snowwrestler

> decide where you stand on the tool/weapon based on foundational principles

If you actually do this, then it doesn’t matter whether the outcomes seem to help one party vs another.

The second part of your comment invalidates the test in the first part of your comment.

Jobs routinely shit-talked product features and categories that Apple later went into, including both phones and tablets. People complained about it when he was alive, but now we’re asked to fondly recall how consistent he was?

> In my experience that takes hours, and you can't bill a minute of it.

In my experience—paying agencies to build and support Wordpress sites for over 15 years—I absolutely get billed for security related work, as well as bug fix work. And I should.

This seems more like a business model issue, or bad customers.

Look at it this way: if your customers had an in-house engineering team building and running their Wordpress sites, do you think they could get away with not paying those people for the time spent installing patches and mitigating side effects? So why should they be able to not pay their agency for that work?

That work is Part Of The Deal with running websites, in general, regardless of the framework or CMS. For sure your hosting providers are making sure their revenue covers those costs across their infrastructure. So why aren’t you?

> This subthread is a discussion about pertains to politicians misrepresenting their voting intentions in order to get donations.

It is not. You’re not reading carefully enough.

What initial promise? You’ve fabricated something that was not in the comment you replied to.

> It sounds like they were defrauding people into giving them donations under false pretenses, and the transparency measures were effective at mitigating that.

There are no pretenses in political giving (at least at the U.S. federal level), because it is illegal to tie a donation to a particular position, vote, or action by the politician. It’s called a quid pro quo and is the test for whether a donation is a bribe.

In the U.S. the political system is based on people, not positions or policy. Donations to a politician are to the person. It’s not a proxy for buying an outcome.

In practice, of course people are going to support politicians who they like and think agree with them. But under the law, a politician can’t rip you off by taking your money and then voting contrary to your desires.

I don’t think that’s fair, it does not usually work that way in private industry.

It’s possible they have major findings in crypto but are coordinating disclosure. The PHP bug was worked for months and only leaked a few hours early.

It’s also possible they have not found any major flaws yet. The math underlying major cryptography libraries is way simpler than these advanced proofs, and the implementations among the most scrutinized and hardened bits of code in the world.

The PHP bug paradoxically gave me hope. It was not magic; it was a logic flaw that was already known for years. And exploiting it has proved way more difficult than initially feared.

Attack traffic doesn’t necessarily mean the attacks were, or would have, succeeded.

From Cloudflare’s perspective, there is no downside to saying what they observed, and deploying defenses.

We may never know if this was actually being successfully exploited prior to patch availability.

Yes, exactly, it’s hard for people to resist the temptation; that’s why it is against the guidelines.

If no one engaged, it would not need to be addressed in guidelines. It just wouldn’t happen.

It is against HN guidelines to post complaints like this. We all had the same experience reading the article; yes it sucks, but it sucks in a completely common way that has nothing to do with the unique content or why it was posted to HN.

And complaining about it here adds no substance to the conversation, nor does it do anything to fix the problem.

In the spirit of the subject of the article, perhaps view the terrible UX as a sort of difficult wilderness you have to cross in order to reach the interesting info in the article text. Take pride in your ability to forge ahead and reach your goal. :-)

Record keeping is a good idea for any medical thing.

Quite a lot of serious medical things start out seeming not serious, including a lot of cancers. Basically once an ailment seems unusual, like “hmm this is not going away like usual,” start writing down every time, date, and detail you can remember back to when it started. Then keep that current.

Doing this will help the accuracy of your treatment.

There are also a bunch of implicit “timers” in standards of care, like take OTC drugs and rest for a week, then come back if it is still not resolved. Having a detailed precise timeline documented can help skip through those. The doctor may be able to look at the detail and say “ok you’ve already tried the easy fixes, let’s dig deeper.”

Agree on the need for verification, but that is not what peer review does. It would take an independent investigation.