Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | mpyne's comments login

I have found it useful for driving in hill country (to avoid having to ride the brakes downhill) but beyond that I'm not sure there's much practical benefit. I used to think you could downshift to buy you more time to coast to a stop without having to touch the brake and save some gas, but I think even using the brakes is enough to get a modern car to cutoff fuel flow.


Unfortunately it is still practiced in many environments, including most Navy software acquisition efforts, which are frequently run under a "systems engineering" process intended for hardware like ships and airplanes.

This process includes multiple reviews in a "SETR" (System Engineering Technical Review) process (https://www.acqnotes.com/Attachments/SETR%20Navy%E2%80%99s%2...), including steps like:

* SRR (System Requirements Review)

* CDR (Critical Design Review)

* TRR (Test Readiness Review)

Example of slide 15:

Example of Items from SRR Template

* SW Development Team

* Integrated Mater Schedule Highlighted with Software Milestones

* Software Entrance Criteria

* Requirements Analysis and Allocation Methodology (sounds agile to me!)

* System Specifications Tree

* Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL)

* Software Development Strategy

* Software Development Process

* SW Safety, Information Assurance and Security requirements

* Software Supplier Management

* Software Measurement

* Software Risk Assessment with Mitigation Strategies

* Issues and Concerns


> You wouldn't use an agile methodology in construction, you waterfall the hell out of that.

On the contrary, Mary Poppendieck has a wonderful presentation she gave on how the Empire State Building was built in record time by literally doing it as a more agile-style construction. https://chrisgagne.com/1255/mary-poppendiecks-the-tyranny-of...

Likewise, American manufacturers by WWII had already gotten very good at building complicated machinery based on relatively light levels of blueprints and documentation, with the detail-level designs being added to the drawings used on the factory floor.

In many ways we have to blame the introduction of computerized project management for waterfall... it simply wouldn't have been workable before that to even attempt a real waterfall method for projects.


I won’t wade into the intricacies of defining Waterfall or whether it has merit, but it definitely should be mentioned that Kanban—a capital A Agile technique which most capital A Agile advocates find unstructured and unpredictable (as in tends towards lowercase a agile)—was popularized by an auto manufacturer, where safety and liability are at least as much a concern as construction.


Kanban is a core but small part of TPS, it can't be said to be pro or against safety.


> > was popularized by an auto manufacturer, where safety and liability are at least as much a concern as construction.

> Kanban is a core but small part of TPS, it can't be said to be pro or against safety.

The poster's point is that it's not obviously defective from that standpoint, despite criticisms that imply that it is.


Almost exactly my point. There’s a fairly strong set of evidence that it’s safety-neutral at worst.


I love kanban. It's not perfectly suited for knowledge work, though. Great for smaller projects and for places where precise scoping and predictability is less important than just making progress.


> Also, Cloudflare asserts their position is that they largely do not want to restrict speech beyond that government baseline and they won't act themselves against speech. Here they claim they are forced to (and they probably were).

CloudFlare acts against speech all the time. They'll sell you a service to screen the speech of others and then pass it onto you or not, at their decision.

CloudFlare's own terms of use for their Email Forwarding product is very clear that they will squelch your speech as well, in many conditions that don't come anywhere approaching "organizing an international manhunt to intimidate a minority": https://www.cloudflare.com/supplemental-terms/#email-routing

They should stop talking about this like it's "pure speech" because it's not that at all, and even to the extent that it is, they already limit actual "pure speech" in many other scenarios not nearly as threatening as this.


OK, you're willfully missing the point because we're talking about the position relating to Cloudflare's security services, not hosting or other products that have have a more restrictive TOS.


If what you say is true, Cloudflare's security service would be freely made available to email spammers.

Is that the case?


They laid out their position rather clearly:

https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflares-abuse-policies-and-a...


This refers mostly to content, not activity.

As far as they do mention activity, they do say they ban content related to activity that is, for example, "libelous". So they'll block you for publishing insults about someone, without any further malicious activity.

They also say that they ban content used as part of malware command and control, which seems to cover spamming, meaning that they should have no problem blocking spammers trying to use their "security protection" service.

Of course it turns out I don't even have to use the analogy with spam because CloudFlare's own post that you linked to clearly states they can remove access to content that is "... harmful, or violates the rights of others, including content that discloses sensitive personal information, incites or exploits violence against people or animals ...".

