Isn't it better/easier to go the other way? What if cameras included some kind of secured element that signed real content?
Maybe it would technically be possible to defeat, but we're already pretty good at making it difficult/expensive to extract a private key from hardware.
Well, the EXIF data is going to include the focal length at least, I assume all that data is part of the blob being signed. So it would be pretty annoying to make sure the image aligns with what that lens would capture at that focal length, but yes the "analog loophole" strikes again.
>Zuckerberg's Law: The amount each person shares double each year.
Anecdotally, this is almost certainly false. I (and most people I know) are posting ("sharing") less and less. Faced with a surveillance panopticon, I think many normal people are opting out. Peer-to-peer networks are withering.
The internet is reverting to the format of traditional media, with two distinct classes of broadcasters ('influencers') and audience members.
So not only is Facebook historically engaging in creepy contact scraping, but when they finally do get the world connected (for various definitions) they don't even do a good job with that
The strong possibility Zuckerberg just doesn't care about people
That law exists at least since 2008, over a decade and a half ago. It’s plausible it was true and born from observation at the time. The first Snowden documents were published half a decade later, in 2013.
Yeah, so a decade-old now-dead trend isn't a "law" or we could be talk about the "Iron Law of jQuery: All sites will expand until they include at least three incompatible versions of jQuery".
I think it's the self-promotion part that's seen as slimy and shameful. Yes, as an employee I trade my time for money, but I don't write blog posts at the office about what kind of transformational and high-impact work I'm capable of, and about this week's top-10 coding life-hacks, and how I can single-handedly turn your project around from life support to on-schedule deployment.
Admittedly, the people who are good at this tend to get promoted and quickly end up as Directors and VPs... It just... ugh, turns my stomach.
Those people are good at imitating the form of what curious and highly motivated by things beyond money do naturally.
Early programming blogs were written by people who had thoughts they just needed to share with the world. Because they were highly confident and self motivated people, they also often ended up being sought after and making a lot of money.
Then later others tried to turn the process into a formula they could use to increase their earning power, even if they were writing about things they weren't passionate about.
My post was truthful, useful for both me and the potential employers, and I know it's what linkedin is for. Objectively, I did nothing wrong. And still I was really embarrassed by it, and deleted it after I landed a job.
I just really don't like tooting my own horn. I was raised to prize humility, I guess it's quite common in Sweden.
As one of the other replies (nested too deep to reply to directly) said, many of us were raised to be humble and self-effacing, especially about skills related to innate abilities like intelligence. So it feels unseemly to say, in essence, "Hey, you should hire me because I'm great at X, Y, and Z." It feels weird enough to list skills and accomplishments in a resume, but overtly selling yourself feels wrong.
Maybe people like us should team up in pairs and promote each other. I'd have no problem talking up a colleague I knew to be talented, far more forcefully than I'd ever do for myself.
that only works if we know each other very well. every time someone tried to talk me up i felt more awkward than if i had done it myself, because that person didn't know me well enough to actually judge that. the only talking up by someone else that i can tolerate is: "i have worked with this guy and i would hire him (again)"
Oh, I see. Well, I guess I'm fine with the self promotion (which you do a bit to get hired even as an employee), as long as it's honest, polite, done a the right place and not annoying.
I'm not on LinkedIn (and I hope I won't need to be there the day I want to freelance) but I guess people are there for exactly this stuff, so posting an ad for yourself there is only fair, I suppose.
> but I don't write blog posts at the office about what kind of transformational and high-impact work I'm capable of, and about this week's top-10 coding life-hacks, and how I can single-handedly turn your project around from life support to on-schedule deployment.
That's not at all what the comment above was suggesting.
Saying you're open for work and offering services is not slimy.
I think you're confusing LinkedIn slop with offering services. They're not the same thing.
Selling ANYTHING is demeaning? So you believe the only non-demeaning way to live would be to live entirely self-sufficiently, making and growing everything yourself?
Grocery stores are experts at sales tactics throughout the store. All that fruit does not look so beautiful in the field, and virtually every store is trying to develop their 'ethos' to capture the customers with enough money to be able to care about that.
There is no way to avoid selling in life. Otherwise, at the least, you will be constantly overlooked. There should be no shame in it. The shame is only when sales replaces instead of presents the value proposition you are offering.
There is a trivial defeat for nearly all grocery store sales tactics: make a shopping list.
Engaging with certain salespeople is an altogether different proposition. In order to buy a car, you are forced to interact with multiple odious people who have ripping you off as their sole objective. Thats what I think of when I think of a “salesperson”. See also mattress stores, wireless carrier “retention” departments, HVAC installers, etc.
I hear and understand that gut feeling. Whenever I hit that particular feeling, though, I remind myself that it’s only shameful if you’re knowingly selling something that can’t deliver what you’re promising.
Well it's a couple things
- Expectation to be "successful" i.e. social media presents extreme conceptions of success, similar to a supermodel body expectation vs. real life. To say, "I'm looking for work" is to publicly admit failure against such a standard. The fear is that for every potential employer, 10 people you know will see the post and say, "tut tut, what a failure" and then call their 10 friends to share the news of your failure
- some people think advertising for work is sleazy (as others mention)
- annoying people only to be told no, a sense that you're being annoying
It parallels something like the idea of being say 45, never married, and looking to marry, or being recently divorced at the same age. There is a sense of having failed, or being judged by people as having failed. For men, the sense of being a pickup artist or overly aggressive.
That's why some people struggle with it. And it ought not be shameful, in either case. But it's probably more wise to point out those feelings and work through them, process them, than it is to just say "I do not recognize any valid shame here, does not compute"
Right. All my family and friends see me as some kind of genius wizard because of my school grades and because I do stuff with computers that they don't understand. And they hear about all the fancy new stuff happening in the industry all the time, not the negatives. So the idea that I would have to look for a job just doesn't compute for them. They expect me to be headhunted, not sharpening up my LinkedIn page.
Of course, I shouldn't let their misconceptions bother me, but there it is.
I can understand what you're saying, but there's a different way to look at it. Imagine yourself in the future. You're in a position of leadership and people want your advice. Let's say a student asks you how they should get a high level job in a competitive marketplace. What would you say?
Personally, I would tell the student they should be ambitious and tell people what their skills are. They should ask for responsibilities and compensation. They should tell people that they are worth the risk.
If you agree with me about giving that advice, then you should now put yourself in the place of the student. Shouldn't you receive the same advice? Shouldn't you be ambitious and ask people to give you responsibilities and compensation? If so, then you can understand why selling yourself is actually important and there's nothing immoral or slimy about it. It feels wrong sometimes, but that feeling may not be aligned with reality.
Only when you're trying to sell bullshit. If I can actually solve someone's problem, and they don't mind my price, then we're helping solve each other's problems and everyone benefits!
Where things get sleezy is when you're competing with applicants that will bullshit, so you have to bullshit as well just to keep up, or when customers have unrealistic expectations and waste your time.
All of the limitations of the iPad are coming for your macbook, too. Already, it's difficult (not yet impossible) to install software outside the confines of Apple's app store. Already it's difficult (not yet impossible) to develop software for a mac without paying Apple for the privilege of "signing" your code.
Already, it's difficult (not yet impossible) to install software outside the confines of Apple's app store.
My installation of arbitrary software onto my MacBook via Homebrew, Nix, mise, downloading a DMG or .pkg via browser, or even the dreaded curlbash feel just as uninhibited by MacOS as they felt to me in 2015.
At most I have the one-time check-a-box about unsigned software to contend with, or a per-install approval step if I used more security-conservative settings.
None of this was either difficult or forbidden to me.
> All of the limitations of the iPad are coming for your macbook, too.
No offence but people have been saying that since about a month after the iPad launched and yet.
> Already, it's difficult (not yet impossible) to install software outside the confines of Apple's app store.
What's difficult? You download the DMG, open it, drag the app to Applications, job done. Or you install Homebrew if you're mostly after CLI tools. Or compile it yourself if you're happy going that route. (I use all 3 on a regular basis.)
> Already it's difficult (not yet impossible) to develop software for a mac
No, that bit is easy.
> without paying Apple for the privilege of "signing" your code.
That bit can be problematic, yeah. But you can ship unsigned apps and people can install them just fine.
(AFAICT you also have to pay if you want to sign your apps on Windows. It's the cost of providing the infrastructure, I suppose.)
All the downvoters and replies: "I don't live in a cage! They give us exercise time in the yard twice a day as long as I'm on good behavior."
Honestly embarrassing reactions from people pretending not to understand the difference between a machine you control and a machine Apple generously (for now) allows you to use in the way you wish.
It would be more accurate to say that they are designed not to work that way. In modern times, every limited-purpose internet-connected gadget is actually a general-purpose computer that has been deliberately crippled.
The reason you can't run arbitrary software on "your" iPad is because they have locked it down so Apple owns the hardware, not you.
I think we need to look at this in terms of what was the stock product originally designed to do, as opposed to with unlimited skills and expertise what COULD I do with this general purpose computer that most others wouldn't be doing.
A Macbook is a laptop, an iPad is a touch screen tablet. It doesn't matter how much I COULD rip it apart and reshape it, they were originally intended to be used differently. Buying one and expecting it to function the same way as the other is fine, but if it doesn't who is to blame.
I could buy a hatchback to travel and sleep in, but I'd probably need to buy a caravan and perhaps replace the engine to tow it and add a tow bar. Whereas I could just buy a caravan. Complaining I can't convert the hatchback into a capable van is beside the original point.
The form factor is irrelevant: an iPad, a macbook, a tivo, a smart fridge, a raspberry Pi - they're all Turing-complete systems that can (in principle) execute any arbitrary code that can be compiled for that architecture.
It has nothing to do with ripping out engines or tearing anything apart. If Apple didn't deliberately prevent you from installing unsigned software or operating systems, you'd be able to do that.
A much better analogy would be the engine governor installed by manufacturers to prevent a car from going as fast as the hardware otherwise could.
I have the option of paying for every subscription service I use on my iPad without paying Apple a dime - ChatGPT, Google drive, Office 365, every streaming service, Kindle books etc
What’s wrong with using thier “cloud account”? The issue I was addressing is that subscription based services and software can be paid outside of the App Store and a lot of them don’t have an option to pay through the App Store like Netflix and Spotify.
> In modern times, every limited-purpose internet-connected gadget is actually a general-purpose computer that has been deliberately crippled.
The reason you can't run arbitrary software on "your" iPad is because they have locked it down so Apple owns the hardware, not you.
So you also blame Microsoft or Samsung for not letting you do this on an xbox or some fridge with a screen?:)
Yes, of course. I try to avoid buying nerfed toys. I'm mildly concerned that general-purpose computers able to run unsigned code will disappear from the marketplace in the next 15-20 years.
What is this link supposed to illustrate? It doesn't render properly in Firefox - some CSS glitch, elements all on top of one another. Was this produced by AI?
it's a good thing for the creator that their dead reply is default hidden. I'd hate to work with someone who's response to my blunt, possibly rude comment is to call me stupid. whether or not I am, that's just not a good look.
Honestly, one man's "silly purity test" is another's non-negotiable moral principle. Would you work for someone who publicly endorsed racism, cannibalism, slavery, <insert your personal red-line here>?
IMHO the issue is the collapse of any broadly-shared moral and ethical framework. I don't know how you resolve that, except perhaps by trying to peacefully partition society.
I’ve heard this before and I keep hearing it. Maybe I don’t understand it fully but I just can’t see how what we have now is different from the days of old. Do you have any material about the collapse of the shared moral and ethical framework?
It's definitely true for certain things. To consider a relevant example, it wasn't too long ago that homosexuality was broadly considered to be immoral. Now there's strong disagreement over this.
Of course, for this particular example this is actually a good thing. It would be even better if there was broad agreement that homosexuality wasn't immoral, but having a substantial number of people on that side is better than having almost none.
I think the other comment misattributes the problem. The problem isn't the loss of the old broadly shared morality, the problem is that we haven't yet managed to coalesce around a new and better one.
I think you're misapplying "irony". The comment you're responding to doesn't argue for some kind of wishy-washy moral equivalence: they're explicitly advocating for the superiority of their preferred values. Nothing you've offered is an effective rebuttal to their assertion that having 50% "good people" is preferable to 0% "good people" (in the interest of unity).
Nomad is way easier to self-manage than K8s, but GCP does that for me, with all the compliance boxes checked, for extremely cheap. Every cloud provider is in that boat. Nomad will be more work and more money, be it compute or enterprise fees. I'm sticking with k8s.
I agree up to a certain scale. I've managed a large Nomad/Consul setup (multiple clusters, geographically separated), and it was nothing but a nightmare. I believe fly.io had a similar experience.
20k+ nodes and 200k+ allocs. To be fair, Kubernetes cannot support this large of a cluster.
Most of my issues with it aren't related to the scale though. I wasn't involved in the operations of the cluster (though I did hear many "fun" stories from that team), I was just a user of Nomad trying to run a few thousand stateful allocs. Without custom resources and custom controllers, managing stateful services was a pain in the ass. Critical bugs would also often take years to get fixed. I had lots of fun getting paged in the middle of the night because 2 allocs would suddenly decide they now have the same index (https://github.com/hashicorp/nomad/issues/10727)
Definitely not better than Kubernetes, but I don't regret working on it and I like it as a simpler alternative to Kubernetes. I remember trying to hire people for it and not a single person ever even heard of it.
> I remember trying to hire people for it and not a single person ever even heard of it.
I know, it's really sad. Kubernetes won because of mindshare and hype and 500,000 CNCF consulting firms selling their own rubbish to "finally make k8s easy to use".
It's also sad how much Hashicorp apparently ignores marketing for it. Especially when it works with Consul which is already in a lot of places. Also another funny memory is going into a decomm meeting where I was gonna ignore it like usual since 99% of it was another team decommissioning on-prem stuff. And out of nowhere I hear "we just got approval to decomm Consul. We'll be shutting down the servers in two weeks and waiting to see if anything breaks.." followed by my very stern "NO YOU WILL NOT" ahaha. What a mess that company was
Maybe it would technically be possible to defeat, but we're already pretty good at making it difficult/expensive to extract a private key from hardware.
reply