tha0x5
https://twitter.com/EricaJoy/status/1307109690917224449
https://twitter.com/EricaJoy/status/1306403761603051521
https://twitter.com/EricaJoy/status/1306280514035179521
https://twitter.com/EricaJoy/status/1303264312354512896
And on, and on, and on. She tweets so much it's kind of sad. Practically none of her tweets have anything to do with actual engineering. It's all identity politics and other leftist nonsense.
Look at what happened HipChat, Stride, etc.
You no longer have to deal with SSH keys whatsoever and all the management that goes with them: When users get their access revoked on AD, they get their SSH access revoked as well. You can have group based authorization (only those in the SRE group can access this class of QA endpoints), so when dozens of people a month are being added and removed from the various groups, you don't have to worry about giving them keys/access. They can SSO from their laptops, so all they have to do is open PuTTY and they can connect away without even typing their usernames and passwords. etc.
Lots of these new generation "devops" and "full-stack developers" haven't had the experience of AD and Kerberos, so they spend all this time, blog posts, money, etc. to reinvent the wheel.
Sad really.
Not necessarily, no.
>So, the same thing I referenced from my dictionary lookup: that literally was used for emphasis while not being literally true.
You still don't get it, and you're wrong as you didn't reference a dictionary.
Both literally true, and used for emphasis are both false statements. There are people who care (literally), and there are enough people who care that "literally no one cares" (figuratively) is incorrect. QED.
>And I argued that this issue is something generally fixed fast (within days by most companies), and thus the speed MS fixed it doesn't prove that it's not a small (trivial) issue.
That is not fast for a critical customer data leak by any stretch of the imagination.
>I wrote "days" precisely to argue these issues are fixed fast. Replying that such issues are fixed in hours, not days, doesn't counter my point, it's just a pendantic correction that re-inforces it.
You wrote "days" because you appear to be clueless. It does counter your point because there is a large difference between a couple of hours and a couple of days. It's a pedantic correction that re-inforces that you're wrong.
>You'd be surprised. Don't believe the hype:
I can hear the goalposts being scraped across the ground.
All of what you listed only proves my point that this was by no means a "slap on the wrist". Multiple indictments and the largest fines ever levied to an auto maker by definition makes this not a wrist slap. QED.
The sentencing and fines were at the top of the sentencing guidelines for the crimes.
>Poor people have gotten worse sentences for stealing a TV...
No they haven't.
Wrong, and you're the one confused here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-lite...
1) in a literal sense or manner : actually 2) in effect : virtually
They were saying "in effect, virtually no one cares". Even then, that's demonstrably wrong as shown above.
>Issues/holes/leaks on public servers almost always get fixed on a few days, whether it's Microsoft or whatever.
Wrong, places like Apple, Facebook, etc. typically fix customer leaking issues like this in hours, not days.
>You maybe compare it to OS/app patches, with is not the same case.
Not comparing, but even those are slow.
>They just got a slap on the wrist for billions in profit.
Many people indicted and jailed and billions upon billions of fines. Absolutely not a slap on the wrist.
The Matrix.org hack comes to mind.
Eh, I disagree. They stated "literally no one cares", but the fact that it's news and hit the front page literally means someone cares. No math involved. QED.
>So, yeah, a tiny number of people (the HN upvoters) "do care" in the sense of voting this up and wanting to read about this. Then again, they also care about all minds of trivial posts, so there's that.
It wasn't trivial if Microsoft cared enough to fix it in a few days, which is like light speed for Microsoft.
>Heck, I read it and I don't care.
Anecdote, immaterial here.
>How about it's a insignificant series of small, insignificant purchasing decisions?
Possible, all conjecture at this point.
>Companies do apply it to everything. E.g.
You're just agreeing with what I said. It's illogic though because those companies didn't get away with it. Your links prove my point.
That's not documentation, and the posts agree with me, counter to your original claim.
> Go argue with them, not with me. The top result is a Stack Overflow answer, perhaps you can start there.
The top result literally agrees with me. It links to a page talking about dedup.
So, Google actually proved you wrong. You're spreading FUD.
Not really, it means people do care, which is opposite of the original claim.
>Do you really think that significant purchasing decisions are going to be influenced by this? That’s not a snarky rhetorical question, I’m actually asking.
Not sure honestly. Even if it's a series of small, insignificant purchaso decisions, it can still amount to something significant.
>I ask because I can tell you for a fact that at my large enterprise, they will not be. If anything, this incident will be used as an example by those looking for cover. “if an org like Microsoft can make this mistake, you really have no justification for being mad at our department for a similar leak.”
That sounds like an insanely toxic environment. This is illogic that you can apply to everything: "well, if Microsoft can get by with cooking the books and violating customer's privacy, so can we."
I think more people would think: "if this is how they handle customer search data, imagine how terribly they handle data elsewhere."
There are so many great tools (that MS can buy) and procedures (that they could have implemented decades ago) to prevent this garbage from happening in 2020, and it still happens every day.
"The person abusing the child is not on trial in this instance, this one person (who did not harm or victimize anyone) is."
More people have died in Mexico and Central America due to the drug war than have died in the war in Afghanistan.
If you buy drugs from a supply chain that involves the cartels, you are indirectly funding organized murder and crime.
Except it's being used almost exactly like credit cards, so it is an apples to apples comparison.
>Think of it more like cash. If you give someone 2k in cash nobody is going to find that person and refund you.
Wrong. Tons of cash and debit card transactions can be undone, and banks can and will give you money back from fraudulent transactions.
It is a bullshit phrase though. They don't want to bring it up because any skepticism is viewed as a direct attack on their ideology, and their ideology is the core of their existence/identity, so, calling out the illogic of their ideology is a political attack on their existence.
They want to TELL you, they don't want a discussion.