That's literally been KF's modus operandi for years now. Unless CF changed their terms very recently, that behavior of KF has always been proscribed. Yet CF saw fit in their discretion to make a conscious choice to continue aiding and abetting KF in its campaign of doxxing and incitement of violence, something far worse than libel or C2.


> As far as they do mention activity, they do say they ban content related to activity that is, for example, "libelous".

You're again missing the distinction between their hosting policy and their security product policy. This was the important distinction that I first pointed out to 2 comments ago, and that I posted this document which explains clearly 1 comment ago.

> Hosting products are subject to our Acceptable Hosting Policy. Under that policy, for these products, we may remove or disable access to content that we believe:

...

> has been determined by appropriate legal process to be defamatory or libelous.

...

> Our conclusion — informed by all of the many conversations we have had and the thoughtful discussion in the broader community — is that voluntarily terminating access to services that protect against cyberattack is not the correct approach.


“They'll sell you a service to screen the speech of others and then pass it onto you or not, at their decision.”

The problem with your logic here is that you’re considering the voluntary filtering of messages by a party as being the same as stifling someone’s ability to say something. The filtered party can still say what they want but the intended recipient should always have the ability to ignore that if they so choose.

“CloudFlare's own terms of use for their Email Forwarding product is very clear that they will squelch your speech as well”

The difference between controlling what gets sent out by their email service is more a question of legal liability than free speech. They are not limiting anyone’s ability to give free speech within the confines of the law here.

To make a stronger argument maybe you need to create a stronger definition of free speech than what is defined by law to prove any violations on CF’s part.

In the case of KF, CF has only suspended them on what they could identify as undealt-with legal violations. This is fundamentally different from revoking services to silence unsavory takes.

I also imagine the doxxed information on the platform (KF) is removed after a time so attacking the whole platform at this point just seems like an effort to stifle a community with subjectively unpleasant ideologies.


I think the point is that this isn't even KF's first go at the bomb threat thing. They've organized bomb threats, swatting, stalking vulnerable people at hotel rooms they've fled to, and worse things besides... and CF was always OK with. Always.

Until now.

When KF forced CF into a choice between protecting KF and protecting the victims of KF, CF chose KF, repeatedly.

Until now.

I'm glad CF has made the right choice, finally. But it clearly is not going to come from within, it's going to have to come from continued public awareness.


Is there any proof, at all, of any swatting, being organized there? seems to be a question that eludes people.


On the off-chance that this is a serious question and not gaslighting, start with this investigative journalist's thread: https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/15657972205318144...

This isn't recent either, the same reporter wrote on the site back in 2016: https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-trolls-cheer-trans-woman... (linked to from his Twitter thread).

I personally witnessed Near's live-tweeted descent into despair, culminating in their suicide (https://twitter.com/eevee/status/1409230358977998851?lang=en, https://twitter.com/near_koukai/status/1408986839743037448), all driven by KF.

As Near described it:

> But Kiwi Farms has made the harassment orders of magnitude worse. It's escalated from attacking me for being autistic, to attacking and doxing my friends, and trying to suicide bait another, just to get a reaction from me. I lost one of my best friends to this. I feel responsible

The behavior from just the Daily Beast story alone exceeds the harm caused by things like spamming, for which CloudFlare does ban email users. CloudFlare even runs a dedicated service that "crawls the Internet to stop phishing, Business Email Compromise (BEC), and email supply chain attacks at the earliest stages of the attack" [1].

One could only wonder how magical the Internet would be if CloudFlare could stop doxxing and account hijacking attacks at their earliest stages! Or... you know, at least not facilitate those attacks coming from within their own network. Because once this all crosses into harassment, stalking, doxxing and mass online bullying, it stops being about "speech" and starts being about facilitating and organizing criminal activity.

[1] https://www.cloudflare.com/products/zero-trust/email-securit...


Ok, the investigative journalist's thread shows literally no proof or even evidence that kiwi farms was involved in the swatting, and the man with the note apparently posted it on /pol/(?) so not even kiwi farms was on that one. Neither of the other two links said anything about swatting.

I'm serious here, and genuinely trying to understand this underlying consensus that the one to blame for it is that website, but I just don't see it.


If Keffals's own personal statement wasn't enough, this press article https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/swatted-toronto-man-caug... confirms her address and her father's were posted to Kiwifarms immediately prior to them being swatted.

