wow, i'm going to copy/paste my response to someone upthread about how it's a bad idea for HN to get involved in political things like this.
"The main issue to me is now every political issue that isn't raised here makes HN complicit in its success/failure. Once HN starts down this path it can only continue and accelerate or else face accusations of support/opposition through silence."
I’ve seen a bunch of people in addiction recovery, and Matt’s erratic self destructive aggressive behaviour seems very familiar. Nosebleeds too. It’s probably just a coincidence, but…
The maintainers [1] and the Wordpress project’s core security team lead [2] said that the fix was already published, despite your blocking them from publishing it directly and irresponsibly disclosing the issue out of spite [3].
If your browser ignored all certificate errors, you'd have a real security problem. That's not at all the case for DNSSEC: it's possible that all of the DNSSEC root keys could hit Pastebin and nobody would really need to be paged.
Browsers did ignore most certificate errors back in the early 2000s. HTTPS sites were fairly rare and most people did not care about it or even considered https to be a negative. Many administrators considered it as bad technology that only increased instability with no obvious benefit. "Who cares about what people post to a forum?" was something I personally heard when I added https to one site. It was only really banks with plain passwords that needed https, and then external hardware devices really made https obsolete for that problem.
For more fun diving into this topic, I can recommend a famous old presentation called the "Everything you Never Wanted to Know about PKI but were Forced to find out", and godzilla crypto tutorial written by the same author (Peter gutmann). The certificates in browsers has had a long history of problems and ill designs. People did not like them, and they definitively did not like them when they caused major issues.
> Browsers did ignore most certificate errors back in the early 2000s. HTTPS sites were fairly rare and most people did not care about it or even considered https to be a negative. Many administrators considered it as bad technology that only increased instability with no obvious benefit.
I’m not sure what you’re basing that on but every claim is the opposite of my experience back then. Even in the 90s it was expected that you used HTTPS for any site selling things, for example, as the credit card companies would block a business who let numbers go over the network in plaintext.
Early on there were concerns about performance but that was mostly over by the turn of the century for all but large file transfers. The primary drawback was the cost of a certificate back then.
I recall well those discussions. Web stores did indeed often use https to protect credit cards. The argument was however that physical stores did not need to have similar protection, and that the issue really was with the weak security of credit cards. HTTPS was a unstable solution for a problem which people argued should had been solved with the credit card system. Physical security devices was again lifted as the future solutions to this problem.
It should also be mentioned here that credit card numbers as a security token has actually slowly been phased out in favor of other forms of payment systems online, and many banks today implement additional security requirement if you pay with a credit card. Black market with stolen CC numbers, despite https use by web stores, used to be one of the biggest issues with the internet, so even with all the stores using https it wasn't a solution to that problem.
I remember people talking about performance issues with https until the early 2010. "Every single micro second slower means reduced sales" was something people was very concerned about. I even heard it from people during an IETF meeting. It was talked in similar tone to how people today talk about SEO.
Yes, that’s why I found the assertion that it didn’t exist so odd since almost anyone who supported web sites or browsers back then was familiar with that dialog.
This headline is misleading to the point of being a lie, despite the body quoting the part explaining why it's misleading. Really bad. Author, OP, or Dang/mods should edit.
They're not changing away from TypeScript. They're changing from the TypeScript-style syntax for inline type annotations to the JSDoc-style syntax for type annotations in comments. They're still using TypeScript for type-checking, but now the source code can also run as-is. Dupe at <some URL>
nonsense. these are not anywhere in the top hundred issues with the service.
workspace accounts are irrelevant to 99.99% of normal users. google hasn't encouraged using workspace accounts for consumer use for like ten years. the only place people care is on hacker news.
Is your post supposed to be read as genuine or sarcastic? It looks to me like a strawman of a Tesla owner stereotype, and I don’t want to accidentally eat the onion here by taking it at face value.
Your post appears to be saying that Tesla’s FSD is way worse than human drivers, not safer than them, but we should still welcome it for the convenience. Again, this reads like a strawman. I would like to think the average Tesla owner would not endorse that statement.
The goal isn’t to save time at the cost of lives, it’s to save both, non?
A lot of people say they’re significantly better than average driver. It’s such a stereotypical thing to say, that it probably has negative truth value on average, since it reflects broad personal confidence more than actual driving skill.
You still sound like you’re trying to present the weakest possible straw man for Tesla critics to attack. Stop this bad faith attempt to make Tesla look bad; you’re dragging down the discourse. Nobody is going to take your bait and feed you the expected counter arguments to the nonsense you expressed up-thread.
SpaceX is not a neutral party. They’re flush with cash from US government contracts. If they want to withdraw their infrastructure from America’s ally, who are defending themselves against an existential threat from one of America’s top geopolitical adversaries, why should they continue to be granted American government contracts?
If Elon wants to be independent, he can be independent. He doesn’t. His companies all depend on government subsidies to exist. Tesla, SolarCity, SpaceX — these are not free market capitalist successes, they’re all fundamentally dependent on Big Government. Without government charity, Elon Musk has nothing.
If Elon really wants to bite the hand that feeds him, he’d better be ready to get smacked.
Tesla received a lot of govt investment early on, but aren't they making boatloads of money now? The clean car credits they get from other manufacturers are a small fraction of their revenue.
Tesla early on didn't receive lots of govt investment early on. The got a loan for 400 million $ and that money started to come in around 2012 or so, and that money was paid back a few years later. And Tesla competitors got much bigger loans that they have not yet paid back.
And after that their costumers got tax reductions for buying EVs, but that could be used by all car companies. This is not investment.
They get clean energy credits from other car companies, based on emissions regulation. Again, not investment from the government, rather a mechanism for the government to implement emissions improvements on the industry as a whole.
Tesla also received tax reductions for their large industrial installations, but that is something all companies get when they to large scale investments. Its simply how things are done in the US (and many other places).
I think the comment is a perfectly relevant and accurate response to those wholesale assertions you made.
> His companies all depend on government subsidies to exist. Tesla, SolarCity, SpaceX — these are not free market capitalist successes, they’re all fundamentally dependent on Big Government.
US government is not actually allied to the Ukraine as far as I know.
And not allowing your consumer electronics devices and sat systems to be used as offensive weapons (something the system wasn't designed for) is pretty reasonable for any company to do. One can have different feeling about this, but the idea that the US military would blacklist SpaceX over this is not really reasonable.
> Without government charity, Elon Musk has nothing.
This is often claimed but if you actually look into it it isn't actually true for Tesla.
SpaceX might have gone bust without NASA contracts but those were difficult high risk contracts that required performance based milestones to actually receive money. They were certainty not charity. In fact, SpaceX almost certainty lost money on those early contracts like CRS.
The reality is those companies had to compete against competitors who had way more support form government.
Dang, you’re one of the bad ones.