News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

famouslastwords

>I’ve always thought that quote itself was curiously absolute. ‘Only’, Yoda?

“Do. Or do not. There is no try.”

I always took it as Yoda unwittingly revealing himself as a Sith Lord. I mean, how much do we really know about this little fella's shady past? :D

Re:Who’s behind Wednesday’s epic Twitter hack? on Friday July 17, 2020 @01:43AM (#23867453)
>Agreed. This was most likely a "shot across the bow" by a state actor.

The hack would have been a powerful weapon if used in a more strategic way. A "shot across the bow" as a tactic is useless when the weapon can only be used a single time and never again. The code will be patched now.

>Also, the crystal clear implication that the damage done could have been far worse, would seem to indicate someone was sending a message.

That's hindsight knowledge. To me it looks more like an un-sophisticated actor that stumbled over a critical vulnerability and had to use it haphazardly before it somehow becomes obsolete with code update.

>From whom and to whom can only be the subject of speculation, but again, whoever did this must have known that the it would be interpreted as an attack from China to the USA. So either they didn't care because making that obvious was the whole point (ergo, attacker probably China), or the misdirection was the whole point (ergo, attacker probably a power that would stand to benefit from increased tension between USA and China).

Actually I don't see much speculation that China is behind the hack other than from the people who are quick to blame China anyway. The sloppy execution actually speaks against a nation-state actor. The loss of trust in Twitter only plays into Trump's hand regarding his personal feud with the platform.

>His pen name and his real name are already strongly linked in search engine space.

It's not.

I've been following the development of the drama for a while. And even though I know a thing or two about OSINT, I still don't know Scott Alexander's real full name.

>what was likely to be an enthusiastic article has been absolutely pathological

The NY Times was willing to use pseudonyms for the subjects of articles in the past. I didn't see Banksy exposed for instance.

So if the article was in fact sympathetic why use the real name, when it has no relevancy to the subject?

Unless, the article was actually not sympathetic, but meant as a zesty piece to "expose" Scott Alexander as a reactionary/eugenist/sexist in the current hot climate of "cancel-culture".

Which surely would generate lots of clicks for the NY Times, but would also destroy the subject of their story at the hands of SJW/twitter mob, then allowing for more stories about the drama and generate more clicks.

Exposing SA's real name is a win only for the NY Times.

>For threaded political discussion from a progressive side I very much recommend

https://unstuckpolitics.com/

Just went to the first entry in section "poltics&news" and immediately closed the site. This is the same cancer as reddit only with more blinking animated gifs. "unHINGEDpolitics.com" would be a better fitting name IMO.