What they don't do is the design, testing, and certification in China. This is the real IP - not the materials or the assembly techniques, but how to navigate the regulatory landscape of the FAA and the EASA in extremely complex hardware/software integrated systems. The article mentions certification documents/evidence as a primary target.
The funny thing in all this is that passengers inherently trust the FAA and EASA operated system and inherently do not trust a Chinese-owned, manufactured, and regulated system for commercial aircraft. When really this breach was all about the money - Chinese companies want to get in on Boeing and Airbus' market.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I will say that Boeing isn't doing itself any favors with it's cost cutting efforts on the 737 MAX, and that if it wants to keep consumers trust in its planes over the perception of "inferior" foreign competition, it needs to work much more closely with the FAA to ensure safety is the primary motivating factor on new designs and does not get overriden by fuel efficiency.
> inherently do not trust a Chinese-owned, manufactured, and regulated system for commercial aircraft
This is true, but it was also true for European airliners in the US at a time. And it took time and effort, but it changed.
"Work at the facility was limited to the plane’s interior, including installing seats and other cabin equipment. More responsibilities will be added over time, such as painting the exterior, but the center is primarily meant for completion and delivery, with the main manufacturing remaining in the US."
Some would argue that working too closely with the FAA is the problem.
Somehow I sense you did not intend irony.
[main stream version: https://www.thenation.com/article/harvard-boys-do-russia/]
My circle of friends is a pretty wide net and only one coworker knows about the Boeing nonsense, and he admitted it was because of Hacker News.
The thousands of canceled flights are over millions, and the average person doesn't fly that much. Around one round trip a year in the US.
In fact, while I am very aware of the B737-MAX fiasco because I am interested in the technical side of things, I didn't even realize there were thousands of canceled flights. Sure, it is something I should know, but it is not like canceled flights are a remarkable event, and because I wasn't affected by it, I didn't really think about it.
They’re still being cancelled daily now! I know AA alone is cancelling over 100 flights a day. It’s not something in the past.
This is misleading.
ISO standards dictate that a company should have certain processes in place. Like quality assurance, customer satisfaction, continuous improvement, ect. They do not specify individual processes or procedures to the company. They just lay out which structures should exist in an ISO compliant company. It is up to the company to develop processes and procedures that fulfill those structures.
The specific standards that are a "silver bullet" (as the author puts it) are NIST 800-171 "DFARS", ITAR, AS9100, NADCAP, and other smaller (yet equally significant) manufacturer-specific specifications that get flowed down the supply-chain on an as-needed basis.
So there is no ambiguity. If a supplier does business with a diverse enough client base in aerospace they will almost certainly have overlapping systems in place to protect against these things. Without pretty much all of the specifications I listed above, a supplier would not legally limited in what they are allowed to possess and produce.
Basically an auditor comes and quizzes you on your own processes. You must show that you have processes which meet ISO criteria, and that you religiously follow those processes.
Basically you have a lot of freedom to develop your business, just be sure you adhere to whatever you put into writing.
But this didn't entirely get the software division off the hook. We still had to be able to show an auditor that we knew our processes were excluded. So there was a special folder containing just one functional page besides the meta-bumf to support it, and it read (in effect) "THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SOFTWARE DEPT ARE EXCLUDED FROM ISO9002 PROCESSES". And we were all trained to be able to produce it upon demand.
We passed the audit. Our letterhead paper gained the magical ISO9002 seal of approval. The administrator who had championed the long and expensive business sprung from its success to a much larger company. In her absence the process documentation for the rest of the company quietly withered and when the follow-up audit came due we quietly neglected to apply for it. The letterhead paper was reprinted with a snazzier logo and no seal of approval. We got back to work, quietly apprehending the next big thing.
I've seen companies pack trunks of cars with unclaimed scrap. Buy a 55' trailer with cash, fill it with stuff, then claim it belongs to the neighbors. Load material onto 30' racks and send the forklift operators home.
It's almost better that your company committed to ISO to kinda get organized and then let it slide afterwards. I'd almost say it's worth it in a medium sized company every 10 years just to stay accountable and organized.