Also, KF's admin directly mentioned that those on the site are using it for swatting (see https://www.sinseer.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/FaveAhKVE..., taken from a page posted by a different victim of KF-sourced harassment).

> the man with the note apparently posted it on /pol/(?) so not even kiwi farms was on that one

You mean the note literally saying "KiwiFarms all Troons"?? https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/15658039736716369...

Where they uploaded the first pic is hardly the issue, that KiwiFarms was organizing the online harassment campaign, including doxxing and swatting, is the issue.

And I couldn't help but notice you seemed to miss Near's tweet. Do you think they were unclear as to the source of their misery?


No, her personal statement isn't enough, how could she know who did it? I'm sure in the heat of the moment someone going thru something like that would make assumptions and galvanize their position somewhat, it's completely understandable, but it's hardly evidence. Also the article doesn't say anything about the timeframe between her dox being posted and the incident.

The admin explicitly saying for people to stop "encouraging SWAT pranks" when speaking apparently(?) about two other elements is a bit closer but still quite weak, its an open forum from what I gathered so far surely there would be archives or some screenshot or something for said "pranks" towards the streamer being discussed right? especially if there is mention of him actually having to deal with the FBI in previous times.

I didn't overlook the tweets, I just couldn't find a single mention of swatting there.


Yes, the evidence for a causal link in swatting is weaker, but evidence exists: discussion of swatting on the site, proximal links in time between people being doxxed and being swatted, etc.

And then we have screenshots of them figuring out her hotel room immediately after the swatting and engaging in harassment.

There's plenty of evidence for the site being used to coordinate unlawful harassment, and moderate evidence for them being used in highly dangerous harassment (e.g. swatting).

I think you're engaging in motivated reasoning. It's like if someone is known through extensive evidence to have assaulted others 100x, and there's moderate quality evidence they murdered someone-- arguing that they shouldn't be in jail because you personally don't find the murder evidence convincing enough. OK, um, we disagree about the murder thing, but what about all the other crimes?


Gonna be quite direct:

>discussion of swatting on the site, proximal links in time between people being doxxed and being swatted, etc.

what is this proximal link? and if that link is something like 3 days or a week or something, on an open forum, i'm not sure it's that relevant, literally anyone can watch the website without participating for what I understand.

>And then we have screenshots of them figuring out her hotel room immediately after the swatting and engaging in harassment.

I saw the bedsheet investigation, but what harrassment did they engage in? the situation where the orders happenned was in a second hotel, and after a big of digging it wasn't even kiwifarms that got the dox on that one, it was Vile on doxbin[0], and he also admitted to being the one making the orders.

> There's plenty of evidence for the site being used to coordinate unlawful harassment, and moderate evidence for them being used in highly dangerous harassment (e.g. swatting).

what is the evidence for this unlawful harassment, and what is the moderate evidence for the swatting? if all you have is what was posted above for the swatting then we'll agree to disagree, which is fine, what is however the plenty of evidence for the former? And no, that twitter thread really doesn't cut it afaic.

> I think you're engaging in motivated reasoning. It's like if someone is known through extensive evidence to have assaulted others 100x, and there's moderate quality evidence they murdered someone-- arguing that they shouldn't be in jail because you personally don't find the murder evidence convincing enough. OK, um, we disagree about the murder thing, but what about all the other crimes?

Well, here's the thing, I know little about kiwifarms in particular and everyone is saying that there is extensive evidence of other crimes, articles are being written saying that they were the one responsible for swatting people and a thousand other things, and the citation/source rabbit hole just leads to a dead end, or ends up circular, so yes i'm going to have my doubts and at least want to see some of this extensive documented harassment trove, archiving things on the internet is but a couple clicks away.

I'll leave the thread for today for it is getting too late, have a good one.

[0]: https://doxbin.org/upload/Keffals


Hate crime hoaxes are off the charts. "moderate evidence" isn't close to sufficient for anything anymore on the web.


At the very least:

- Moderators on KF felt the need to address the topic of swatting.

- People dox'd on KF were definitely swatted-- the missing evidence is to what degree the actual swatting was coordinated on KF. It's relatively indisputable that KF was in the causal chain.

- Harassment occurred, coordinated on KF to someone immediately after relocating from a swatting.


You sidestepped the question. He asked for proof.


No one is answering you because it's obvious to even the most intermediate observer where this work is coming from.

The only reason anyone would give KF the benefit of the doubt is because they willfully are ignoring the activity going on in KF.


What about to people like me, who have only ever heard of kiwi farms in passing, who don't really know anything substantial about any of this stuff and want to know more? Is it obvious to us? I'd like to see what everyone's talking about when they talk about this site, and if they're right, without actually going there. Can you help me out with that?


You want me to google news articles for you?


No, just show me that what you're saying is true.


You've had a day and a half to google it.


I did google it, still nothing but more people telling me to google it.


So the lack of evidence of wrongdoing is evidence of wrongdoing. Got it. That will certainly fly in court.


What court? What lack of evidence? Are you even on this earth right now?


> What court?

A hypothetical court. I was just using it as an example of how the argument wouldn't hold muster in situations where it would really need to.

> What lack of evidence?

You posted this:

> No one is answering you because it's obvious to even the most intermediate observer where this work is coming from.

Again, "well, it's just obvious, dude" is not evidence. It's similar to a "god of the gaps" argument. If there's evidence Kiwi Farms did it, then Kiwi Farms did it, and if there's not evidence that Kiwi Farms did it, then Kiwi Farms still did it. That makes no sense.


> I was just using it as an example of how the argument wouldn't hold muster in situations where it would really need to.

I love when non-lawyers think they have any idea on what holds muster in the court of law.


So there isn't then?


I do wish people would archive these pages to dissuade any doubt of wrongdoing.


>They've organized bomb threats, swatting, stalking vulnerable people at hotel rooms they've fled to, and worse things besides

all of these things are against site rules, users who do them are banned (and mercilessly mocked).

the MTG swatting was so obviously a false flag, whoever did it said "YES I AM FROM KIWIFARMS AND THIS IS MY EXACT USERNAME", there was no actual discussion of a swatting attempt in the thread prior to that; nobody would just straight up admit who they were while committing a crime like that, especially after null repeatedly said he hands over people's info to law enforcement if they post illegal shit.

remember, the site is currently being DDoSed, which is a crime. people want it gone. so is it that impossible that the DDoSers would also do other illegal crap (like swatting) and blame it on KF to get their way?


Oh shit maybe we're all wrong then! Can I ask, then, what is the purpose of the site, if it's not to co-ordinate the harrassment of individuals by sharing their personal information?


>what is the purpose of the site

It is a forum.

Should sites have to have a "purpose" and does this need to be vetted by some authority or the hosting provider?

What is the "purpose" of Twitter, Facebook, Telegram, Signal, 4chan or Discord?

>by sharing their personal information

I mostly saw public Twitter screenshots being reposted. I swear some people dont seem to understand that Twitter is public and not all DMs.


Ok have fun doing whatever it is you do that isn’t doxing on your forum when it’s back online (after the doxing and the threats took it offline) I guess.


I dont have an account there... My HN is also not some driveby throwaway. You are putting words in my mouth now because you are out of arguments. This is a discussion forum.


Regarding the "purpose" argument. Authoritarianism is on the rise. What are you, some kind of wrongthinker? :)


The purpose is to document the bizarre (and oftentimes outright creepy and/or illegal) behavior of the terminally online. You know, stuff like helping your friend sell his bathtub brewed hormones to minors without their parents finding out. Or running a Discord server called Catboy Ranch that has several minors on it, and you send them personalized collars that declare them your property. Just ordinary, innocent stuff that is no one else's business, clearly.


To laugh at silly people online.


What are you talking about exactly? As far as I've been able to find, they don't even have a history of harassment, let alone something illegal, not as a forum/community. As we saw with this "threat" here.. it was reported and deleted as soon as the mods saw it and the user perma banned.. Just like every other attempt by a "member" to post something illegal or interact with someone off site.


> It also seems like the player might get rather frustrated that they can't hit an enemy ship that is five feet in front of them because the player ship is not exactly at the same elevation as the enemy ship.

Ha, I even had this problem with a 'modern' game, Uncharted (2? I think?). The one with the tutorial level with you on a dock having to shoot pirates or something. Aiming was impossible on the DualShock because you'd either not move the crosshairs or the crosshairs would just way overshoot once it started moving.

I ended up having to run up to the goons to land shots.

Thank God for Gamefly, that game went straight back even though I'd spend hours already getting it installed and then mandatory patches done.


They canceled his passport even before he left China. He's always been welcome to return to the USA to face justice.

But that's not what he wanted, and that's why he's in Russia, and why he was at the Russian consulate in Hong Kong for multiple days before he finally departed on a plane to Moscow [1]. He's a defector, so he's currently exactly where he wanted to be when he left.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/report-snowden-stayed-a...


"Justice".


> It's not. In fact, it's a fairly modern invention from the Nixon era created with the expressed purpose of rationalizing a socially conservative agenda.

The outcome of the Nixon era was to rein in the NSA, not expand it more. Read about the Church Committee.

Moreover, the U.S. government has copied telegrams crossing the U.S.'s international borders for nearly as long as overseas telegraphy has been a thing. The NSA themselves are happy to mention that the first U.S. civilian cipher-cracking agency was setup in New York City for easy access to major telegraphy operations, see https://www.nsa.gov/History/Cryptologic-History/Historical-E...

> It quite literally says "unreasonable search and seizures". How is this not a 4th Amendment violation?

'Seizing' is a legal term, where your property is taken and held by the government, as with some of the various oligarchs' yachts seized in the wake of Russia's attack on Ukraine.

That's not to say that a wiretap would have been considered OK by the writers of the Constitution, I just don't think they thought of the possibility of intercepting communications without seizing them.

Even back then there would be a concept of public records about people (think of property deeds, court records, baptismal registries, and so on). Many of those records would have been accessible to the government as a matter of course (e.g. registries maintained by a local church). So there's precedent for 'metadata' about people to be open to government without a warrant (especially if they are open to members of the public anyways). And frankly it wouldn't be until 1967 that any substantive restriction was finally put on government use of electronic communications. It wasn't even illegal for individuals to conduct wiretaps on other individuals until 1934!


> 'Seizing' is a legal term, where your property is taken and held by the government

Doesn't that perfectly describe civil asset forfeiture? (What the parent was talking about when referring to "seizure", not the wiretap stuff in this case.)

> So there's precedent for 'metadata' about people to be open to government without a warrant (especially if they are open to members of the public anyways)

Phone/messaging records are not open to members of the public, though.

> * And frankly it wouldn't be until 1967 that any substantive restriction was finally put on government use of electronic communications.*

Is that even necessary, though? I mean, we don't need to have a law on the books that says the US President must be 35 years or older; that's in the Constitution. Just like "no unreasonable searches or seizures". Certainly law can help codify and clarify specifically what a search consists of. But I think it's pretty uncontroversial to argue that much of what the US government does vacuuming up electronic data should constitute a "search".


USS Jimmy Carter was named after the former President because Jimmy Carter was himself a submarine officer, and during his Navy service used his nuclear training to assist in the cleanup and recovery of a nuclear accident in Canada.

He considered his time as a nuclear submarine officer so formative that a question to him from the Admiral in charge of Naval Reactors, Hyman Rickover, formed the title of his book "Why Not the Best?" [1]

President Carter was well-aware that the submarine was named after him and why, and stated himself how proud he was to have a submarine named after him. [2] Not just a submarine either; the Seawolf class is still among the most capable ever built by the U.S., and the Jimmy Carter (with her "special projects" upgrades) is the most capable of the entire class.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Why-not-best-Jimmy-Carter/dp/08054558... [2] https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/27/carter.sub/


What a politician says on the record and what they truly feel are not necessarily identical.


The government can't direct a company to do surveillance that the government itself couldn't do. If the government were just going to flaunt the law anyways there'd be easier ways to get after the data in these buckets. And none of this would insulate the government from backlash anyways.

Likewise, if you're Bezos and you have unfettered access to PRISM-tier data that AWS employees are just going to say "OK!" for, you don't need to buy Ring. Just grab the data! It's sitting on your S3 buckets!

At most the government might be able to use data that Amazon would willingly turnover for whatever reason, assuming they're not contractually prevented from that, but you can't hardly build a surveillance program around the idea that Amazon might allow you to luck into data you need.


What do you think "PRISM-tier data" is? PRISM is just a database where they put the results of subpoenas. It's not a super cool spy program.


> The government can't direct a company to do surveillance that the government itself couldn't do.

What does this sentence mean re: legal text?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: