I've been hired and have hired people through the Discord community. It's no different than Hacker News in this respect, where I've done the same. Professionalism is orthogonal, though I will agree that ephemeral chats have serious drawbacks for project-oriented communities.
"German (over)engineering" is a common term in the automotive community for that reason. As someone who has also looked at this in detail, the difference between domestic and import cars of that era was the former tended to value simple and "brute force" designs, while the latter focused on short-term optimisations and some amount of "showing off" the complexity thereof.
For another fun one, it had a mechanical fuel injection. The drive shaft to the injector had a fine-toothed spline on it, meaning you had 50 or so wrong ways to install it. Get it wrong and the engine just ran badly. The assembly had to be done blind. There must have been some trick to getting that injector on correctly, but I couldn't figure it out.
The correct way to engineer this is to have the male spline with an extra tooth and the female with a missing tooth - then it can only be assembled one way. A cost-free improvement, saving a lot of aggravation for the mechanic. (BTW, this is what Boeing does.)
Also known as the "CPU strangler" for how much it gimps an otherwise decently-fast system. Fortunately it's simple to uninstall and then block from being installed again:
This looks like another extremely obscure attack vector which is largely leveraged only to secure devices against their rightful owners.
Physical access to these devices leads to a wide range of security exploits
Physical ownership = real ownership. That's how it's always been and should've stayed that way, if it weren't for the greedy megacorps. Valid exceptions to this level of paranoia are state secrets and other military-adjacent applications.
> Physical ownership = real ownership. That's how it's always been and should've stayed that way, if it weren't for the greedy megacorps.
Playing devil's advocate, what are your security expectation when someone steals your device? Is it acceptable that they immediately gain control of all services available through your them, such as email address, bank accounts, and investment portfolios?
> Playing devil's advocate, what are your security expectation when someone steals your device? Is it acceptable that they immediately gain control of all services available through your them, such as email address, bank accounts, and investment portfolios?
Legally they have no right to anything. Physically, they access whatever they access. That's how it's been forever. I don't get the point of the question.
What are you talking about? The scenario involves someone stealing from you. Do you think the legality of it is a dissuasion?
Also, OP's point was that "Physical ownership = real ownership."
> Physically, they access whatever they access. That's how it's been forever. I don't get the point of the question.
The whole point is that that's not the expectation or desire of every single person around you. Not one.
That's the fact you're not understanding. The ability to lock down a device and prevent unauthorized third parties from accessing it is a strong ask by everyone, not only "megacorps". The ability to track down and remotely pull a kill switch are sold as premium features by some manufacturers. Mobile operators have for a long time the ability to block cellphones by IMEI to prevent theft. A very popular product from one of the biggest companies in the world is a small tag that consumers can attack to their property to be able to find them and recover them.
And in spite of all these facts, are we suppose to pretend no one wants control access to their hardware to prevent unauthorized access from third parties?
> Also, OP's point was that "Physical ownership = real ownership."
You don't have "ownership" over something you stole. You have possession of it. Possession != ownership.
> The whole point is that that's not the expectation or desire of every single person around you. Not one.
Then you're misunderstanding what people are arguing. People want the owner to be the ultimate authority. The owner gets to encrypt what they like, expose what they like, track what they like, trust megacorp they like, etc. And if a thief steals the device, they get whatever they get as a result of the owner's decisions. Which could be all their data, or a visit from the local police, depending on how the owner prepared for it.
> You don't have "ownership" over something you stole. You have possession of it. Possession != ownership.
You need to develop your functional literacy skills because you clearly are failing to even understand the topics being discussed, let alone the arguments going either way.
You were literally saying "not one" person (period!) wants the ability to control their own device. Clearly such people exist, even if we aren't the majority.
What is wrong about the OPs arguments that suggests a failure of literacy on their part?
If you want a device that is locked down by the manufacturer so it only runs software they approve of, in the name of security, that is a tradeoff you should be allowed to make, and the free market is ready to accomodate your desire. Unfortunately, those of us who want the opposite are not so lucky currently.
Is it really impossible to see for you why some people have a problem with this situation persisting, and with comments like yours further normalizing it?
Hi, also chiming in as someone who also would like to stop cheering when these kinds of vulnerabilities are found, and I'll do it when manufacturers stop treating me, the person buying their products, like the thief in your example.
It's an attack vector that means some of the protection you thought you had if your device is lost or stolen can be bypassed.
You seem to feel there is no benefit to this protection (from non-owners of the device), and instead is protecting the device from the owner. Would you care to expand on that?
Which is nice, but when the offender is, say, a security device that sends event notification but ALSO sends marketing spam, with no granular control over types of notifications, it's not a great situation.
Android has granular control over notifications, which is great because some apps that I need send a lot of marketing notifications that I don't care about but I cannot get rid of essential notifications.
Not all apps do it and some push all notifications through a single channel (and some manufacturers hide the granularity options in advanced settings, I'm looking at you Samsung) but at least it exists.
iOS is the same, though I’ve found that the truly granular control depends on the vendor exposing the control in the app. Scummy companies—most of them—make notifications all or nothing.
It’s not JUST marketing either. I don’t want to be interrupted with a reminder to check my lint filter. I do that literally every time I change the laundry. But I can’t disable that pointless alert without disabling ALL alerts (and you can rightly question whether any alerts from a dryer have value, but that’s a different discussion).
I believe that's done based on user-agent header; but it shouldn't be surprising that the UA on a mobile browser is the hardest to change, showing once again that users' control of their computing devices is extremely important. With the appropriate UA, imgur will just give you the raw image data directly.
reply