Eh, kind of? I currently work for one and they haven't been audited in over a decade. The history goes: once upon a time, they were seeking certification because $potential_buyer asked about it. They failed the first audit quite miserably, and the next. By the third time, they squeezed by and were certified. The auditors came back 2 times in the next 2 years to make sure they were still compliant, and by the third year the auditors just asked if their processes had changed (without bothering to scrutinize everything again). They had not, and the auditors have not reached out ever since. The company is still certified. I think in theory they've "checked" since then but no one at the company can recall them actually showing up/auditing.
Also, the same tools and techniques get recycled, so you can use clues from previous attacks to tie together a motive.
> Exactly what does it mean to be "state-sponsored"?
It means an attack was either performed by a foreign agency or by a group getting paid to act on their behalf.
> And who provides this analysis?
Government agencies and private companies provide these types of analysis services.
Criminal attacks have a profit related motive, which can be distilled down into "if we spend $X dollars trying to hack Y, we can probably get a payoff of $Z"
If an attack is extremely expensive and has very little potential payoff, you can be pretty sure it's not being done by a criminal organization.
You may wonder "how do you prove it's not being done by not-profit motivated hacktivists?". Hacktivist groups usually have limited resources (that doesn't mean they're not dangerous!). If scale of the attack/payload suggests a team of 10-30 skilled professionals working full time for a year or so, it's probably not a hacktivist group. Hacktivist groups also tend to proudly announce responsibility whenever they pull off successful attacks.
I was thinking of tape or HD, but now you an have the courier carry a terabyte of OTP in a few USB sticks.
1. Send giant HD of OTP bits to other office.
2. Everyone at that office who needs to communicate, so you make those bits accessible on the internal network so various machines can get to it.
3. Now a hacker that accesses the network can get to your OTP bits.
At that point, you're no better than using some other security mechanism.
> 3. Now a hacker that accesses the network can get to your OTP bits.
Which is on an internal network so is not exposed (unlike the contents of a VPN which necessarily goes external) so can be more secure. While nothing's unhackable it adds an extra layer to break through.
That the article says "It was very sophisticated and targeted the VPN which connected the company to Airbus" shows the VPN was the weak link, and not the internal networks. So harden the weakest link.
If you're trying to frame someone, there has to be a plausible explanation for why you would do it.
Boeing also competes with Airbus, as in actively competes in real dollar terms compared to Comac which is more or less aspirational. Given their current situation they have as much incentive to hack Airbus, plus they've been accused recently:
Airbus to sue NSA, German spies accused of swiping tech secrets
>European aerospace giant Airbus is promising legal action over claims its top blueprints were stolen by German spies and given to America's intelligence agencies.
My view is that both Boeing and Comac is actively stealing from airbus because why wouldn't they?
As the Comac C919 approaches certification and full production, airlines, especially Chinese ones, will delay orders, to wait and see, or actively prefer the C919 over the 737 series. Even if the C919 is delayed with the usual teething troubles, many customers will decide to wait, or buy Airbus if they have to.
At this point, Boeing is the weakest of the three competitors in the mid-size market, and must be desperate to do anything to survive.
To answer your comment: because the title of the submission "Airbus Suppliers Hit in State-Sponsored Attack" and the title of the article "Airbus Suppliers Hit in State-Sponsored Attack" are identical, and that's totally fine. Changing the title of the submission to include a detail from the article actually editorializes the submission, which is not ideal for HN or the audience here.
> Please don't make insinuations about astroturfing. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried, email us and we'll look at the data.
Hopefully this comment is viewed as both the acknowledgement as well as the constructive feedback it's intended to be.
Edit: ok, done. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
In these days of click-bait "news", it's a valid question.
If it's marked as [dead] but not [flagged], the comment was killed automatically. No reason to suspect brigading.
It was North Korea for a while, with every major hack blamed on them, then it was Russia, and now it's China - lo and behold, they get the blame for every major hack.
Now, I'm not saying it wasn't China - what I'm saying is that Western governments make it like "the body who cried wolf".
