Porsche is German I believe. Maserati is Italian.

Yeah indeed they are not comparable. I have a huge pickup truck in my building and is on another scale. The problem is also that it’s a vicious circle, the more you see cars this big on the road, the more you don’t want to be the only one with what looks like a go-kart in comparison.

Sorry, but your spelling was too funny and I have to nitpick. Porsche and Maserati*

I said funny because you might want to look up what “porche” means in colloquial Italian.

Indeed these are generally super/sports car, and you see very few of them in Europe, except for exceptionally rich places. Even in Europe though you see many SUV in cities and I started seeing more and more huge tanks (like pickup-trucks), which I think are more common in US right now.

Thank you for sharing. I have become weirdly fascinated with the weird or horrific processes to delete your data, so I am very interesting in hearing other people similar experiences!

You are right and what some people miss is that social engineering being the vector to gain foothold doesn’t mean that it was sufficient to allow the breach. Almost always you need some other weakness (or a series of them). Except when the weaknesses are so had that you don’t need a foothold at all (like this case), or when the social engineering gives you everything (rare, but you might convince you someone to give you access to data etc.).

A whole separate conversation is deserved by how effective (or not) social engineering training is. Quite a few good papers about the topic came out in the last fee years.

BUT! Do a thorough quality and content check (i.e. no rape, kiddy diddling, spousal abuse, any other type of abuse, etc.)

Genuine question, why? It seems just that you want your arbitrary moral rules instead of Visa’s or MasterCard’s (or PayPal’s).

I completely respect your position. Some people genuinely like the office life and it’s totally fine!

Personally, I have never had any boundary issue with home being used for work. I have my own office room that is also my hobby room that I made as I like, so it’s a very nice and quiet space, and I love working there.

Besides the obvious aspects of this post which are quite dumb, what that person misses is that by working from home I finish to work at 17 and at 17.01 I am free to go meet people. Cutting commuting time frees quite some time for personal life and not to mention working from home is associated with more flexible work too, like doing some chores during a break etc., which frees up even more time.

Kubernetes is not really meant primarily for scaling. Even kubernetes clusters require autoscaling groups on nodes to support it, for example, or horizontal pod autoscalers, but they are minor features.

The benefits are pooling computing resources and creating effectively a private cloud. Easy replication of applications in case of hardware failure. Single language to deploy applications, network controls, etc.

Yes if single node, kinda if 2-3 nodes, no for anything above that IMHO.

That takes courage to say, after 90% of your comments have to do with (speculations on) me.

Anyway, good riddance.

I specifically quoted the part that I considered bad faith. I am OK with you thinking I am an apologist. I don’t consider it bad faith (although I consider it wrong). What was bad faith was purposefully misinterpreting a sentence that was in a clear context so that you could use it for that patronizing statement.

This was a objectively true from my viewpoint

Nothing to say, it just sounds ironic to me. Again, I have no problem with your subjective judgment.

He was simply wrong for this statement.

And I respect your opinion.

that did more harm than good.

Now we ended up in an argument that has to do with result? I have never said that it was a good move. That it benefit the company or anything like that. What argument are you trying to challenge? I am judging the action based on my own morality, not based on whether it benefit him or his company.

You are just learning, and pointing out your own words is not bad faith

Strike two. Go re-read the sentence. I said that I didn’t know anything about him before this debacle and that I ended up learning about him whole informing myself about it. For your convenience I will quote my own words:

I actually can’t care less about him, and I barely know anything about him. My involvement is very limited to this case, and that is because wanting to understand inevitably forced me to learn certain things and inform myself.

This behavior (patronizing, intentionally misunderstanding other person sentences) for me is clearly a demonstration of bad faith. As usual, your accusation of bad faith did not specify any reason or quoted any part and i challenge you to do that.

Not that it matters to you, but next similar behavior and I will block you and move on.

I agree with you on the principle. In this case I disagree with the premise. Years of actions I think easily out weight that tweet. If that’s the only reason to be suspicious, then I don’t think it’s warranted.

I start to perceive a pinch of bad faith, and an excessive amount of paternalism. Your arguments are mostly ad hominem, so far you didn’t produce much coherent criticism of ideas.

Anyway, you seem to have missed the point that understanding that “leaders” (BTW, you seem to use this term seriously like if we were on LinkedIn) keep their mouth shut is different from understanding my (ours) role into this dynamic.

I don’t need any proof, that was just an example, from a very limited sample of my life which is this alias and that blog. I have nothing to prove or anything to defend from baseless accusations of a random internet person with lacking knowledge (about myself, which I hope you will agree).

You state yourself you are just learning about this which is very clear.

Here is the bad faith I was talking about. A sentence which clearly is out of context used for a very patronizing ad hominem.

If they choose to expose themselves as politically ignorant and supporting positions that are indefensible the consequences is they will lose business. This is all I am pointing out.

Very easy to understand. But why should we (the customers, citizens, etc.) care? My interest is to have that knowledge, it’s the shareholder interest to have the business succeeding, and they take care of that. So why from your words you seem to imply that it’s “better” if they keep their mouth shut (and therefore protect the businesses)?

I get you want to hear their opinions and then play devil’s advocate about them because that is just what you do.

Unnecessary ad-hominem, which is also easily proved wrong. I hear the opinions of Musk, of Bezos (but also of Zuckerberg, of the Nvidia guy, of Altman and many others) and I am happy because with that information I can (and do) distance myself from their companies. In this case, I feel differently and therefore I take another decision. I like to think that I can critically evaluate situations, but if the conclusion I end up with is different from yours it doesn’t mean that mine is wrong by definition.

You are clearly technically minded but you are also clearly not politically minded.

You are clearly wrong about this. I have nothing to prove obviously, but you can easily also see that by just browsing through other posts on my blog, for example this. I will even go a step further and say that the purism and localism (as defined in this book) that emerges from your words is something I explicitly want to distance myself from, because it has proved to be a complete failure in terms of political battles.

I am referring at things like:

It is clear no matter what corner of the Internet we run to as long as it is into the open arm of corporations it is a mistake.

Clearly you feel a kinship with this man because you are also heavily invested in the tech world. You defend him because you also admire him.

I don’t. I actually can’t care less about him, and I barely know anything about him. My involvement is very limited to this case, and that is because wanting to understand inevitably forced me to learn certain things and inform myself. Please don’t assume other people’s positions.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

I felt that was really uncalled for. The whole post elaborates quite a lot in thousands of words, and I feel like your summary is not really accurate. Unfortunately, I have no way to debate accusations that follow a circular logic, so I won’t attempt to do so.

Otherwise please keep that shit to yourself and keep it out of your business if you ever want my money.

I reiterate that I find curious that you seem to prefer ignorance of those positions, as if the reality is suddenly better if you don’t know a problem exists. You would rather pay for Proton not knowing that Andy Yen thinks what he thinks than having more information so that you can choose to stop paying. Obviously just an example, same thing applies to the WaPo or Tesla, or any other similar case.

I think I can agree with that. Unfortunately PGP is the only alternative we have for emails (i.e., the client-side tools would still be doing PGP encryption), which is also the reason why it shouldn’t be used for really delicate communication. The fact that - whatever setup you use - there will always be metadata showing that person X communicated with person Y alone is a nonstarter for certain types of communication.

Signal would be my recommendation.

Sure, it does. Which depending on what their goal is, may be perfectly fine.

They have always been actively almost exclusively on reddit (where they engage) anyway, they will keep doing so I assume.

The problem is that those arguments are not falsifiable. If not one, but two completely reasonable explanation cannot convince you of someone motivations, nothing can. However, I don’t care if Musk did or did not a Nazi salute. His actions speak much louder (in a bad sense) than the aesthetic that he decides to adopt. Proton donation pattern for example would be a strong indicator to measure intentions.

but it was a wildly tone deaf one if so

Maybe. But also maybe people are allowed to have different cultural references, and in a global context (i.e., the internet) we should expect diversity. I - for example - had never heard of this 88 thing, and I would definitely not think about it at all the next time I create a username, and I didn’t think it when I went to a barber shop that has that number in the name. Likewise, I wouldn’t call anybody writing “Merry Xmas” tone deaf for missing the reference to the X MAS of infamous history (and just recently in the news). For some people it’s apparently impossible to see their culture as non-universal (at the cost of sounding stereotypical, folks from US have particularly this problem after decades of cultural hegemony).

for a party that’s steeped in all of the same memetic game playing, you cant ignore the dog whistles

This all happened before Musk/Bannon salute. Just to specify it.

Thanks for the response, despite the fact we disagree quite substantially.

I think it’s OK that different people have different points of view. Everyone’s opinion also should fit within a broader (political) praxis and strategy that they support.

There are a lot of CEOs out there that don’t decide to get all political. They don’t do this because they have an image or brand to protect. Maybe I just like a good illusion though.

This is something I particularly disagree, as you probably have already read. Ignorance on once’s position doesn’t mean that position doesn’t exist. I appreciate Jeff Bezos for example writing that memo (just yesterday’s published), compared to acting the same way without my full knowledge.

He is no political scientist

If this was the criteria to comment on politics, honestly we should shut down everything (including Lemmy) :)

It’s not a problem of complexity, it’s a deliberate choice of not wanting to do that, because it is synthetic content disconnected from the community.