And depending on the results of the upcoming election the FTC may no longer exist afterwards anyways.

I’m not sure if this is just a rhetorical question or a real one?

Because I didn’t claim it isn’t negligence. It is negligent, however, it is not a problem solvable by just pointing fingers. It’s a problem that solvable through more strict regulation and compliance.

Cyber security is almost exactly the same as safety in other industries. It takes the same mindset, it manifests in the same ways under the same conditions, it tends to only be resolved and enforced through regulations…etc

And we all know that safety is not something solvable by pointing fingers, and saying “Well Joe Smo shouldn’t have had his hand in there then”. You develop processes to avoid predictable outcomes.

That’s the key word here, predictable outcomes, these are predictable situations with predictable consequences.

The comment above mine is effectively victim blaming, it’s just dismissing the problem entirely instead of looking at solutions for it. Just like an industry worker being harmed on the job because of the negligence of their job site, there are an incredibly large number of websites compromised due to the negligence of our industry.

Just like the job site worker who doesn’t understand the complex mechanics of the machine they are using to perform their work, the website owner or maintainer does not understand the complex mechanics of the dependency chains their services or sites rely on.

Just like a job site worker may not have a good understanding of risk and risk mitigation, a software engineer does not have a good understanding of cybersecurity risk and risk mitigation.

In a job site this is up to a regulatory body to define, utilizing the expertise of many, and to enforce this in job sites. On job sites workers will go through regular training and exercises that educate them about safety on their site. For software engineers there is no regulatory body that performs enforcement. And for the most part software engineers do not go through regular training that informs them of cybersecurity safety.

That’s not how systemic problems work.

This is probably one of the most security ignorant takes on here.

People will ALWAYS fuck up. The world we craft for ourselves must take the “human factor” into account, otherwise we amplify the consequences of what are predictable outcomes. And ignoring predictable outcomes to take some high ground doesn’t cary far.

The majority of industries that actually have immediate and potentially fatal consequences do exactly this, and have been for more than a generation now.

Damn near everything you interact with on a regular basis has been designed at some point in time with human psychology in mind. Built on the shoulders of decades of research and study results, that have matured to the point of becoming “standard practices”.

Now we just need accessibility tools for the cognitively impaired that can’t seem to read the damn article.

Typical security negligence of startups.

Your data is essentially never secure if it’s sitting with a startup. It’s an atrocious world for security out there.

I don’t think the concern over pinging 1.1.1.1 is warranted.

ICMP is pretty raw Network traffic, meaning you’re not really causing much actual load here.

You can’t even really try to DDOS with normal ICMP packets. You usually have have to max it’s size out at 64KB with an ICMP floor to even think of having an effect. Vs the, effectively inconsequential, 32 bytes of a normal ICMP packet.

You watching a short YouTube video is equivalent Network load as 180 days of pinging for Network up time.

They keep giving us more reasons to sail the high seas.

Your biggest mistake was automatically assuming anything in corporation says is a lie, and projecting that into me.

All that matters is the track record.

This comment aged like milk given they had already lifted the ban.

Did you read the article? No? Cmon. You should start doing that before drawing conclusions.

This is noted as a temporary block on the specific extensions ONLY within the country with regulatory power to ban Firefox. Russia.

Mozilla has stated this is temporary so they can have the breathing room to figure out how to navigate this. Since this goes against their principles.

It’s either Firefox is banned in Russia, or they do this. Which causes more harm? That’s a rough choice for them to need to make.

Welcome to the lowest common denominator.

It’s an infuriating world.

Firefox?

This is only in the country that has regulatory authority, Russian, and is stated as temporary so Mozilla can figure out what to do about it.

Imagine being to wishy washy that you can’t even read the article before doing a 180 on your principles.

I love how you’re getting down voted for a completely sane and logical take.

deleted by creator

Naw, they’ll find some way to “incentivize” (punish you for not) viewing ads and enforce it with eye tracking.

Super glue seems appropriate 🤔

“unfortunately your In-Flight Engagement Actions ™️ did not meet the requirements to qualify you for in flight perks such as entertainment and meals”

“Please ensure you are looking directly at the screen while ads are playing to accumulate In-Flight Engagement Actions ™️”

Coming soon to an airline near you.

It’s very likely that as a sole developer you are actually practicing agile as it’s intended and not corporate “agile”.

There isn’t a problem with agile there’s a problem with it being mislabeled and misused as a corporate & marketing tool for things that have nothing to do with agile.

fails to see reality

Reality is shown to them

Doubles down on their ignorance of reality

This thread is a textbook example of:

Don’t argue with morons. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Instead of actually arguing the topic at hand you are trying to drag all repliers down to your level, act in bad faith, and beat them with personal attacks 🤣

Classic.