tete

To be fair though there were quite some attempts to see it from the other side.

I think the end of the story line ruined it though and the fact that all side stories and characters were all a lot more interesting than any of the "main characters". It's like each and every minor side character excelled in amazing and surprising ways coming out of nowhere, while the main plots main characters were largely kind of dull (with exceptions once in a while).

Maybe they just overdid it with two shows largely running in parallel and then wanting to wrap things up?

That said I think the asymmetric war was always - throughout all of history - a classical topic. Everyone wanted to portray themselves as the rebels fighting an impossible fight. From David and Goliath over the French and American Revolutions, to Putin and Netanyahu trying to frame things as "being surrounded by enemies, fighting on their own". Heck even the Roman Empire tried to internally portray imperialism as just, being attacked by the whole world of wild people. Or look at how the left and the right nowadays portray the government as that big oppressor secretly or openly working with the other side.

There is an interesting... not even a show.. let's say "animation series" called Aeon Flux (not the movie, not the comic show) that tries to go into these perspectives a bit, but it kind of stands out among all the media that is either "that evil oppressive regime" and "those horrible terrorists". Wished there was more like that that didn't feel so try-hard.

Also Melinda M. Snodgrass wrote this episode.

I think just watching the scene makes it very very dull. I think watching the whole episode and of course even more adds a lot, because this is the culmination of many things and while in many situations the conclusion is the important bit I think here the context really matters. In this scene for example the role of the other side's "lawyer" is extremely central also to the title of the episode, as well as the relationship between the judge and Picard. None of this is apparent without context.

It would be sad if all that was left of this are small memes that people don't know the context of and I think for that scene in particular most viewers only find it great, because of all that led up to it.

It's like how in movies often the end is quite an epic or emotional scene, but it feels kind of generic without context. Sometimes it's sad that many shows or movies feel more like a series of such situations without buildup. For some shows it fits, but when you need/want to describe characters and inter-character relationships and how they fit into a story summarizing it feels... almost dehumanizing.

Cliche characters are the worst and something that is really enjoyable about Star Trek is that the most serious characters are goofy at times, just like that coworker. People simple have something "cringy" and "weird" to them, even when it cannot always be seen.

I'd even go so far to say that leaving that out in a world where people love to present themselves to the whole world like selling a product the absence of such things or the very intentional display of kind of "fake" goofyness is a thing even worse than beauty unrealstic ideals.

Lot's of words to say: Actually watch the show. Not with some episode guide, not with checking on reviews. Just open. You don't need to make it a marathon. People watched this an episode a week. You'll enjoy clips and memes so much more. Even if you don't end up a Trekkie, even if you are from a very different time. Just kick back and enjoy a nice show. :)

Step 1: Don't use docker, if you obviously cannot handle being depending on it.

Japan is great, because they realized that if you stop giving a fuck about public debt you can make a great country happen.

Who could have thought that with investment rather than letting everything crumble things would get better?

Meanwhile here everyone is close to tears if you propose anything for the public, because that might lead to lowering the tax break for some huge multi national that then would not get the well-deserved pay-off for their lobbying work.

And to be fair who wants to live under a regime that is the worst kind of communism, treating people who want need pee, but don't pay with respect, like Japan? (sarcasm)

> I think the main example on the landing page is a bit counterintuitive?

Still a million times better than the current Go landing page, and I am saying that as a huge fan of Go.

The award for the worst name goes to...

Seriously, it's long and still common, even in the context of computing, even in programming languages. Why would you choose a long name with two words and then not choose something somewhat unique? Such a horrible decision.

Really sad given that otherwise this seems like one of the more interesting new languages I've seen on HN.

I think one has to keep in mind where that slogan came from. A time where every OS tried to start a million services listening on the network, when OpenBSD ended up minimizing that, because it was aware of attack surface.

Nowadays it does the same with being very defensive of complexity and adding features just for the sake of it. They actively remove features and technically break standards to reduce surface. So while the phrase might be dated the whole idea of doing the minimal thing to provide minimal attack surface is something that some other projects could very much benefit from. Especially in times where people use LLMs that happily write ten classes instead of a simple five line function everyone can easily understand and verify.

Also I think it simply became a bit of a meme and like with the art and music it became a bit of a project culture thing. Don't overanalyze it. It's a joke like "days since last accident" and how Shodan is a video game reference and firewall probably came from some fantasy nerd. Hey, the term sharding came from a video game as well!

There is another take on "heavily audited". Many OSs and eg. browsers have the issue that there are huge amounts of pretty complex codes. OpenBSD is extremely inviting and among actual general purpose operating systems used on a daily basis in production one of the projects that sees a quite big amount of reads because of the relative simplicity and (intentionally) low amount of code.

Really, try making sense of pretty much anything in the Linux kernel compared to the OpenBSD kernel or any of the bigger browsers. Like fully grasping it. There is worlds in between.

This has secondary effects of people actually looking at code that is not their area of expertise and developers also working outside their subsystems.

Meanwhile in eg Linux you have huge swaths of code that essentially only some guy in some company somewhere has somewhat of a grasp of. And that's where Linux constantly sees its vulnerabilities, while OpenBSD actively removes such things, eg they removed Bluetooth support back in 2014. This leads to a situation where people actually are able to dig into things. They also have a huge amount of guardrails turned on and I know people that compile their code on OpenBSD despite not targeting the OS at all because of those guardrails uncovering issues.

Think about any bigger software company. There is a huge chance you basically have no idea how the stuff outside your team works maybe not even all of your team.

These kind of are the attack vectors we see in Open Source all the time (and actually closed source software too). It's not the stuff that everyone uses and wants to understand deeply in browsers that cause exploits. It's that one tiny thing that is part of the standard or somehow support was added, but despite nobody using it it's still there, either because well.. it's a standard or because nobody bothered to remove it.

OpenBSD even decided to break some standards for security reasons, but that's another topic.

What I wanna say with that is: I can think of a lot of projects that have more devs and more people looking at parts of it, but these projects tend to be quickly changing huge codebases, where no single person can have a good understanding of everything. This means that there is a good likelyhood that parts are not audited until some group or individual comes along and picks such a bit.

It's actually also what likely happened in this case, given it's 37 years old.

This isn't to defend OpenBSD, but to point out that X amount of people doesn't mean much without taking the size of the audit into consideration. I would think that big projects is something where LLMs really shine, but I also think that reducing attack surface by reducing code and complexity might be the biggest defense and as far as I have seen OpenBSD does a great job there and should be considered something that others can learn from.

And it's not just these kinds of software. It's not even just software per se. It's also infrastructure, where complexity usually means increased attack surface. And just to be clear: One always adds complexity, but it should be the minimal amount to fulfill the goal and not more and try to not add side goals you don't actually care about and want to maintain.

Especially with LLMs it's so incredibly easy to add complexity only for tomorrow's LLM (or human) to find huge amounts of bugs.

I really don't think it's an America only thing, since I sometimes feel like the only person who still has them in and I live in Europe.

I was an early Amazon user and introduced many people to it (was nice to easily acquire books). Have deleted my account 15ish years ago and noticed weird mindsets people developed, thinking they cannot get products elsewhere, thinking that Amazon ships faster than others when using Amazon Prime, thinking Amazon has cheap products and so on.

Showed what make believes people have.

I'm a guy that is pretty lazy and spends most of his money on convenience and not having to do stuff. It's not even convenient.

It's always a bit scary what things people believe end up believing about completely depending on one company.

Ah, I see, Ireland and McKinsey are trying to copy and capture McDonalds audience. /s

Yes, you said burger, but also AlphaNIST is not a technology conglomerate holding company. And the term Alpha is not at all used in their products. It's neither Alpha Phones, not AlphaGemini, nor is Google called Alpha. More than that Alphabet is never shortened Alpha.

That's silly. Neither is Discord the only one with that layout (Slack and even things like Gajim have similar layouts) nor would/should it count as something that cannot be copied.

The fact that Apple back in the early iOS days thought it invented desktop icons is still absolutely ridiculous.

In my opinion Disney is a horrible company, but not for these reasons and sorry, but the connection you are making is kind of sick.

Sorry, but that's just a silly comment. There are many many things causing suicide, including things like celebrities dying or marrying. Should that now be outlawed?

Talking about suicide can cause people to commit suicide, should it be outlawed?

And there were books banned for similar ideas and society at large decided that in most cases it's overreacting and does more harm than good.

Yes, I'd do everything for children to not die, but I wouldn't want them to spend their whole lives in a padded room being only allowed to consume nutritional paste and essentially have no life at all.

There is that idea of laws shouldn't be made for individual cases. It's a bit like how many people believed things like rock music made people into murderers or suicidal only to now have lots of people claim it saved them.

There are people claiming that LLM systems helped them through harsh times.

I say claim, because I neither know all the details about those cases nor claimed suicides, but the idea of absolutes like that is a lot more bothering than what you quoted. And not being able to take (maybe understand?) nuanced stances.