting unilaterally.

The action the government took was not a "good" action by any moral standard. But it was perhaps the least worse action available all things considered. Can't just whisk people off the street in a foreign country or drone them over such matters, those options would be worse.


Running a ransomware gang is immoral. Catching someone running a ransomware gang is good. If publishing their name helps catch them, it's also good. Not sure where do you see the gap between legality and morality in this case

People often forget that Threat Actors (TA) are the ones keeping the infosec alive. They are doing a good job of scaring people into implementing actual security protocols and thereby improving everyone's security posture. The whole infosec would collapse without TAs, let's not forget that. They create jobs.

This is the “Broken Window” fallacy[1] which was explained by Bastiat.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window


[flagged]


It's not a "made-up term", it's shorthand for a well-known argument. Not allowing re-usable arguments is like not allowing the use of libraries in software: It wastes time better spent on moving the frontier forward.

If economic growth at all cost is the solution, then you are wasting your time giving your fiction away for free.

The wildfire industry brings growth but it would be a whole lot better if we didn't have wildfires.

The same thing is true with computers. Imagine all the nice things we could have if we didn't have to worry about people abusing the systems we build.


Get down to earth. That can never happen nor does it need to.

Well, to be honest, those old enough remember when cryptography was considered someting for the military and special services, and considering using encryption would put you under immediate suspicion. Now we can at least argue we need it to protect us from the cyber crime, even if we really have privacy and free speech in mind

That's right. They also create jobs for police though, and now German police is doing theirs

German govt is also one of the most corrupt and vastly incompetent govt. It's run by bunch of boomers. Most of the prolific ransomware gangs have terrible opsec. De-anon'ing them is child's play. Most of the opsec-aware TAs never even get attributed, let alone get caught for any breaches.

> One of the most corrupt

It's on like place 10 out of 180, which makes it one of the least corrupt places.

It also has some surprisingly non-boomer departments, like the Sovereign Tech Fund. Either way you need to celebrate police doing good things and immoral actors being exposed, it can only have good outcomes.

Perhaps it deters them, or deters the next generation of such hackers. Or at least it makes their life less enjoyable, which is fair since they were only able to afford their travels due to their illicitly acquired wealth.


> surprisingly non-boomer departments, like the Sovereign Tech Fund

The one that has just invested in Scala? In year 2026? There are many good things about Germany, but competence in tech is not one of them.


> You keep using these words but it causes circular logic as those are all defined by the same entity that is acting unilaterally.

It's not, in Germany we have separation of powers.

> The action the government took was not a "good" action by any moral standard.

Morals aren't binary. Morals have context.


Is it your position that privacy is a right regardless of any action you take? Many rights are dependent on circumstance and in tension with other rights. In this case I think you can make the case that their right to privacy is lost.

> Doxxing, on the other hand, is generally a process that violates the fundamental right to privacy.

It historically was used for this exact case: revealing someone hiding behind a pseudonym for purposes of law enforcement. The term dates back to the 90s, if not earlier.

This isn't something Gen Z made up. It's a Gen X term. "Hack the gibson" era. Wargames era.


Doxxing is basically a DDOS reflection attack but for real violence, or threat thereof, instead of 1s and 0s.

I might want to do violence upon you for some reason. Maybe I hate you. Maybe you're doing something that I don't like. If I'm lucky I can round up half a dozen buddies to help. But I don't have infinite resources and infinite reach, so my capability is rather laughable unless you live next door.

Buuuut, if I craft it just right, I can cause the state with it's practically infinite resources, infinite men with guns who kick in doors, etc, etc to choose to kick in your door and do violence upon you. (And the request usually looks a lot like doing their job for them "hey look over here there's this specific person doing this specific thing that you're supposed to go after", but that's beside the point.)

Same as how if I craft a request to a 3rd party server just right a few Kb of on my end can become dozens of Mb on yours.

The German police can't reach these guys. Hence why they're doxing them. They're hoping to structure things such that those who can reach them respond to the request (i.e. rounding up these guys will be a line item in some larger geopolitical context).


not the state, but the law

Innocent until proven guilty (in a court of law)?

ethics and morality are not interchangeable are they?

anyway individuals willingly give to teh state some autonomy in return for the safety of governance... that's the social contract free people have with government

"doxxing" a Russian ransomware group is the kind thing to do. bombing them out of existence is within the remit of the range of ideas a government could resort to...


Not disagreeing with your preface but I was under the impression that while it took governments some time to figure things out, kinetic bombing in retaliation for cyberwarfare was pretty much ruled out unless the cyberwarfare results in direct mass casualties (for example cyber sabotaging a refinery results in an explosion which results in casualties.). Else we’d have bombed North Korea, China, Ukraine, Russia, Romania, etc.

Yeah bombing as a counter to cyber attacks is a last ditch Pandora’s box thing

"Identifying a criminal" doesn't imply that it's done by the government, and being done by the government doesn't imply that it's done to a criminal. This comment seems like quite a leap.

It's the government who defines what "criminal" means.

Not necessarily. I'm free to make my own determination on the matter.

You are certainly free to make up your own definitions for words and speak a dialect that is niche but you will not be effectively communicating when you do. By commonly understood definition criminality is a matter of law.

Well, the dude here hasn't been put on trial, let alone convicted, as far as I can tell from the article. So he's not officially considered a criminal by a government. Yet we all seem comfortable calling him one, so I'd say that it is not, in fact, commonly understood to be exclusively a matter of law.

Depends on who's laws you're following.

Is it ethical to dox a pregnant woman seeking an abortion in a southern US state?

Is it ethical to dox a gay human rights defender in Russia?

Is it ethical to dox a woman seeking an education in Afghanistan?

Not all criminals have done something wrong.


> Identifying a criminal is ethical.

I agree that “doxxing” is being misused in TFA, but criminals have privacy rights like anyone else. Violating these rights requires specific justification, it’s not automatically ethical.


They put the person on a wanted list.

My comment isn’t about this specific case. It’s about the general claim.

I mean doxxing is totally incorrect. Let's say for example there was a person on film near a crime scene, even though the police know they weren't directly involved there is no violation of privacy in the US if the police post their picture and ask for them to come forward. Or even later find out their name and look for them publically.

> GPU is limited by the Thunderbolt port

I thought Thunderbolt was like pluggable PCI? The whole point was not to limit peripherals.


There's more to peripheral limits than the protocol used. Thunderbolt connections offer higher latency and limits on bandwidth. Both, either, or neither of those things may be much of an actual problem (depending on the use case) but they are some examples of limits vs native PCIe.

Couldn't they generate shaders for every model of card on the client side (or popular ones in their lab), and share them?

First person with a a Gigabyte Shlerp RTX 8000 compiles shaders and uploads them, everyone else gets the precompiled shaders.

I don't know what I'm talking about so gamedevs feel free to correct me.


> Nvidia’s Auto Shader Compiler is distinct from Microsoft’s Advanced Shader Delivery system, which lets developers generate databases of precompiled shaders that can be downloaded ahead of time to align with a player’s specific system. Nvidia said earlier this month that it is “working closely with Microsoft” to add Advanced Shader Delivery support to its GeForce RTX line “later this year.”

Shaders are mini programs running on GPU. It is possible to exploit them as vulnerability. You do not want to trust client provided executable code.

Idk, seems like a reasonable hurdle to overcome. What if everybody compiles them and sends them in for a brief period and the server picks the most common results.

Yep - so maybe signed from NVIDIA's lab for the top n cards?

> The headline seems pretty misleading.

Yes. I was expecting LinkedIn was connecting to extensions that are using their exhanced privileges to scan your computer, per the "LinkedIn Is Illegally Searching Your Computer" headline.

Instead, LinkedIn is scanning for extensions.


Helping people with ALS speak again seems worthy, as does helping humanity become a multi planetary species.

Is throwing up "1 million satellites" going to do those things?

How about running DOGE and gutting USAID?

Or helping Trump get elected? Was that a worthy endeavour? How's that working out for the average American (or anyone else on the planet) with four dollar gas and five dollar diesel?


Bringing satellite coverage to the world, including Iran and Ukraine is noble, yes.

As is volunteering to help get rid of waste and fraud, particularly when his time could be spent on more lucrative pursuits.

There are more things to life than the price of gas.


> Bringing satellite coverage to world, including Iran and Ukraine is noble, yes.

Are we including cutting off Ukraine’s coverage at keys times? Or Russian usage?

No need to discuss the DOGE bit, no one believes that trillion dollar saving was real.

‘Musk the Noble’ sure has a smell to it.


> cutting off Ukraine’s coverage at keys times?

The only 'key times' were Ukrainian military usage of Starlink inside Russia. Ukraine was given Starlink to use to defend Ukraine, not attack Russia.

> Or Russian usage?

Which was explicitly identified and cut off.

