While it is fine that you have decided to no longer be news or for hackers, that means I don't care to continue reading this. Hackers are supposed to question the systems they're presented with, and news is supposed to deal with the issues of the day--political news and computer news are linked inextricably these days. The idea of removing one is asinine, this is not the proper community for it. Lobsters is good.
Literally none of this addresses any of the issues brought forth. "Sorry, let us restate exactly what we said before." This conference is a joke, adding more words to say the exact same thing isn't any more polite or respectable.
The implicit fault in the OP is that the developers don't get anything out of providing support. This is entirely false, however, as your users are your testers. If the product isn't good enough to pay for, as many projects are when they start, or fills too small of a niche to justify a payment from someone, you risk your project becoming stagnant due to no user-input. When others use open source projects, their specific goals for using the project might vary slightly from the developer's, and the use-case will never be fleshed out--leaving the project at a lower quality than it could be, limiting appeal and growth.
That doesn't mean it's the wrong choice all the time, but these are the tradeoffs that you're making when you make that choice.
mailhero.io lets you set a username, then anything sent to *.username@mailhero.io is forwarded to an e-mail you choose. It's only somewhat an e-mail host at the moment (added a few weeks ago), and it has stated that the hosting is only temporarily free, but if you already have a host this can give the feature without requiring any form of migration.
Right, but you're assuming optimal response from every Dropbox user, when I'd assume the vast majority of Dropbox users aren't aware of best password practices (or are aware and only change passwords when forced anyway because 'I have nothing to hide'). The severity of the breach means Dropbox should be forcing password changes. I didn't even receive an e-mail notifying of the breach. Nothing in the spam filters, it's just not there. The only reason I'm aware of it is Troy Hunt, and the only reason I'd ever be aware of it is that. I was getting ready to leave dropbox anyway, this just reasserted that it's the correct decision.
Honestly, I've found security bugs in Dropbox using it (oddly) as designed in the past and would never use it again; basically, as a non admin I could become an admin in a business account; reported the issue, had a call with them and it appeared they fixed it, but still it was a wtf moment for me given if you're an admin you are able to permanently delete all the data and according to Dropbox the data would not be recoverable regardless of the time frame.
As for the average user, to be honest at the point I increaslying feel like people are responsible for their own security and if you that concerned a service won't notify you of a breach or make a mistake that to you is unforgivable — don't use them. Reason I take this position now is because increased you feel like all the hand holding related to security is dangerous long-term.
I agree that, ultimately, the only person who really cares about your security is you. That is certainly where the buck stops, and if a service has security you don't agree with stop doing business with them.
However, a forced password and session reset on accounts whose credentials have become public knowledge isn't "hand holding." It's SysAdmin101. It should be the first thing you do. Unless I'm misreading you, the stated stance is "Anyone using dropbox got what they deserved," but not everyone has the knowledge to perform a security audit. The user is not without blame or having made mistakes, but Dropbox isn't taking ownership of their own mistakes or being transparent to every affected user about what those mistakes were and/or led to. If they want to be a service that does hand-holding, they can give the correct advice. If they don't, they NEED to be transparent about what occurred and what information was released or the onus is entirely on them. Right now, they're doing neither. I think that is criminally negligent, though I'm certain no legal action will be taken.
I feel that lowering those expectations of a service only helps justify these shitty, lazy practices to others.
The only thing that would've been exposed in the breach relating to me are the e-mail address and password for that service itself (alongside all the crappy memes I stored there), but I'm not ready to watch the world burn from the sidelines. The security of others is just as much your personal security, and the more of it others sacrifice the more you'll be expected to do the same and suffer repercussions for not doing so.
I came here to recommend this exact thing. There is also simplenote, if you have cross-platform worries or don't want to spend the money--but Drafts absolutely is worth it. It's the perfect replacement for a pocket notebook--write down whatever; contact info, url, quote--send it to contacts, read it later service, notes application. The tutorial videos on the site are a great showcase.
He doesn't make it free, he makes ad money. You are the product in his mindset, and that should lead to an impasse to ever using his software for security purposes. Any user seeking security and Dominick Reichi have competing interests.
That philosophy works fine for something like Google, where your information is what they make money off of. In this case, your page views are the product, as KeePass does not ask for nor use for marketing any personal information from you. Huge difference.
I disagree. People should be allowed to express any opinion, thought, or view they might have, yes, but it's not always the job of someone telling them they're wrong to tell them why they're wrong. The same way every smoker knows that smoking is bad for them, every American racist at this point knows their views are in opposition to the norm and that it is in fact their job to defend them.
Censorship needs a power structure to exist. A person choosing independently that they don't care for something isn't censorship, no matter how many people do it independently in a short period of time. What I find problematic is not "censorship," but close-minded attitudes where no matter what you're free to say others aren't listening. Them choosing not to listen is not the same as my restriction from presenting the idea, though.
I didn't mean to imply that any individual has an obligation to explain why they're wrong, (though I do feel that as a society overall we do) but that it at least gives a chance to explain to people why their views might not actually be based in reality instead of pushing people towards others that will just confirm their incorrect/ignorant/whatever views.
I agree that you need a power structure to censor, but power structures come in many shapes, and governments don't have a monopoly on them (as much as they'd surely like to). Even here on HN, there are a few big names that could probably ruin a person's career with a single tweet.
I don't take issue with people deciding they don't agree with or don't like something. To me the issue starts when it changes from "you're wrong and your views are despicable" to "you are wrong and your views are despicable so you shouldn't be allowed to express them".
>"Blue is clearly a superior color to green"
>"No, if you read up on it, you'll find that green is better because...."
Totally ok with that, no censorship.
>"Blue is clearly a superior color to green"
>"You're wrong and an idiot, I'm going to refrain from interacting with you in the future"
Still ok with that, no censorship, annoying without justification (and imo shitty to discount a person due to a single view, especially in unrelated topics, but that's just me) but that's about it.
>"Blue is clearly a superior color to green"
>"I'm going to tell your employer and as many people as I can that you're a hateful blueist and make sure you're fully ostracized from the Wavelength community."
Alternatively,
>"I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that blueists like you can't discuss wavelengths at this Institution."
This is what I'm not ok with. It goes from disagreeing to suppressing. You're no longer choosing what YOU don't want to listen to, but making that choice for everyone.
Edit: Also, knowing that your position goes against the norm isn't knowing that it's incorrect, nor does it necessarily mean that it is incorrect. Seventy years ago, having the view that people can get married regardless of skin color would be knowingly going against the norm, and 10 years ago it was the same regarding gender, yet I'm glad that people were able to express those views.
I think we've agreed to discuss this as such, but when we're saying "you" it's the figurative you and not you, Tiksi, I'm speaking of.
As a society, we absolutely have a need to educate. In individual instances, most of the time I find it's not worth doing more than pointedly saying, "RUDE," and walking away. (This is when presented with bigotries, not just any idea I disagree with. I'll listen to you be wrong about using emacs instead of vim all day, I won't listen to you be wrong about whether or not a class of people deserves to be treated equally, especially if membership to that class of people is involuntary.)
On HN, there are people who can have a negative effect on you or your career, and you should conduct yourself as such on here. It's a public, non-anonymous forum and should be treated as such. In addition, there's a difference between well-intentioned opinion that comes from an ignorant place and an ill-intentioned one. "Kill all bluists," is different than, "Bluists are more likely to commit violent crime."
I'm not saying the status quo is always right, nor am I trying to imply it, rather I'm stating that you should have defensible rationalizations for their opinions whether or not they fit the status quo, but if they differ you should be able to reason it. If you don't have a thought-out reason for your opinions and you still find them valid, there's no way for a conversation to actually occur.
As for "I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that blueists like you can't discuss wavelengths at this Institution." You lost me, I don't exactly understand the point that you're making with that example, is there a more concrete example you can give?
That's cool, but the world doesn't work by what you specifically call a public accommodation. There are dinner clubs with membership requirements (look here for a big hint as to how to continue refusing service to 'undesirables' legally), there are office parks with water fountains behind fences. The solution, if you don't want to do business with the public, is to not do business with the public. If you choose to be publically available, that's on you.
Note: if your services require licensure, then it's not your right to provide those services to begin with--it's a privilege you've been granted and that will come with extra legal stipulations by that very nature.
