You aren't dealing with the enterprise site at that point - rather a public frontend that uses some enterprise-y backend.
The real fun begins when you get into the actual enterprise frontends for internal use like SAP Netweaver and Sailpoint, which end up being quite a lot like the broadcom experience in the article.
It's a racket. It might not be as common today, but I remember when there were lots of people whose career was based on their SAP expertise, and the reason they got hired was that no one else could deal with that crap if anything went wrong. Once a lot of those people get into big companies, their career is based on preventing their employer from dumping SAP (or equivalent) for something better. So, it's like they have agents inside all the large companies that use their stuff.
It's over the air, not even phone lines. PDW, SDRSharp, and an rtl-sdr dongle is all that's needed.
And yes, there is a lot of patient info in that traffic. It's not illegal for the hospital to broadcast this, and it's not illegal to listen in and decode the signals, but it is very much illegal to do anything with the information gathered.
> It's over the air, not even phone lines. PDW, SDRSharp, and an rtl-sdr dongle is all that's needed. And yes, there is a lot of patient info in that traffic. It's not illegal for the hospital to broadcast this, and it's not illegal to listen in and decode the signals, but it is very much illegal to do anything with the information gathered.
I'm not familiar with this particular technology, which is why I didn't make a definitive claim in my previous comment. But I am quite intimately familiar with HIPAA and related regulations, and I am extremely skeptical of the third sentence you wrote.
Maybe it uses particular spectrum that is considered illegal to tamper with, just like analog cell phone signals, and HIPAA (inappropriately IMHO) leans on that to explain away an exemption from encryption?
I don't think I have any logs of these any more, but when I was listening on the local hospital's pager traffic, I seem to recall messages that were along the lines of [last name][room number][sexually transmitted disease test is complete].
Surprised me at the time too because I used to do work dealing with processing CDA documents into fhir data and I know how crazy HIPAA can be with PHI/PII, but at the same time these legal frameworks often have carveouts or super serious adoption deadlines that keep getting pushed to next year (and then next year, and then next year).
Steam deck in the bedroom, watching starwars with the wife... in the bedroom, has a pitbull, pitbull bites your infant in the face, terrible startup ideas, and the wife airs the dirty laundry on business insider - for startup reporter clout.
Are these people a meme, is this story even real, and just what the fuck in general? This article isn't even really about a failed startup but rather a pair of messed up people on both sides who now expose their infant to their insanity.
I couldn’t believe the “let’s kill the dog for scratching the kid’s face” part. People will punch you in the face if you startle them enough, why should the dog be any different? And they won’t ever consider putting him up for adoption or something, it’s straight to the vet and euthanise him? What the actual fuck is wrong with the people.
edit: This is very relevant to me because the very same thing happened to me as a kid. One of our family dogs bit me in the face because I was tugging on her tail (like in a painful way). It was completely my fault, no one blamed anyone else than me and no, we didn’t kill the dog. We kept her and I have many happy memories of her.
Pitbull ownership is a contentious subject and just overall a very shitty situation. I've seen a pitbull kill another dog and two other pitbulls attack children. That lead me to look at data, and while there is conflicting data, I walked away with the impression that pitbulls are disproportionately more dangerous and should not be kept as pets.
I agree that they should explored other options to see if the dog could have been given to another owner in an environment better suited for a pitbull. I don't know that one exists, but if you choose to own a pitbull, you hold that responsibility when you decide to disown it.
I'll add that pit bulls are banned in many countries because they are dangerous. Sure they are perfectly fine most of the time, but when they decide to attack there is little anyone can do to stop them, and it often results in death of other animals or humans. And sometimes they just attack for the fun of it, there are many documented cases of that.
Yeah, but this is not someone burning their garden furniture because their kid fell from it. They’re deciding to kill a living thing because it got startled once.
They decided to kill (euthanize) an animal with a history of dangerous behavior towards defenseless humans. Humans they had a duty to protect.
I’ve been around dogs for 4 decades, I’ve never seen one bite a child’s face.
Even ones that really, really would have deserved it.
Could it happen? Sure.
However, I have seen dogs that were deranged and dangerous to themselves and others bite people before, and owners try to defend them as being okay though. Multiple times.
One the police had to put down after its 4th attack on an innocent bystander, while the owner cried and blamed the police.
> a history of dangerous behavior towards defenseless humans
One incident, in which the human was arguably at least partly at fault (and in which the adult humans who run the house are at fault--see below), is not "a history".
The article says they have had the dog for six years. And now they want to euthanize him over one incident, in which the kid turned out to be OK? That's not something I would even think of. They should be thinking about how to help the dog coexist with their kid--and asking themselves why they weren't thinking about that before they brought the kid into their household that already had the dog. At the very most, if they are simply incapable of managing both the dog and the kid, they should be looking for another owner to take the dog. Killing the dog should not be on the table at all.
(Frankly, I would question the competence of a vet that would agree to euthanize a pet for this, instead of advising the people to find another owner if they can't work it out themselves. Every vet we have had has told us explicitly that they never recommend euthanasia except as an absolute last resort for a pet that is terminally ill and suffering. We would stop taking our dogs to any vet that said otherwise.)
Welcome to reality. Entirely within their rights to do, regardless of how you feel about it. Once is a history, when it’s bad enough.
If someone was arrested for beating their spouse, you’d have no issues saying they had a ‘history of domestic violence’, no?
And plenty of folks would argue they would be irresponsible and abusive to their kid to not do it.
Maybe there would be better ways to handle it, maybe not.
Maybe there were things they could have done to prevent it (probably), maybe not. Not our circus, not our problem.
Legally, you are correct, they are the owners and the dog is at their mercy. But I feel sorry for the dog who is at the mercy of these people.
> plenty of folks would argue they would be irresponsible and abusive to their kid to not do it
The irresponsibility was theirs, for not handling the situation properly when they brought a kid into their home where the dog had already been for, by my count, three years.
To make the dog pay with his life for their irresponsibility does not strike me as a good choice.
If they can't handle having the dog in the house, and don't have a friend or neighbor who will take him, they can take him to a shelter who will find him another home. He would still be paying for their irresponsibility, but at least he would get a chance to be with better people.
> I would not want to be the owner who had a second kid injured from one specific animal. Fool me once, twice, etc.
If they are really worried about their kid, they can find the dog another home. Either a friend or neighbor, or take him to a shelter. Not kill him.
As for "fool me", they were the ones who fooled the dog, by having him in their home for six years and gaining his trust, and then proposing to kill him over something that was really their fault. Bringing a kid into a home where a dog already lives is, as I have already pointed out elsewhere in this thread, stressful for a dog no matter what breed. It was their responsibility to manage that situation. They failed. And now they want the dog to pay for their mistake.
> If they are really worried about their kid, they can find the dog another home.
Right! They should transfer the liability to someone else! So that new, possibly unaware owner can get their pants sued off if the dog attacks someone in the future with a demonstrable past of injuring people. Clearly, risking the financial well-being of the new owner and a possible future second child's life is the compassionate, responsible choice. /s
I love dogs. I own one, and I will rub her belly in 15 minutes when I get home. But if she went apeshit on a kid I would thank the stars for the umbrella policy we carry. Then I would euthanize my dog.
> Right! They should transfer the liability to someone else!
As I've already said in the post you responded to, if they can't find a friend or neighbor who will take the dog (and that might well be the case, I get that), they can take the dog to a shelter, whose job is to find suitable homes for pets. And who would be expected to do a better job of that than these people did. That is what I would do if I owned a dog that I realized I could not keep in my home.
That is so grossly irresponsible, I’m glad to hear that you seem to have never had a dog.
No shelter is going to take a dog with a history of attacking people, let alone a kid.
At the point a dog is doing that, regardless of nature vs nurture, or who is ‘at fault’, it’s too late. They are an active hazard to everyone around them.
Does that suck? Yes.
Does pretending it’s not the case make it better? No, it compounds the damage and makes everything worse.
The girl is lucky to be alive, because pit bulls are a dangerous breed that often refuses to stop attacking - they are specifically known for that behavior, as they were bred to be fighting dogs. Putting down a pit bull after it bites a child is absolutely reasonable.
> pit bulls are a dangerous breed that often refuses to stop attacking
Generalizations like this are not reliable. Dogs reflect the treatment they get from their owners.
But in any case, we don't need to generalize about this pit bull, because the article tells us that they have had him for six years and he has had no problems. This looks to me like a simple case of owners bringing a kid into a household that already has a dog, and not putting enough thought into how to manage that situation, which is going to be stressful for any dog, regardless of breed. That is on the owners, not the dog.
>Dogs reflect the treatment they get from their owners.
Dogs are bread to have specific traits - every dog breed. Pit bulls were bred for a specific purpose, to fight until death. How you can completely ignore that to create the narrative you wish were true is another story.
You're reasoning about why the dog bit the kid, without recognizing the lethality of pit bulls when they attack. That kid is very lucky, because that dog could have tore her head off her neck. You can keep ignoring the evidence and reality if you want, but statistics do not lie - pit bulls make up 6% of all dogs and they are responsible for 67% of all fatal dog attacks. It's not how they're raised, it's literally in their genetics to fight until death. Dangerous breeds are called "dangerous breeds" for a reason - because they're dangerous. Don't take it from me, many countries have banned pit bulls because they are dangerous.
> Pit bulls were bred for a specific purpose, to fight until death.
I think you need to learn more about pit bulls. Even Wikipedia [1] recognizes that the reality is more complicated than your simplistic narrative.
As for the kid, I have already pointed out in multiple posts elsewhere in this thread that if these people are worried about their kid, they should find the dog another home. If there isn't a friend or neighbor who will take him, they can take him to a shelter. It's their fault that they brought a kid into their home where the dog had already lived for three years (which, as I have also pointed out elsewhere in this thread, is stressful for any dog, no matter what breed) and didn't manage the situation properly. Instead of making the dog pay for their mistake, they should let him have another chance in another home.
>> Pit bulls were bred for a specific purpose, to fight until death.
>I think you need to learn more about pit bulls.
What part of "Pit bulls were bred for a specific purpose, to fight until death." don't you understand?
>As for the kid, I have already pointed out in multiple posts elsewhere in this thread that if these people are worried about their kid, they should find the dog another home.
"We're trying to rehome this sweet widdle pibble that bit our kid in the face after living with her for 3 years" - sure, that's going to go well.
>It's their fault that they brought a kid into their home where the dog had already lived for three years (which, as I have also pointed out elsewhere in this thread, is stressful for any dog, no matter what breed) and didn't manage the situation properly.
You're making up in your head that the parents "didn't manage the situation properly" - there was nothing to suggest that in the story. And again, and again, and again: That kid is lucky to be alive because it was a pitbull. If it were a small breed that wasn't bred to fight until death, the girl wouldn't have been in nearly as much danger. I commend the parents for waking up and realizing the real danger this dog breed is well known for, and doing the right thing.
But you're right that the parents should have gotten rid of that murder-dog before the kid was born, but really they should have picked another breed to begin with. r/banpitbulls
> What part of "Pit bulls were bred for a specific purpose, to fight until death." don't you understand?
I understood what you said perfectly well. I just don't believe it's correct, and I gave a reference to support my belief. What part of "I disagree with you and here's a reference explaining why" don't you understand?
> You're making up in your head that the parents "didn't manage the situation properly" - there was nothing to suggest that in the story.
Of course there's not going to be anything in the story to suggest that, because the parents don't know that they made a mistake. But I'm not "making up in my head" the obvious fact that if you bring a baby into a house that has a dog, that will be stressful for the dog, no matter what breed it is, and the adult humans in the house have the responsibility to manage that.
> I commend the parents for waking up and realizing the real danger this dog breed is well known for, and doing the right thing.
Realizing that the dog can't coexist in their house with their kid is fine. But I do not agree that killing the dog because of the parents' failure to realize that earlier is the right thing. They should take the dog to a shelter if they can't find a friend or neighbor who will take him.
But even if the shelter were to end up euthanizing the dog, at least it would be a last resort because they were unable to find any suitable home for him. That's still better than doing it because of a single event that was really the humans' fault.
So you don't think that dogs can be bred for specific traits? Are you serious??
Border Collies are bred to herd cattle and sheep, and they are exceedingly good at that task, where other breeds are not, because Border Collies were bred for this task.
Humans have for centuries selected specific dogs for breeding for specific traits. But you don't seem to think that's a thing??
Your ignorance is truly astounding. Pit bulls were specifically bred to kill, to fight until death They are not good as house pets. It's like leaving a loaded handgun around the house as a toy or a decoration. Sure, most of the time it isn't shooting anyone, but when a mistake happens, the results are disastrous.
>Of course there's not going to be anything in the story to suggest that, because the parents don't know that they made a mistake. But I'm not "making up in my head" the obvious fact that if you bring a baby into a house that has a dog, that will be stressful for the dog, no matter what breed it is, and the adult humans in the house have the responsibility to manage that.
So here you're doubling down on making up in your own head what the situation was. You don't know anything more than what was in the story, but you're trying to convince me that you know something that you don't. Delusional.
> But I do not agree that killing the dog because of the parents' failure to realize that earlier is the right thing. They should take the dog to a shelter if they can't find a friend or neighbor who will take him.
All dog shelters everywhere are already maxed out, absolutely full of pit bulls that nobody wants because they are dangerous dogs. When someone finally realizes they invited a monster into their home, they will get rid of it, and unfortunately they dump them off at shelters where there simply is no more room for dogs that were bred for violence. And the dog in this story has bit a child in the face, so I'm not sure how you can reason that this dog can ever find a welcoming home. There are already far too many pit bulls in shelters. If someone really wants a pit bull, there is no shortage in shelters.
The parents in this story did the right thing by not making this murder-dog someone else's problem.
> So you don't think that dogs can be bred for specific traits?
I made no such claim. You are attacking a straw man.
The rest of your post is simply repeating that you disagree with me. Ok, noted. I'm not going to bother arguing about your factual claims any more since you clearly live on a different planet than I do so we don't have any useful common ground for discussion.
>I'm not going to bother arguing about your factual claims any more since you clearly live on a different planet than I do so we don't have any useful common ground for discussion.
Except we don't live on a different planet. That's nonsense, and a cowardly way to say you can't do enough mental gymnastics to support your position.
>> So you don't think that dogs can be bred for specific traits?
>I made no such claim. You are attacking a straw man.
Do you or do you not think that dogs can be bred for specific traits?
And do you or do you not recognize that pit bulls were specifically bred as fighting dogs, to maximize their "gameness" and to fight until death?
These are easy questions you could just answer, and then we'll have some common ground to discuss. But I bet you won't answer.
From the HN guidelines: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
Very plausible to interpret the post you're responding to as just saying that pitbulls, like Black people, are treated more poorly by society than other groups.
There was no good faith in that comment, it's completely uninformed and inciteful. And I get downvoted? lol, gotta love the HN comment police, no better than reddit mods.
You can wonder all you want, it won't change the fact that these dogs were bred to fight until death, and that is exactly where the danger is. The danger isn't when the dog is sleeping, the danger isn't when the dog is docile, the danger is when the dog's gameness kicks in and its instinct is to fight until death. And they're very good at doing what they were bred for. When most other dog breeds attack, the attack is usually over quickly, people can separate the animal from its target, but not with pit bulls. There are videos of pit bulls attacking horses for fun, and continuing to attack even after the horse kicks the pit bull several times. This is not behavior due to how the dog was raised or trained. Nobody can train away this kind of instinct the dog was bred to have. Even the famous dog trainer Cesar Milan's pit bull has attacked and killed other animals, famously killing Queen Latifah's pet dog. So no, it's not because pit bulls aren't being trained or because they are owned by shitty owners. These dogs are a menace to society, and rightfully banned in many countries.
> When I get tripped up on jargon such as "transformer" or "smart contracts" or anything Marc Andreessen blogs, Kyle is my Google Translate for tech speak.
So would you use it just before brushing? Or is it better to brush (with a toothbrush), then wait 30 minutes (for the toothpaste fluoride to take effect), and then apply GC Tooth-Mousse?
Sure it is. The org insists on making your life difficult, and you just want to get your work done. If they really cared about security they would prioritise fixing stuff like this, but they don't, so you know they don't really care, it's just for show and a need for control.
And if they don't really care about security, why should you?
> think about industries where there isn't much competition. Do we see similar improvements there, usually?
I can't think of an industry without competition where said industry doesn't try to improve their product or production for more profit. Maybe something in the medical space that I'm unaware of, but this definitely doesn't fly for aviation or transportation in general.
> but this definitely doesn't fly for aviation or transportation in general.
Precisely because those fields are in a high economic (and consequently technology) competition, you see innovation as you noted. The parent comment is that you cannot throw away the competition and still expect innovations to happen.
And my question is what industries that don't have competition also don't innovate? I am not aware of nor can play devils advocate and try to imagine an example.
Had deregulation not happened for airlines in the 70's, why would we expect that they wouldn't innovate to produce less expensive and more reliable aircraft? Any sort of improvements there makes a bigger profit and avoids killing customers (also pretty good for profit).
There are plenty of examples. I will give one in transport, as we are discussing here.
Seoul and Tokyo have the most extensive subway systems in the world. Both have both privately owned and de facto government-owned lines through government business entity. The innovation here is connecting key areas in the city. The new lines that connect new city centers that emerged are privately owned; they care about profit and they are incentivized to provide popular, convenient services by connecting new city centers. Also, there are other innovations like self-driving trains in those private lines (see Shinbundang Line, the newest in Seoul). A government line with legally guaranteed profit is less poised to innovate although some innovations happen due to popular demands or government initiatives.
It's not that government-led projects have zero innovations, but they tend to have less momentum than well-motivated well-aligned private corporations. Well-aligned (with the public's interest) is the key here.
I don't know if particular examples prove anything, but you asked for examples, and here it is. We do have decades of economic research that competition generally leads to innovation in services and technology.
The location and first football field/ stadium there predates the Cleveland Browns. It was the largest high school stadium when first built, and Akron/ Canton was the home of the largest rubber producers on the planet at the time. Additionally, the NFL was founded in Canton.
It seems random now, but it was not when originally constructed.