>"That revelation, along with a separate story in the Financial Times that a freelancer wrote the Aurora code, is focusing attention on China’s loose web of cowboy hackers. And SharpWinner — the leader of a coalition including anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 civilian members …" //
The rest of the Wikipedia page, amongst other things, describes a structured make up (military, PLA, civilian).
Assuming the numbers were true, how does that compare to USA's, or other countries?
"Airbus Suppliers Possibly Hit in Chinese State-Sponsored Attack" is less attractive as a headline.
That's like slandering the ground.
Reminds me of Xerxes, king of Persia had the ocean whipped after a storm destroyed his bridge.
Goes to show that without easy access to product blueprints/IP at the factories, China is very slow to actually innovate on their own. Hence why I feel the "China will outpace everyone in tech and take over the world" is super overblown.
Even their university culture practically encourages cheating in classes to pass, so you have generations of students graduating with weak understanding of the fundamentals. The US is obviously not a perfect meritocracy, but China is super far from that.
An economic model where American/European/Japanese/Korean tech is stolen and then friends of politicians are gifted CEO positions of companies that clone that stolen tech...not sustainable at all. If you want a painful example of what I'm talking about, watch the AI debate between Jack Ma and Elon Musk. It's so clear that Ma has an absolutely minuscule understanding of the AI landscape.
When robotic manufacturing eventually becomes cheaper and faster than manufacturing in China, meaning they'll no longer have IP to steal, they are in huge trouble.
China is on course to have its own commercial airliner soon 
I add (first) because I've read about the C919 elsewhere.
The subcontractor did this entirely willingly and I don't blame them, given that Airbus treated them like sh*. Sure they were not the absolute cutting edge business, but they do a solid job and have a strong engineering background (from the times of MBB, DASA & Co. - their IT in the eng department was horrible).
And yet when negotiating a contract for a new test (volume of the contract similar to price of the very specialized equipment necessary), Airbus haggled and put taking it inhouse on the table (they could certainly do that, but as the history of german industry shows, this is just an intimidation tactic for mooore profit).
So the management started to sell to COMAC (basically acting as an intermediary for another not as well-connected german supplier, which also likes to sell to China but can't get around export regulations...), which is basically a sell out, but apparently we want it that way given the protection politics give those predatory bit companies around here (never hear anyone calling Airbus for fair treatment of their supply chain)
... and that's just airline related tech stuff I have passively become aware of within 50km of my office in the last 12 months.
Let's be honest here. Everyone has an incentive to gain insight into what everyone else is doing.
Everyone is spying on everyone else.
I don't know a company that doesn't. How far would they go? That depends. Sometimes governments help...
Lots of companies don't pay attention to their competitors aside from just passing glances. Sometimes your competitions action is not in any way visible to you, for instance when trying to win top secret gov design contracts. When you are on the bleeding edge or the only one working on something, there is just no need. I could come up with a lot of reasons why spying is useless(not saying it doesn't have a use, just not useful in every case as you propose)... but i guess i am confident in things, rather than paranoid. Worrying about what someone else is doing is just wasting time, unless they are coming for you.
There is never a single company working on the bleeding edge. Those who are take a lot of precautions to keep their secrets and are keen to learn their competitors' secrets.
If you work on the cutting edge in tech just send your CV to your company's main competitor. They'll be quick to invite you for interview... To buy your competitor's product to take it apart and study it is also a time-honoured classic. These are just basic examples.
Actually, they have a narrowbody competitor set to enter production: https://airlinegeeks.com/2018/03/17/20567/
> Boeing has built a B737 finishing factory and Airbus has a final A320 final assembly plant in China, with Airbus planning on building a wide-body jet plant in the country as well.
China doesn't make internationally competitive aircraft because making internationally competitive aircraft is very hard.
“That’s only a part of what we do in the production of airplanes,” he said."
I've seen absolutely zero evidence for your view that "a generation" of Chinese students has graduated with "weak understanding of the fundamentals" compared to Americans.
I'm happy to discuss further (surely my interviews are imperfect tests and the samples are biased in some ways), but let's ground the discussion in evidence. Where did you get this idea?
I would like to point you to (and encourage a search of your questions or your company): https://www.1point3acres.com/bbs/ . This is probably the largest board out there that shares interview questions (and answers!), techniques, approaches, etc... including leaks of questions, "help" from insiders at large companies, and more. If you seem to suspect that there is some sort of nation-based component to your Chinese interviewees doing quite well, I suspect you may find your study is poisoned and I recommend a redo. As an American, I have not found something similar to 1p3a in terms of the wealth of information available for getting recruited at large companies.
1p3a isn't the only one out there either. There are many more. This is just the one I've been able to hear coworkers and students when I was in undergrad talk about a lot.
I hadn't heard about that specific board, but I'm certainly aware that students frequently collaborate in various public and private ways. It's definitely true that my company would be a prominent target, so we take various measures to try to defend against preparation like this.
For clarity, I didn't mean to imply that I had done a formal study. I'm just reporting my personal experience.
Editing to add: I'm really interested in other people's experience, too! I'm honestly curious how this person got the idea that the college grads do not know the fundamentals well. Maybe they're testing fundamentals in a way I'm not and I can learn.
Technical interviews are manufactured tests that can be easily gamed. The idea that any valuable insight can be drawn from them is naïve at best. Further, the post was specifically about innovation -- given this constraint, technical interviews are notoriously bad at separating the wheat from the chaff (e.g. product questions are non-existent in technical interviews).
"Fundamentals" can mean different things to different people, but let's not pretend technical interviews are a reliable signal.
The parent's anecdotal experience is still a valuable datapoint in the face of two baseless stereotypes:
1. Chinese educated people lack fundamentals and are ill equipped for innovation
2. Technical interviews are at best a naive mechanism for evaluating candidates
Because I have plenty of evidence for all of the above, and the fact that technical hiring is profoundly broken is discussed ad nauseam on HN.
However, an academic culture that doesn't see anything wrong with cheating will mean their average cohort of students have a much weaker understanding of fundamentals compared to average students from a country that doesn't tolerate that.
There is some truth in that, but it's quite exaggerated and sounds like a conclusion someone without deeper understanding of China AND US would make.
If someone only learned about US education system via news sources, the picture being drawn is gonna be quite bleak, sex, drugs, anti-intellectual, bribery for admission, racism, classism, etc. ...while in reality, it's mostly working pretty well, but nobody is getting views by writing about smart and hard working students doing well in school.
Already debunked in this thread.
> Even their university culture practically encourages cheating
It is not like we'd not have this in western culture. They use the same metres we do: titles and names of educational institutions attended. As with every metric. those who understand it exploit it to cheat those who apply it.
> An economic model where American/European/Japanese/Korean tech is stolen and then friends of politicians are gifted CEO positions of companies that clone that stolen tech...not sustainable at all.
With a billion people behind it, it is actually pretty easy - you just outlive competitors while you pay for the losses out of pocket. And that is what western companies have been championing: If compliance says "we accept the risk", we take the risk.
> When robotic manufacturing eventually becomes cheaper and faster than manufacturing in China, meaning they'll no longer have IP to steal, they are in huge trouble.
So are we. Who is going to be able to afford the products if we all are replaced by robots in the workplace?
> When robotic manufacturing eventually becomes cheaper and faster than manufacturing in China
That is a straw man argument. Manufacturing is one of the leading frontiers in automation. It's going to be cheaper to manufacture things outside of China due to automation long before a significant enough portion of the workforce is out of work due to automation and unable to afford the manufactured goods.
>Already debunked in this thread.
Seems to be true, although they're only manufacturing interior parts. Certainly nothing high tech.
Anecdotally, the strongest student grade wise I've seen in college was a Chinese one. I don't think she managed to cheat there.
Awareness of a risk isn't very helpful if it doesn't come with an understanding of the odds and the costs and benefits involved.
Clearly you have a different understanding than Elon.
End of humanity is in the grand scheme of things something trivial. It's just happens and then nobody suffers. so there must be a probability low enough to balance it out.
Airbus has been building aircrafts at a Final Assembly Line in Tianjin since 2009. And many Airbus/Boeing suppliers have formed joint-ventures with Chinese companies to bid on contracts for the C919.
You might be right that predictions of China's rise is overblown, but we forget how crappy Korean technology was just a couple of decades ago, and there's no reason it can't happen again.
Regarding the Ma/Musk debate, that seems like a strawman argument. Ma studied English in college and his strengths are his business and political accumen, not technical ability. There's plenty of people in China with a better understanding of the AI landscape.
I have no idea if Jack Ma knows about the ML landscape or not. But it's clear just by taking an anti-alarmist stance he's correct.
I think it's an odd mix of self superiority/discrimination that actually lets the US sit back too relaxed and not competing on difficult and often costly, but fundamental investments (not just in silicon, but other industrial areas too). And too often there is too little coercion needed for US companies when they do make investments, siting manufacturing capacity in other nations while chasing lowest cost labor.
But USSR also maintained multiple closed cities which would contain the smartest people they had in the whole of the union. I am certain if you picked a few people from there they would be of a completely different opinion of what USSR was at the time as well.
So I am wondering if modern-day China has those, too. They might not be bringing huge industries to fruition based on their research - but on the other hand they might be working on strategic projects such as submarines, etc that are hard to clearly see behind the usual commercial noise.
I don't like a certain conflation of terms in discussions like these - merging together creative thinking and business. The two things are only vaguely related. To overuse a tired term, inventing a better mousetrap spring != designing a better mousetrap != being able to make that better mousetrap a commercial success. The last part involves a lot of work that isn't creative, and that benefits from business-friendly conditions, which are not necessary for the creative work itself.
> I wouldn't think USSR was that great at creative thinking, either (on a bigger scale).
True, especially in the later years of the USSR. But they did launch a satellite into space before anyone else. At some point they were creative thinkers, at least.
We underestimate China to our own peril.
I want to emphasize that there are tons of incredibly brilliant minds in China working on amazing things. It's their government system that makes it so that rather than incentivizing innovation, they've focused on building the most efficient IP theft system the world has ever seen.
See e.g. some of the stuff Bunnie wrote here: https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?cat=20, starting with: https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?page_id=3107.
Just a replay of history with the country name replaced.
Please don't do that. The site guidelines specifically ask you not to:
If anything, it says a lot about you that you associated everything I said with their ethnicity rather than the government itself.
The idea of Chinese companies/universities/etc. being uncreative and over-reliant on imitation and industrial espionage is quite obviously a somewhat tired cliché. I'm certain it makes an appearance in almost every single front page comment threat on the Chinese economy of the last five years or so.
There might even be a kernel of truth. But, as others have pointed out, the same was said of Japan and Taiwan before. In such a situation, you should be wary of repeating such stereotypes if you don't have first-hand experience, which I doubt many of those regurgitating that trope have.
Nobody is making any claim whatsoever about the behavior of Chinese-Americans or Chinese-Europeans. That would be racist.
Link to the actual source, please. This is a rehash (abhorrent blog spam) of a proper news report.
A military invasion would ruin the whole thing.
The same holds for Russia, but to a lesser degree, because they're not as rich as China.
An actual problem in Western European societies is massive immigration from religiously fundamentalist countries. To them Europe and its citizens are just prey. And they're exploiting the current climate of political correctness to avoid criticism. PC is a massive problem for social discourse.
Today, the only thing remaining from the influx of Italians, Irish, and Germans, are a bastardized holiday, canned raviolis, and maybe a few "heritage" festivals. Hell, the USA fought two major wars against Germany despite previously having a large influx of German immigrants.
On the other points, I absolutely agree. It's often cheaper to just buy nations than to deploy your military at take it by force.
As a white man, you lost me completely there. Immigrants are absolutely not treated better than I am anywhere in North America, or in Europe where I've been to date but I'll concede in places where white people are a minority that might not always be true. I haven't given up anything in my life for "foreigners" and I live a very privileged life.
As a white man born into this world, you haven't earned anything any other person just born into this world doesn't have. Just because some white people have accomplished something doesn't give you claim or credit for that. In fact, you are reviling (immigration, foreigners) the very thing that gave rise to the west as it is now.
The history of the white man is filled with taking ideas and solutions from other cultures and races they encounter and building on them, essentially the same thing you're accusing China of doing unfairly.
The concept that the west culture and existence is solely due to "white people" is false and largely has been false from the start. Slavery, abuse, theft and centuries of using and discarding anything and anyone we can to get ahead is a significant part of our history (that includes abusing/slavery of other white men, its not solely a race issue, its a power/money issue).
Immigrants, especially second and third generation immigrants often have stronger ties to the country the immigrated to and are more willing to fight for it and die for it as numerous studies ahve shown.
The concept that immigrants are freeloaders is false, and easily disproved by any reading of the actual historical development of the western world. The US is a good example, it's made up almost completely of immigrants and their descendants and much of its early success is due to one group of immigrants abusing and using others (Black, Chinese and Irish slave labor/indenturehood among numerous other examples).
The most likely people to fight for the west and defend its existence are those people you're putting down in your wildly inaccurate and fear-mongering post.
Again, isn't the consensus that the percentage of white students in elite colleges would go up from something like 66% to 75% if only raw ability were considered? In other words you're getting shafted for being white, in a mostly white country.
> Just because some white people have accomplished something doesn't give you claim or credit for that.
Aren't you gaslighting him? It's called kin selection and it doesn't stop at the parents, it expands outwards further and further with no magical border.
Asians are more impacted than this than Caucasians. Claiming its 'raw ability' is also completely false, its developed education and largely based on socio-economics not race.
>Aren't you gaslighting him? It's called kin selection and it doesn't stop at the parents, it expands outwards further and further with no magical border.
Kin selection has nothing to do it. Just because some white people have accomplished things doesn't mean he deserves any credit for any of it.
To assume otherwise is absurd, unscientific and hilariously stupid.
I'm not the OP but you've lost me as well. What part of what you're saying is supported by data? Any data?
> In fact, you are reviling (immigration, foreigners) the very thing that gave rise to the west as it is now.
What gave rise to the USA were productive people creating a country for themselves and preventing other people from immigrating there. Immigration was mostly limited to other anglos.
One of the most remarkable things happened in Africa, I forget exactly where, where an unbelievably high number of 160IQ+, 170IQ+ school children were found whose parents had immigrated from Britain.
What you had in the USA were a high concentration of these outlier geniuses and other very productive people that made a new nation for themselves.
> The history of the white man is filled with taking ideas and solutions from other cultures and races they encounter and building on them, essentially the same thing you're accusing China of doing unfairly.
Is this not a ridiculous statement? The history of the "white man" is filled with producing outlier geniuses that are costly to those around them but benefit the group. These geniuses go their own way, they don't take ideas from others. You don't see these kinds of geniuses elsewhere, for reasons I forget.
> Slavery, abuse, theft and centuries of using and discarding anything and anyone we can to get ahead is a significant part of our history
I'm fairly certain that the consensus among those that have looked into slavery in the USA is that it was nothing but detrimental, slowing down progress. The slaves were well fed and made to work little. Children have been made to replicate the daily work of a slave in the USA and have done it with no issue.
It shouldn't come as a surprise to you to learn that the very people that ended slavery are the same people that treated their slaves well.
The slaves that freed themselves before slavery ended integrated surprisingly well, much better than the rest that gained their freedom later. Maybe an IQ difference between those capable of setting themselves free and those not.
> Immigrants, especially second and third generation immigrants often have stronger ties to the country the immigrated to and are more willing to fight for it and die for it as numerous studies ahve shown.
It's a recognized problem in Europe that second and third generation immigrants from the middle eastern countries are integrating worse than their parents.
I don't know man, everything you're saying just seems made up from the spot.
I was pretty clear on what was opinion/experience based and what wasn't. If you can't understand that I can't help you.
>What gave rise to the USA were productive people creating a country for themselves and preventing other people from immigrating there. Immigration was mostly limited to other anglos.
Immigration restrictions are a new thing in the last hundred years or so, people of all kinds immigrated here. Those "productive" people you refer to largely had their success built on abusing and using the minorities that did immigrate here as well.
>One of the most remarkable things happened in Africa, I forget exactly where, where an unbelievably high number of 160IQ+, 170IQ+ school children were found whose parents had immigrated from Britain.
Sources for that.
>What you had in the USA were a high concentration of these outlier geniuses and other very productive people that made a new nation for themselves.
The USA is actually not even in the top 10 based on Mensa, and from what evidence I can find never has had a high concentration of outlier geniuses.
>Is this not a ridiculous statement?
No, its a simple truth.
>The history of the "white man" is filled with producing outlier geniuses that are costly to those around them but benefit the group. These geniuses go their own way, they don't take ideas from others. You don't see these kinds of geniuses elsewhere, for reasons I forget.
You're making hilarious claims, you're gonna have to provide some source for that. History books have nothing backing your world view here, its based on a fairy tale as far as I'm concerned based on what history I do know.
>I'm fairly certain that the consensus among those that have looked into slavery in the USA is that it was nothing but detrimental, slowing down progress. The slaves were well fed and made to work little. Children have been made to replicate the daily work of a slave in the USA and have done it with no issue.
This is completely false and bullshit slavery apologists often repeat.
>It shouldn't come as a surprise to you to learn that the very people that ended slavery are the same people that treated their slaves well.
This is also false
>The slaves that freed themselves before slavery ended integrated surprisingly well, much better than the rest that gained their freedom later. Maybe an IQ difference between those capable of setting themselves free and those not.
Again, mostly BS. There was a significant difference between north and south and much had to do with what scarce education they achieved or were able to get.
>It's a recognized problem in Europe that second and third generation immigrants from the middle eastern countries are integrating worse than their parents.
This is false. its a mass media talking point that's wrong. Look into the studies.
>I don't know man, everything you're saying just seems made up from the spot.
Most of it was opinion, some of it was relating history as we know it. Just about everything you posted is incorrect, outright misleading and much of it sourced or the lies initially came from slavery apologists and those that refuse to actually look at history and accept that with the good a lot of bad also happened.
It turns out the safest way, barring spies who willingly steal, is provide no entry/exit points for data. For smaller organizations or small divisions that's feasible, but super hard to maintain at larger divisions.
Although, in the field of aeronautics, it is not like China is the only "state sponsor" to engage in espionage, or that this is anything new for any of the major powers.
When we have to ask commenters not to take HN threads into nationalistic flamewar, it's usually because of generic nationalistic rhetoric against China. This happens often enough that we routinely get accused of being pro-Chinese. We're not, of course. We're against nationalistic flamewar, regardless of who is flaming or being flamed, because it's against HN's rules and destructive of the spirit of this site.
However, comparing my parent comment here to the average for most comments I make, or comparing it to comments related to Russia, France, Germany, or any other major nation-state, I have to say that the empirical evidence does not support your statement. :)
But, again, I appreciate HN discussions and the efforts to keep it a productive discussion.
The issue with unfounded accusations is not that real abuse doesn't exist (it does); it's that internet users are overwhelmingly too quick to believe that they're seeing organized manipulation when really all they're seeing is something they dislike or find annoying. Such accusations need to clear some bar or they flood the forum and do more damage to it than the abuses they're imagining would do.
If Pierre in Toulouse is desperate to hide his affair with the Chinese girl he met a week ago in the bar...
Jokes aside there are a huge number of mobile devices with saved credentials for exclusive business VPN access and a lot of businesses restrict access to resources based on the source of requests, which can be the corporate network of a supplier. This is often done to enable some forms of electronic data interchange. Putting these services in another network would probably have helped.
It would be my guess that the hacker gained access through a privileged network with stolen VPN credentials. There would be countless ways to achieve that.
Perhaps pickpockets should just sell the stolen phones to relevant companies.