The culture of Silicon Valley and California in general is to sound positive all the time and avoid the negative -- people would much rather say nothing or offer platitudes than say "no". This forms part of the problem leading to depression -- everyone is "fake" and say things for political reasons, constantly on social networking talking up their accomplishments and that of their company. Of course, most of it is smoke and mirrors. Also the tech scene can be very pretentious and it takes a lot to "keep up with the Joneses" and stay in the social circles they prize. It becomes too much for many and they become depressed and fade away, replaced at their companies by the VC board. And some willing 20-something then comes and tries to fill their shoes and the cycle repeats.
No one wants to hire a depressed person. No one wants to go on dates with a depressed person (well, at least not many people -- negative/depressed dating site profiles don't get many replies). So, they conceal it until they break with full knowledge that when they break, they'll simply be replaced or their company will simply fail.
I'm wondering what side of the fence you think you are on. Your readership and affilitations seem to be the mainstream "white-hat" security community; but many of your tactics can be described as grey-hat at best -- e.g. doxxing hackers/malware authors/spammers, using social engineering to obtain information, etc. It seems as though this is justified because it is used against targets you perceive as being immoral, unethical, and/or worthy of such intrusion. My question is: do you feel you are a white-hat hacker, or do you think your use of black-hat tactics against black hats makes you something different?
Due to the nature of the two party system, in order to gain the most votes the parties in the United States gravitate towards the center. How much so? The democrats are rated at a 4.8 (just slightly below centrist, hardly enough to describe as left-leaning), and Republicans at a 5.5 (just slightly above centrist) -- meaning both parties are quite similar and have only minor differences. In the end, they are both centrist parties.
In the United States, there are authentic left-leaning parties like the Green Party, and right leaning ones like the Conservative Party; but these never get enough votes to pass thresholds for campaign financing nor seats in a federal body like Congress.
In conclusion, the major parties of the United States are both centrist, and while their rhetoric might illustrate contrasts between them, in reality they are very close to each other in the political spectrum.
Full disclosure may well be a necessary evil -- sure, it allows anyone for some period of time to exploit the vulnerability; but it sure ends up getting fixed. Companies will wait months and years to fix security bugs if there is no clear and present danger.
Any time I disclose a bug to a vendor, I now tell them in the e-mail they have five days to fix it; after that it will be publicly disclosed. And I always make good on the disclosure.
While this is pure speculation, it makes a lot of sense in the context of how shady the revelation of his death has been. Had it really been suicide, it completely discredits Sheryl Sandberg's "Lean In" book and much of her preaching. In addition, it shows a lot of the propaganda about him being such a nice guy and caring for the kids wasn't on point...no loving father offs himself for selfish reasons before his children are of age.
There's also a deleted tweet that seems to indicate the couple was in DC, not in some undisclosed location "abroad," at the time of death. It makes sense to lie about this so people don't go getting records from DC about cause of death, autopsy, etc.
So what happened? Extremely mega-rich (we're talking top percentile of the 1% here) people don't tend to just die suddenly in their mid-40s for no reason. Drugs? Murder? No one is saying anything; and I find this quite strange.
I think much of Slashdot might agree with me that if you're silly enough to deploy a public-facing server with no or default authentication, yeah, you'll probably deserved get indexed by Google.
Sure, U.S. democracy became more democratic over the time, starting with the expansion of the franchise to non-land owning males under Andrew Jackson. However, to say it was never a "democracy" is really a semantic question where you redefine democracy to be "direct democracy;" or have to include institutions which are uncommonly present in the world's democracies.
This redefinition of democracy really falls apart when you look at literature using democracy in a scientific sense, e.g. Democratic Peace Theory, "the closest thing we have to a law in political science."
There is a school of thought in comparative politics called "American Exceptionalism" -- in this case, meaning that the U.S. Constitution is exceptional in that it only works in the US -- other places that have tried using the American model, with the strong executive; end up devolving into dictatorships. See Dahl, Robert Polyarchy .
Believe it or not, is it actually the 5th Republic French Constitution (the DeGaulle constitution) that has proven the most successful in bringing democracy to democratizing nations.
Reforms like proportional representation, abolishment of the electoral college, and institutions to do away with the two-party system have been long in coming to the American political system to keep it in line with the modern conception of democracy. Instead, it keeps slipping into this vaguely democratic polyarchy.