salawat

>but seems not super productive for them to do such mundane sabotage on such non-critical systems.

The hell makes you think food supply chain refrigeration is non-critical? How do you think safe food supplies work? This type of attack should be treated as an overt act of war.

The people running companies aren't interested in selling things with the intent for you to own them. Not when it is perfectly legal to essentially lease access to the metadata of your usage patterns.

Implying even having the budget for prolific advertising isn't a signal that something is already on the value extraction slide.

Any custodial system will have this problem. There is no way to get the "Financial Services" conveniences without essentially implementing freezeability by law. You cannot be a lawful money transmitter without said capability.

They are shedding the extra consciences they aren't interested in having weigh into the calculus of business. Simple as. They'll deny it, but the actions speak for themselves

Why not just buy out like 1% and change everything. Change out management. Lord knows, new blood would probably do the place good.

Replicant detected. Please remain seated. The authorities will be there shortly.

That's why we fight together as best we can. Syndicate. Spread awareness. Do whatever you are able, and damnit, we both know it's more than nothing. If not for yourself, then do it for those you care about most.

Someone ends up having to act as a hub. The more you gear for that job, the easier you are to target, and the more worth it it is to target you.

Whatever you are trying to accomplish, you have to remember that all tech is predisposed on a functioning society with cooperative people to move your packets from A to B.

Tech cannot solve the problem of Trust. Quite the opposite. It amplifies to immense degrees. In short, if you're looking for tech to save you because your Government is doing something shady, you're at the wrong level. Tackle the government.

Sad, but inevitable.

That makes it someone else's problem who is less informed. You shouldn't be fine foisting problems on people too ignorant to deal with it.

Cracking was the term for that. It's an honest misconception though.

We don't exactly specialize in PR.

Heaven forbid the financial system should be inconvenienced. Nevermind that downstream of all the technologies to lockdown finance are the tools to enable an oligarchic tyranny.

PHP is basically the Ur-implementation of Server-Side rendering and processing. JSP's and a bunch of other technologies are basically "PHP, except in-house" relative to other programming languages. As one of the earliest impl's of that that I'm aware of, it's also got the beefiest stdlib, and most eyes-on time. It was basically the JS of it's era. The value-add was that you once you implement the templates & widget toolkits, your designer could mix and match those elements for an arbitrary set of UI impl's without having to worry about leaving the php ecosystem. (I.e. abstraction + 1), and you get that "dynamic web page" experience where pre-PHP, you didn't have it short of writing a task specific, full featured native client, which was a different impl for each OS, and often meant implementing Yet Another Bespoke RMI implementation to get to your data sources anyway. PHP allowed abandoning the windowing toolkits and finicky clients, and just using a web browser + http. The drawback being all the dynamicity was entirely dependent on the server-side, meaning scaling your user population required beefier and beefier servers since the server was doing all the work. Eventually, the blight of JS happened, and the architect's realized they could dump the rendering work on caller's machines. It's all about tradeoffs. In a world with clients which were much less powerful than server hardware, and sketchier network speeds, PHP made the most sense. With hardware capable of running at clock speeds on par with server hardware, and broadband speeds broadly available, there's a case to be made for making the caller's hardware do more of the work. Personally, I think the server pages ultimately kept the incentives aligned better, but no one really asked me, and apparently the bean counters like externalizing costs wherever they can.

Said defect is called *avarice". Left untempered, it's one of the most destructive of vices.

Doubly recommend turning on show dead. You'll learn a good deal about implicit biases in the community as well. It can be fascinating and eye opening to see what gets buried, and a well placed vouch can go a long way toward bringing back to the forefront worthwhile discussions.

>One in particular, about sharing secrets, that had not crossed my mind (I have found that virtually no one ticks the "do not train on my data" box...):

When said button is in the basement, at the bottom of a broken set of stairs, locked behind a door that says "beware of the leopard", inside a filing cabinet, and implemented as

    dontTrain() { //NYI
    }

I wonder why.

You are part of the problem, sounds like.

>Software malfunctioned

AI cannot be allowed or viewed as an accountability sink. In point of fact, it shouldn't even be being used by anyone not verifying it step by step. The Operator and their employer are always accountable for the actions of the agent of only because they had their hands on the power cord, eyes on the logs, and did nothing to stop it once it started going away.

Any professional with any experience at software development should know that an unreliable software is a useless software. That's half of why it's so damn hard to understand and reason through.

Traditionally, that'd be a joint effort between a dedicated QA team, partially supported by the engineering team, that no one wants to pay for...

Counterpoint: Their moat is funding secured and contracts locking in the purchase of currently forecasted chip production. Even if you assume a catastrophic withdrawal of invested capital from those vehicles on a coordinated revocation of faith by the investing community; who do you plan on having operate this theoretical squeaky clean, ethically training data sourcing company? And for that matter; what makes you think you'll get passed the greed that is already sunk cost into the current gen of shysters?

This entire evolution is a generational project hoping to paradigm shift away from their predecessor's paradigm while ignoring the lessons of their predecessor's predecessors on the nature of greed, the corrupting influence of power, and the consequences of blatant cultural/ethical unhitching amplified by the reach amplification of technology?

The Stasi, or a perfect Jim Crowe couldn't be realized with manpower alone. With computers, and a small cadre of the unethical willing to succumb to the promise of lucre on the other hand...

Counterpoint: They request a subscription fee they refuse to reciprocate and will not take "No" for an answer.

You may. Go to Google, or your search engine of choice, and look up the following "wisdom aphorisms Benjamin Franklin".

You may then take the contents within and whittle away the hours delving into them and connecting to the present.

But here's a little sample.

"Security without liberty--is prison."

Also, Poor Richard's Almanac may be worth a perusal. Have fun!

It may not be clear, but I find "Following the incentives" to be the modern equivalent of "I was just following orders." I.e. the scapegoat of cowards, and the lubricant of the conscience of those with more money than sense.

Things can mean more than their original context. Franklin, in fact, was full of bangers in that regard.

You will do what I want because I have gone out of my way to ensure you have no other choice... But it wasn't my fault mind. Just following the incentives.

--Silicon Valley/VC

It was in my college's CS, CE, and each PE on ramp program. The problem is the lack of enforcement by the industry. There is no organized act of sanctioning to lend teeth to disincentivized being an unethical asshat. Further, the explicit disinclusion of software engineering from PE licensing/signoff strips the ability to really curtail any corporation of the ability to employ unethically built systems. They'll just shop elsewhere and leverage the arbitrage. You have to restrict the operate. I'm not sure there is enough pain yet for the public to clamp down that hard, but we're on the way there.

That happens. As a hiring manager, you'll probably hire one once. You gotta manage your own workload to leave yourself enough time to circle back through their work, because inevitably, that's where the talkers are separated from the walkers.

>it would have been awful for what was then a tiny business with a very narrow runway.

I 100% understand that. Sometimes though, you just gotta hit the button. You can't be everywhere, so go with your gut, take small measured chances on people, keep the ones that help things, be prepared to part with the ones who don't, but always keep in mind that it's a human on the other side of the table, either way.

Business ain't worth losing your humanity for. But there's damn well people out there more than happy to do just that. I can't give you the secret to picking those types out. Experience, sadly, is the incomparable teacher in that department. Be prepared to land on your face a few times getting it.

I don't objectify. What I have is not for sale. Thank you, have a nice day. Don't let the door hit ya on the way out.

Never support human quantification efforts.

Disagree. If you stop building it, you lose the knack. Secondly, more dependency centralization confers a degree of "elevation" to early comers that just really chafes my "programming is math" chops.

Then there's the Trust issue. If something goes wrong, it's my fault if I wrote it. I'm not going to argue with people who reach for "You're holding it wrong" reflexively.

t. Has spent time reimplementing basic data structures just because.