> No need to discuss the DOGE bit

Exactly. Nobody can defend fraud and abuse. Since your main issue is that the savings weren't as big as expected it sounds like you know that.


> The only 'key times' were Ukrainian military usage of Starlink inside Russia. Ukraine was given Starlink to use to defend Ukraine, not attack Russia.

Fighting without hurting the enemy? What’s the point? The approach of the Trump administration is just letting Ukraine bleed out.

Russian starlink usage has only just been cut off, how many years did that take?

> Nobody can defend fraud and abuse

This administration is anti-fraud and anti-abuse?


> Fighting without hurting the enemy?

No. Nobody said that except you.

> What’s the point?

Getting Russia out of the Ukraine.

> Russian starlink usage has only just been cut off

No. Russians have tried to use Starlink in late 2023 early 2024, there were no direct or indirect sales and terminals were disabled on a blacklist basis. They moved from a blacklist to a whitelist in February this year.

> This administration is anti-fraud and anti-abuse

In some ways, yes. I won't defend "Trump coin" but it's pretty clear with things like USAID, Minnesota child care center scams, and the California hospice scam the democrats were in favour of and participated in fraud and abuse.


> the Ukraine.

Correcting self: Ukraine.


> Bringing satellite coverage to the world, including Iran and Ukraine is noble, yes.

The general "world" is getting connectivity just fine via mobile phones for a lot less than what it would cost them to get a Starlink system.

Useful for the war in Ukraine, not so useful in Iran:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Internet_blackout_in_Iran...

> As is volunteering to help get rid of waste and fraud, particularly when his time could be spent on more lucrative pursuits.

When did he do this? Are you referring to (LOL) DOGE? Nothing like raising unemployment without saving any money:

* https://www.cato.org/blog/doge-produced-largest-peacetime-wo...

* https://fordschool.umich.edu/news/2025/reality-doges-mediocr...

And let's not start on all the illegal actions:

* https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/10/elon-musk-do...

Those (supposed) efficiency cuts in (e.g.) USAID have been estimated to have caused many tens of thousands of deaths:

* https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(25)01186-9/full...

* https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hund...

And how much of the (alleged) money that was saved is now going towards the Iran war? The Pentagon is asking for $200B:

* https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2026/3/25/c...

> There are more things to life than the price of gas.

That is a very privileged view. In the US specifically, with its abysmal public transportation due to car-centric {ex,sub}urban design, a lot of people will need to pay more for getting to work and will have to cut back on (e.g.) groceries.

Globally, oil prices are wreaking havoc in all sorts of ways on daily life:

> Worsening fuel shortages resulting from the war in the Middle East are threatening sacred funeral ceremonies in Thailand, where Buddhist temples are scrambling to obtain diesel for cremations.

> The abbot of Wat Saman Rattanaram in Chachoengsao province, about 80km (50 miles) east of Bangkok, warned that a suspension of cremation services was a real possibility. Some petrol stations have run out of fuel, while others allow sales only to vehicle operators.

* https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/334692...


> Useful for the war in Ukraine, not so useful in Iran

Wikipedia isn't a source, but regardless Wikipedia confirms the utility of Starlink in the war.

> Are you referring to DOGE

Yes.

> without saving any money

Your source at Cato Institute confirm 150B.

> USAID have been estimated to have caused many tens of thousands of deaths

Lancet is a political advocacy magazine. USAID isn' an AID agency. Not funding gay and lesbian theatre in Serbia doesn't stop anyone from dying.

> much of the (alleged) money that was saved

You said zero money was saved earlier. What is it?

> is now going towards the Iran war?

It seems like a better investment than giving Iran 1.6 billion dollars to fund terrorism across the middle east, wouldn't you say?


> at least making the default much better by asking you every time they want to do something

Really? I thought 'asking you every time they want to do something' was called 'security fatigue' and generally considered to be a bad thing. Yes you can concatenate files in the current project, Claude.


Yes it has to be combined with a robust way to allowlist actions you trust

Oddly, since I wrote that Claude 'auto' mode just landed and I built something with it (instead of 'dangeously skip') and it's working.

> `fetch` is the official replacement for axios.

No. Axios is still maintained. They have not deprecated the project in favor of fetch.


I'm not saying that axios is unmaintained, I'm saying that if you want something like axios from the standard lib, fetch is the closest thing you get to official

Sure but Axios determine what the official replacement for Axios is.

It's not deprecated, it's obsoleted.

> Automation of dependency versions was never something we needed

How do you handle updating dependencies then?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: