> Communicating, sharing, commenting is only good when there are consequences for what you've communicated, shared, or commented.

So contrary to the original idea of the internet and how it's functioned for decades, you think we should tie everyone's Internet accounts unambiguously to a person? You should think about how that type of system will be used by authoritarians to kill dissenters. If you're truly worried about Nazis that idea should scare you. You clearly have a proclivity towards authoritarianism, so maybe you buy into that idea because you always think your ideas will be in power and only used against "those bad thinkers". Even if you think "that could never happen" you should consider what might happen if "those bad thinkers" get in power instead and want revenge for your abuses. There's a reason America was founded on the principles of liberty and the protection of the minority against mob rule (aka "the majority").

> sometimes the consequence needs to be getting your big fat mouth shut for you

So you think censorship will work to change people's minds who already have some inclination towards conspiracies?

At time of posting parent was at 0, Offtopic.

The fact that you've been modded down for making a joke that violates the accepted belief system perfectly illustrates the problem many people are trying to point out. Unfortunately even Slashdot is infiltrated by persistent anti-freedom posters. I remember when the prevailing sentiment on Slashdot was, "Just leave me the hell alone, and I'll leave you alone." That and Soviet and CmdrTaco jokes. We wouldn't even have the Internet if the original culture hadn't been one of freedom. Now, the freedom of the internet is allowing anti-freedom people to spread their views that the WWW should be censored. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

I agree comrade! We know much more than the average person. Rather than dealing with people on a one on one basis and sometimes agreeing to disagree, we should have our glorious and impartial tech, governmental, and corporate overlords decide what we can and cannot read, see, or hear!

On a serious note, we need to educate people to think critically. It's a long game and you'll have to fight the urge to drop into the fetal position when you fully understand that the vote of flat earth guy, who you've calmly reasoned with and still won't accept your conclusions, counts exactly as much as yours. One of the lessons of history is that control of knowledge is power. We should approach free speech the same way we should approach the justice system. It is better to let 100 guilty men free then to deprive one innocent man of his freedom by imprisonment.

Let's be realistic as well. NASA has some smart people, lots at JPL, but it's not the days of Gemini/Apollo (see: underfunding). You're only going to get the results you discuss when you have a program like SkunkWorks which attracts the very best of the best.

That's not how this works. If it's cheaper to pay them off than litigating and maybe you get an NDA as part of the deal, then legitimacy doesn't really come in to play.

Katie started the bug bounty program at Microsoft and now owns a company doing pen testing. Guess what the report recommends? I wonder what it would recommend if she were still heading up a bug bounty program? Maybe I'm overly cynical, but it appears the authors are trying to structure bug bounty programs to be more like they are, security consultants. If you're going to propose such a large change, why look at only one data set? Even the Hacker One CEO said their data set isn't representative of the whole.

It's clear from the news article, which has a very clickbait-y title, that there are ways to improve bug bounty programs. As others have pointed out in comments here, it's still a useful tool. There's a blog post linked in the news article gives a good overview. That should've been the Slashdot submission.

The game you describe is telephone or Chinese whispers.

You understand that a company has to make a net profit to stay in business right? You have to make enough money on the products you're currently selling to support them and develop the next version.

You sound like a bitter engineer that doesn't understand that a good company has engineering, sales, support, and marketing all working together to make a successful company.

I agree with the sentiment, but since this caused a cell network outage it's a bigger story. Also, the fact that a large company like this didn't have procedures in place for tracking renewal of certificates makes it a bigger deal. Like you mention, if they don't have these procedures in place, it calls into question how they're handling keys and other security-related items.

He was also talking about experimental test flights, not supposedly well-understood, reliably designed systems. It's pushing the envelope of knowledge and testing hypotheses versus the fairly well understood risks of modern spaceflight. Spaceflight might not be any less risky than what he was doing, but a lot of the spaceflight risk has been mitigated based on our knowledge. That was not the case for many of the planes Chuck was flying.

Re: American lion
"In 2008, the American lion was estimated to weigh up to 420 kg (930 lb)." That is a truly terrifying animal considering how dangerous a cougar is and according to Wikipedia cougars max out around 220 kg. The minimum weight estimated for an adult American lion is 175 kg.

A predatory cat the size of the modern grizzly bear is the stuff of nightmares.

OP was referencing pictures of the beaches in question, not pictures of other places in the Antarctic and Arctic. The one picture from the article itself was referenced in the OP as insufficient and I agree, it's a zoomed in picture where you have to create your own sense of scale based on assumptions.

Somehow, your comment is modded Informative, 5 when it doesn't answer OP's actual question.

>But of course the typical MAGA voter thinks that mass transportation is adopting communism or something like that so we don't get to have it.

Yes, blame *those* people over *there*. You know much better than them. Clearly you're much smarter.

Perhaps you could consider that people in rural areas don't see the need for their state or county taxes to increase to benefit city dwellers. There are perfectly logical economic and other reasons why people oppose mass transit none of which are because it's seen as "communism or something like that".

It's very easy to spend someone else's money. If it's so obviously better for capitalism that mass transit is better in population dense areas, then you should be able to make a killing helping businesses get it implemented.

Yes, it was wrong for them and it's wrong for Huawei now. Anandtech, HardOCP, Tom's, and others caught GPU manufacturers doing this and called them out just like now. Part of the reason for Anandtech's development of their own test suite was because they didn't completely trust that vendors weren't cheating the known industry benchmarks.

So far as I know, the above sites are still looking for cheating and GPU manufacturers have stopped. They've at least stopped obviously cheating by looking for when a known benchmark is running like Huawei got caught doing. They may still be tuning for benchmarks, and not real-world performance, but that's why real-world tests like Anandtech and HardOCP do are still useful for me.

And yet, good writing explains acronyms the first time they're used. Brand Americans all you like as ignorant. Only elitists throw acronyms around to keep their insular community elite. People who want to be understood make efforts to ensure that they are. If your job is writing and it takes seconds to make sure your audience understands what you're talking about (i.e. explaining an acronym), and you don't do that, you're objectively bad at your job. I searched for "nytimes cia" and the first google result that's an article (the actual first result is the category listing all NYT CIA articles) literally spells out "Central Intelligence Agency" as its first three words (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/20/us/politics/gina-haspel-cia-director-influence-campaign.html). It's not hard to do. I've seen similar articles that even give a brief description of what the CIA is because it takes a sentence or two, and, again, if your _job_ is making sure people understand what you're saying, you do it.