Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Not a huge issue for git... (Score 1) 172

By the time you could do something like trash it with crafted content, you could screw things over in less difficult ways...

On the other hand, gpg still uses SHA1 for key fingerprints per the standard, which seems like that would be a much bigger risk. You can use other more secure hashes for digests, but fingerprint ids are SHA1, which was deemed inadequate for key fingerprints in X509...

Comment Re:Why is a study necessary? (Score 1) 96

This article summary is sensationalized misinterpretation of the actual paper. Yes, bots have maintainers, and yes, maintainers are alerted when bots get reverted. The actual study is mostly about changes that get promulgated across different language Wikipedias. Because that's a loose-coupling, those are a little more difficult to detect. That's all.

Comment Re:In fact theses are puppeteers who are fighting (Score 1) 96

Honestly, no one is fighting. This article is sensationalized. The bots in question are doing dinky maintenance stuff. Some of them are written in such a way that as an unintended side-effect, comes into conflict with the way another one is written. And in particular, this addresses when that happens across different Wikipedias (different language versions), where the relationship is loosely coupled. Wikipedia doesn't allow you to write a bot for the sake of enforcing your personal agenda. Those get shut down.

Comment Re:Further Proof Wikipedia is Unreliable (Score 1) 96

No informed person is making the argument that WP is reliable. It's a starting point, that's all.

But by the way, the initial article is about bot-conflicts by bots doing things like fixing redirect-links and broken references; meta-stuff. These conflicts have nothing to do with the factual content of the articles.

Comment Re:A better summary (Score 4, Insightful) 96

This is vastly better. Slashdot's summary is one of the most sensationalized non-issues I've seen on /. in a few months now. It didn't take very long at all for bot conflicts to become obvious to bot-authors, at which point and they quickly put in code to notice edit conflicts. When the bots spot back & forth editing, they back off, and alert the bot's maintainer. It took a little longer to notice loops that spanned across the different language editions of articles, but that's because the relationship among them is usually pretty weak. This Summary acts like a bot-conflict spanning 3629 articles is something impressive. In that time period, that represents around 0.01% of the article namespace when you span all language variants of WP, and the bots in question do seriously boring things related to cleaning up redirect-links or fixing named references if they become broken as an unintended side effect of a user's edit.

As far as this better summary, and looking at a longer summary from the Alan Turing Institute website, it looks like it's also inflating the implications of the study. It's certainly true that simple rules can result in complex unintended conflicts, but that's already a well-known idea. Specific novel lessons learned from this study have pretty weak implications to AI. And the cultural conclusions it draws are borderline silly. "the same technology leads to different outcomes depending on the cultural environment. An automated vehicle will drive differently on a German autobahn to how it will through the Tuscan hills of Italy." I'm gonna guess that this guy isn't a software developer. Upon checking, yup, he's a physicist turned social-scientist.

Comment Re:What did you expect on a first offense? (Score 1) 904

Well, there's the fact that this person allegedly did this to several women. More importantly though, was a lack of anti-retaliation protection by HR. In sane companies, they are very upfront and very explicit about protecting anonymity and if that's not possible, strict anti-retaliation rules. So regardless of the level of punishment the manager should/should not have gotten, her position in the aftermath of reporting it sounds unacceptable.

Also in sane companies, if you are trying to transfer out and you have the target management on your side, your current team can only block the transfer for a few months to transition. Also, your *current* manager's performance review can't factor into another team requesting you (and *certainly* not it a way where bad performance reviews are a tool to retain, that's counter productive, if a person is a bad fit in one team, why would the rules *lock* that person to a team?).

Comment Don't work for crappy management... (Score 3, Interesting) 904

Note that sexism was a *small* part of the situation described. What amazes me was the continued desire to work for a company because of the 'great engineers'.

The reality is you can find a *good* company that also has great engineers. Other companies also face interesting challenges that are worthy of your time. I've seen people fall into this trap of toiling under crappy management because 'their team is so great'. The problem is that crappy management gets all the benefits of your awesome teams work (in fact, in crappy management, the management gets nearly *all* the glory and your 'awesome engineers' are the first under the bus when good times are over, after months on end of 60+ hour workweeks, where the management is only around for part of maybe 3 days a week. You need to find a company that has both a great team *and* good management.

If it had been an isolated incident with one manager, and switching teams fixed it, but she reports a pattern of management dysfunction that seems pervasive, at least to wherever she could go. Now it *might* be the case that her perspective by itself is skewed, but in her view of things, it was a terrible situation and she stayed *way* longer than anyone should have.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.