Yes. Twitter shouldn't treat a random person's account the same way they treat someone who wields a ridiculous amount of power and influence.
Typical person: 5 tries and no 2FA, that's ok (I Guess)
President: 5 tries and no 2FA? Twitter shouldn't have applied same ol' same ol' policies.
Sometimes you need to provide differential security. After all, the president doesn't ride around in an unprotected car even though pretty much everyone else does.
I find the hacker mischievously hilarious :
"The question remains why Trump was using such a weak and simple password. Gevers has a possible explanation: ‘Trump is over 70 – elderly people often switch off two-step verification because they find it too complicated."
Whenever I use up too much data on mobile and get throttled hacker news becomes the only site I can still use since every other website takes 5+ minutes to load a single page.
Please never do a redesign. Don't ruin a good thing.
The only method you listed that people automatically are hostile to is selling in game items that unbalance a game in the buyers advantage
> players think you are intentionally weakening the free items in favor of the power you can buy.
Players dont just think this, time after time this has proven true. If the buyable item wasnt better why would anyone buy it?
None of the other monetization methods you lists are objectionable if done right.
If enough people are complaining about the value of your $60 game then maybe it's because you got your price point off and should have instead sold it at a lower price. Not every game is a AAA title.
Same user (sorry I guess I didn't enter my password carefully as I can't log in.)
Well I mean they're not exactly on the Internet with an IP address and no firewall, are they? (Or they would have been compromised already.)
Whatever it is, it must be separated off as an "insecure enclave".
So that's why I'm wondering about this technique. You don't just miss out on security updates, you miss performance and architecture improvements, too, if you stop upgrading.
But can that be the path toward 100% uptime? Known bad and out of date configurations, carefully maintained in a brittle known state?
No, it's a fair question. The word "enclave" has a general meaning in English as a state surrounded entirely by another, or metaphorically a zone with some degree of isolation from its surroundings.
So the legit question is, can insecure systems (e.g. ancient mainframes) be wrapped by a security layer (WAF, etc.) to get better uptime than patching an exposed system?
It's almost like many of the very companies you mentioned were subject to antitrust investigations and without antitrust laws hanging above their heads like a sword of Damocles would be free to use their vast fortunes to stamp out any competition that threatened them ^.^
