orangepenguin

I think there's a big difference between "activating" a muscle and "getting utility" out of it. Sure, maybe it activates sometimes, but what does it do? Well... nothing. It's a vestigial structure.

Are you allergic to cellulose or amylose? Because those are the two molecules the plastic is made of. They're not making plastic out of gluten.

All I'm seeing here is a commenter who has made a claim and won't support that claim with evidence. I wish they'd answer your question.

Ah, yep. You're right. I overlooked that part. It looks like it's truly non-reversible—even if you don't care what the resulting input is.

Maybe I'm being incredibly naive, but it seems like this would be trivial. Can you just start with the output hash and then essentially run the algorithms backwards? Obviously the resulting "input" would be random-ish garbage, but it seems like if all you care about is the output, you can pretty much just "pick" any data for the last step that produces the output. Then do likewise for the step prior, and so on.

It's not security through obscurity. In fact, it's the very opposite. You can see the process exactly. The reason this is secure is because the process itself doesn't work backwards. You can create a hash using this algorithm, but you'll never reverse that hash back into the original text.

What was the title previously? I'm not sure I understand the significance of the current title.

In my experience, there's typically more than one "smoking gun". The problem isn't finding one, it's eliminating all of the "smoking guns" that aren't actually related to the outage.

If I worked at an organization with many teams deploying updates multiple times per day and several same day events seemed related, I would probably also put less weight on a gradual, months-long deployment that had completed a day prior.

I had the same thought! Earplugs for the sound might not be a bad idea either.

I asked my thinkingrock if it could think and it said yes. Really though, "thinking" is very hard to define. Do animals think? Do insects think? Do bacteria think? I'm sure somewhere we could find an example of a "living" thing that people consider to have thinking capability whose abilities are substantially more primitive than a CPU. So... why not say a CPU can think?

Ah! That's what happened! I read the article and then came back to HN and couldn't find it. I thought I was crazy...

Well said. If you look into some of the research and theories on leadership, you find a very different picture. You could someone a leader any time they have influence over people toward a goal. With this in mind, you can see that an "individual contributor" can definitely be a leader.

However, in business, leadership is often conflated with "legitimate power" (as opposed to expert or referent power), meaning that the person holds a title and is assigned direct reports. Titles and employees are not necessary for leadership.

I wish that engineering departments were better at highlighting this. A person with practice and experience can be a leader by simply working hard, setting a good example, giving input in team meetings, etc.

It is! Most people pronounce the first part of Hashicorp the way you say "hash" (as in MD5). Technically it should be "haw-shee" because of the last name Hashimoto.

Side note, internally a pseudo company name used for example purposes is "Dadgarcorp" after Armon Dadgar. :D