Nope. "Security through obscurity" is when your initial system design fails to use good security practices, and you rely on "but nobody knows the protocol" or "nobody knows the port" or "nobody knows the password" as your design-level security implementation.

In this case, an unintentional security bug was discovered after release. It is still responsible to issue a patch, but it is also responsible to keep the details a secret to protect users until they can get the patch.

D-Link is refusing to issue a patch. I don't know all the details why so I can't judge. If the hardware was a recent purchase I would be pretty frustrated by that. But even still, keeping the details a secret just gives me more time to get the hardware replaced, so it is still the ethical response.

That's perfectly ethical. Revealing the details would give information to criminals who would use it to hack people who haven't replaced their devices yet. By keeping it as secret as possible they protect as many people as possible.

Of course, they still have to disclose that the bug exists at all, which they did.

It would be even better if they released a fix. Telling people to replace their devices sure seems like bad business to me. But that is a separate issue from the issue of how much detail they disclose. And on that front, they are following the best industry practices.

Lying is still wrong, in your scenario, and it still causes harm. It not only causes a big waste of money but it can draw attention and funding away from legitimate science, thus slowing progress (including on very practical things like medical treatments).

I can understand that scientists are under pressure, and that presents temptation. Maybe they have mouths to feed. The temptation can be very strong. But none of this justifies lying and causing the kinds of harms that result from that.

It is very unfortunate that the world is like this. Scientists who don't show results get the boot, and all the debt that they accrued for their education still weighs them down, and all the knowledge and skills they acquired are now almost completely unmarketable. That is a nightmare scenario and it is wrong and sad that we put our scientists into a position where they must all face this risk. I think the world would be a better place if we could do something better that allows us to continue to utilize (and, of course, pay) scientists even if their first few projects wind up being busts. But even with the world being harsh and brutal like this, lying is still wrong and harmful and never justified.

On the flip side, I contend that we have too many scientists. There isn't enough science funding to cover the aspirations of all the scientists that our schools churn out. The presence of scientists doesn't make science happen. The funding makes science happen. This nightmare scenario is one of the very few economic counterweights that we have to avoid flooding the market with scientists that have no useful work to do. So, while I do think that we can and should do better, we still need to focus on the primary need: funding for science.

Everyone wants money. So, naturally, people criticize anything that would significantly threaten their income stream. The details of the criticism are whatever sound plausible at the moment, and aren't the reason why the criticism is being leveled.

People have been criticizing machines ever since we had machines that could replace workers at all. Same goes for foreign workers and/or outsourcing. It's all about trying to keep a secure income stream.

Educated negotiators understand the concept of the BATNA: Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement.

Or, more simply, the back-up plan.

Anyone who is going to insist on work from home should have a BATNA lined-up. That would be an alternative job or an eye on a good place to live where there are many workable options. With that in hand, there would be no reason to cry if negotiations fell apart. Just move on.

And anyway, there's really nothing wrong with crying on reddit. It's kinda what the site is for. Or, more specifically, publicly complaining about unpopular business practices in an effort to keep cultural pressure against them, is something reddit is for.

You can't demand to be paid while simultaneously dictating what your job should entail.

Actually, you can. It's called "negotiation," and it happens all the time. There is nothing legally, morally, nor professionally wrong with insisting on what you want and seeing how your negotiation partner responds. It is a very common, human, behavior to say "this point is non-negotiable" when actually, it is very negotiable, and keeping that point on the table is how you win it.

Of course, it may very well turn out to be truly non-negotiable, at which point you determine whether or not the point is equally non-negotiable for you. If it is non-negotiable for both of you, then it makes sense to quit.

But the "up and quit" is the last resort. It should take place after negotiation has failed.

This is how the most powerful, and the most professional, people in the world manage their differences. It is absolutely how ordinary employees should do the same.

Are homeless people Anthropic's responsibility?

And before you say "homelessness is everyone's responsibility" I will point out that everyone who works for Anthropic pays their taxes. Some of them may even support various charities.

Does it make a difference that the company no longer produces NAS devices, and that these in particular have already reached their End of Life?

How long is a manufacturer required to spend money to fix bugs in old devices that they no longer sell and that are already outside of their stated support period, in order to be "ok" in your book?

The average person will not become rich by day trading.

Wise investment practices that will get one rich are just one book-read away.

Of course, any average person who is full of wrong information and foregone conclusions about the stock market, or who doesn't have the discipline to work a multi-decade investment strategy, is probably not going to succeed.

It's neat that AI will be able to code in five years, since the AI we have now sure can't.

Bias is nearly impossible to overcome. Everyone is biased and most of our biases are invisible to us. We think our bias is simple objectivity, when it's not. Very few people are truly objective, and that goes for most of the people who read this and consider themselves one of the rare objective few.

Furthermore, there isn't a real market for unbiased information. People say they want unbiased news, but the news outlets that get all their attention are the ones that reflect their biases. People respond to reinforcement of their biases, even if they desire objective information, and so what they wind up getting is just more bias.

So, I am going to take the position that India's government is correct: Wikipedia is biased. I am unsure if it is biased in whatever specific way they are worried about, but "that information source is biased" is a true statement 99% of the time.

If you truly want unbiased information, the best you can do is get the same info from a variety of sources, including and especially ones that anger you. You don't have to take what any of them say at face value, but if you want to overcome your own bias, even a little, you need to have an open mind to the positions that you disagree with, listening to their reasons even if you never agree with them, in an effort to tease out from that at least a little more balance in your perspective on whatever the issue is.

Teaching critical thinking in public schools sounds great but is very problematic. There are a lot of religious people who don't want their kids questioning their beliefs, and any serious approach to critical thinking dives directly into the heart of that.

The same goes for political beliefs.

Also, from what I have read, the brain of a young teenager really can't do critical thinking, regardless of education. The necessary neural wiring isn't fully in place yet, and they need to get to the "late teen/early adult" age before they can truly grasp the concepts and master the cognitive skills that fall under this umbrella. So, teaching this in college is simply more practical than teaching it in high school or earlier, and it faces fewer social barriers as well.

Your local library has plenty of DVDs that you can borrow. And if they don't have the one you want, they will have it mailed in from their library network. This includes entire seasons of popular shows, too.

It's not free of course. You pay for it in your taxes. Of course, you pay for it whether you use it or not, so, may as well get some value for your money.

When there are several separate streaming providers, they all have different content, so it is a big hassle of account-hopping to find what you want.

When there is one big streaming provider, the price is way too high and the content providers get way too little of that money, as it all goes into the administration of the big streamer.

If we want an actually good system, we are going to need a different model. Something where the available content is all the same regardless of what provider you use, so they compete against each other on price, speed, uptime, etc., but not on content.

Sorta like how Internet access was supposed to work before it became cartel-dominated and in desperate need of some trust-busting.

I really think you would change your tune if you were drowning in your own blood on a hospital bed while hackers demanded money to turn the power back on, so the doctors could save your life.

If you were conscious you might even offer to pay part of the ransom yourself rather than die a slow and agonizing death.

And if it was YOUR kid, who you loved very much, that kidnappers were holding for ransom...a ransom that you could totally afford to pay....are you just going to let them murder your child instead? "Sorry kiddo, you being slowly tortured to death by these criminals serves the greater good."

Of course I don't know you personally, you are just some random jumble of characters on the Internet to me....but I am willing to go out on a limb and assume that you aren't the heartless monster that your post makes you seem to be.