circular_logic

sorry thats was my phone autocomplete, was supposed to say codebase

These are the things I add in when adding in a new usecase to a codename:

- Expansion of the acceptance criteria into small steps.

- Any clarifications to what we are making

- Anything I don't understand yet so i can chase up someone about it later

- As I read through the code I write up possible refactoring opertunties. (I find this a lot better than adding todos as you can skim though the list closer to the end and address things that matter most first. Often the code that seems silly at first has a decent reason to be that way with the full context knowen)

All of this helps me pull the right threads without having to switch context throughout the day

I have tried to point out that poorly implemented or non contructive security controls reduce system availability. As employes are not able to get to the information they need in a timely manner.

But it's been a dead end to many an argument. For some the underlying issue is a refusal to accept that product usability and security are not mutually exclusive and a difficult to use system just leeds to grey IT in the org.

The most odd reply I have received was pedantics on the definition of security availability, i.e.,

"Ensuring data and network resources are accessible to authorized users when needed"

Beacause it contains the word "authorized" any controls for authorisation can therefore never affect availability as they have to be authorized before we can consitter it an impediment to availability...

If anyone has a reply better than that's ridiculous, please help me here

You're right it would be nice to see some more detail. Perhaps it requires sending a custom update when it reaches out via ssh or it does something wild like opening a reverse shell

What I still don't understand is how flight plans get approved?

In my mind they would only be approved once all involved countries review and process the plan. That way we don't need this ridiculous idea of failing safe on the whole uk airspace for a single error.

That day a single flight plan could have been rejected, perhaps just resubmitted and the bug quietly fixed in the background

Another variation is for scammers to update the number on google maps to their premium number. Calling it still forwards to the real call center. You can often spot people complaining about a free call to X org costing them hundreds of dollars in google reviews of the company.

I think these collectives would end up behaving much like the music industry in terms of chasing licence fees, suing orgs for infringement, and having too much power on what cut was handed down to developers.

Personally I would rather software be Free than have a unavoidable middle man taking a % cut.

That sounds like it would further increase car dependence in city's, how you see city's improving in this scenario?

Agreed.

It's one thing to teach general skills and another to help do the actual hacking

If they are being guided through the actual hacking then that's saying that only the driver in pair programming is producing code

Git being a cli and "main" being shorter to type might help motivate those that are not convinced by the histoial arguments.

A Professor in 101 put it as: "Programming is just a tool, CS is a study that just so happens to use that tool now and then."

Without reading through every year's syllabus you will come across supprises (and very few students seem to do this)

Its expectation versus reality, CS seems to be taught very differently depending on where you go ie different levels of maths focus is a big one, another is if they teach "reality" like common industry tools, software development methodologies, software ethics etc

Often there can a problem with elitism "this course is for knowledge, not your career" that changes many students minds on if this huge amount of debt is worth it vs just finding a job right away.