paimapi

I think it also has to be that the more powerful you are, the more likely you are to attract and retain sycophants who do nothing but compliment you and tell you how great your ideas are. It's a tale as old as time since the days of kings and emperors.

Some of the best moments of growth that I've experienced have happened during adversity, when something I said or did was laid bare for me from another perspective, with all of the problems with my approach pointed out. Those moments are intensely uncomfortable in that moment but so valuable for long-run growth (provided you have enough of a check on your own ego and developed enough insight to learn from such experiences).

My guess is that this trend to sycophancy will happen in every hierarchical organization where individuals at the top are able to reshape their social environment to avoid uncomfortable moments that they don't wish to have. I think it takes someone truly exceptional to avoid creating that kind of reality for themselves, and why it's oh-so-common to see hyperinflated egos from the most powerful individuals.

That said, I would read the hell out of a non-fictional expose covering specifically just the sycophants around some of our most notoriously unhinged powerful people, ones that showed exactly who are applauding these Emperors Nero who play their citharas while their world burns.

Surely there must be someway to signal that a comment is sarcastic in an easily identifiable way? A code of some kind like a common signifier indicating an ending state that speaks directly to that cultural tribe along with a shorthand expression denoting irony?

Maybe something like "/s"?

The other option would be to embed enough context in a comment that most good faith readers would understand that you, the writer, are not so dense and uncultured that you don't know extremely common knowledge.

If only there was a method for identifying how common certain kinds of knowledge are!

Some questions from a netsec novice:

1) Why wouldn't you have a SSOT for certs and instead rely on patching different apps individually?

2) Doesn't this violate defense in depth? Exploits for a widely disclosed issue now have turnaround activation within hours, not weeks. Not patching all surface areas and actively disclosing as such seems very much like drawing up a map for a jailbroken LLM to gin up a rudimentary attack.

3) Also doesn't this violate the principle of secure by default especially for power users who are more likely to be the ones with higher privileges across distributed systems?