> Not sure what you mean by "appeals to authority".
Read our previous conversation, your comments were about Woodcocks background up until you wanted to change the topic entirely to discuss Russian internet censorship. You were completely unable to come up with a coherent technical explanation as to why Bill wasn’t wrong when he said what he did.
> I suppose, but that is because I actually know what I'm talking about.
That’s it. You can’t supply any useful facts, everything that comes out of your mouth is supposed to be the truth because you are an expert.
Yet, your Linkedin makes it pretty clear that you are a nobody. Just a perpetual software developer and occasional low level manager without any real achievements in his life.
I tried very hard to dig a fact based argument out of you, but I think you know very well that you’re defending bad policy.
The idea that declaring an “incident” over something like this is actually necessary, rather than just a move to appease questions from management is completely frivolous. If you were serious about your security posture, you’d be prepared for these events in the first place.
Trusting NPM is inevitably going to get you hacked.
> are stuck in a muddy trench of incoherent rage you dug for yourself. Again.
Read your own comments, they’re the incoherent ramblings of a crackhead.
> Definitely sure you don't have anything to say, but are committed to telling people they're stupid because
Look in the mirror, you were the first person in this conversation to use words like “idiot”. I merely suggested that the word would be better applied to you.
I'm unfortunately very late to this thread, but it's not at all ok to dig up extraneous personal info about someone and bring it into HN as ammunition in an argument. We ban accounts that do that sort of thing, so please don't do it again.
The flamewar itself was bad on both your parts, and you definitely both broke the site guidelines repeatedly (not cool!), and you both should stop posting like that because we ban accounts that keep posting like that.
Read our previous conversation, your comments were about Woodcocks background up until you wanted to change the topic entirely to discuss Russian internet censorship. You were completely unable to come up with a coherent technical explanation as to why Bill wasn’t wrong when he said what he did.
> I suppose, but that is because I actually know what I'm talking about.
That’s it. You can’t supply any useful facts, everything that comes out of your mouth is supposed to be the truth because you are an expert.
Yet, your Linkedin makes it pretty clear that you are a nobody. Just a perpetual software developer and occasional low level manager without any real achievements in his life.
I tried very hard to dig a fact based argument out of you, but I think you know very well that you’re defending bad policy.
The idea that declaring an “incident” over something like this is actually necessary, rather than just a move to appease questions from management is completely frivolous. If you were serious about your security posture, you’d be prepared for these events in the first place.
Trusting NPM is inevitably going to get you hacked.
> are stuck in a muddy trench of incoherent rage you dug for yourself. Again.
Read your own comments, they’re the incoherent ramblings of a crackhead.
> Definitely sure you don't have anything to say, but are committed to telling people they're stupid because
Look in the mirror, you were the first person in this conversation to use words like “idiot”. I merely suggested that the word would be better applied to you.