How about Pat? That’s ambiguous enough.

Or pretend you're in the southeastern US, where "Sam" and "Sue" are both non-gendered, and probably ageless, according to Mr. Cash, at least. You could also go with Courtney, Tracy, Billie, Casey, Drew...

How would Google know that a site is curling another site?

Why would they flag that as a phishing site?

I’m just having a difficult time determining how this situation is not the fault of the site/app; we don’t even know that any of this is true and it looks more scripted than an offended rant.

The curl'ing is not necessarily bad (and can continue just fine), but rather its blind to these types of problems. A false positive in your testing framework (especially something like this) is the worst case scenario.

Google wouldn't know that someone is curling it which their script said everything was ok. While the website was basically down because Chrome and Firefox will both block a site based on Google's safe browsing list.

They could use Google's safe browsing api to check if they're on that list as well as curl.

Frankly, Google's Safe Browsing list is one of those things which should be broken out of Google and ran by an independent entity, much like the Let's Encrypt model.

I don't know how to help make this happen.

I'd suggest:

1. Mozilla and the Chrome clones (Edge, Brave, etc.) partner to make an (open as possible) standard for blocking and reviewing, and start maintaining their own list upstream from Google.

2. When Google adds to their blocklist, independently check it according to the consortium's own standards.

3. Cut a deal with Bing or Yandex to scan for malware as part of their crawls, to get technology independence.

4. Put pressure on Google to get onboard.

Step 4 is the hardest.

I still don’t understand what the problem is here.” With Google doing this.

We don’t know that this whole thing is not invented by the author or that they were indeed not doing anything malicious.

All of this, as credible as it may seem, could just be invented bad PR against Google, which if true should make us take a hard look at whomever is behind this.

Seriously, read the Lessons Learned again and tell me for certain this really happened. How in the world would it look so staged, with the bold words and thought-out structure. I’m not going to jump on the bandwagon everytime someone makes claims.

My point is: How do we know what the sit author is saying is accurate?

I’m less concerned about the footprint and more about security.

It can be assumed that anything running on the desktop has or will have vulnerabilities. The rise of web applications has been partially due to the assumption of great sandboxing.

I look forward to this project doing well, but it’s not the first time I’ve seen an electron competitor on HN promoting it being Node-based. Node isn’t sandboxed by default.

Another commenter brought up the idea of porting it to Deno – I’m not sure how inter-compatible the two are, but it provides a hopeful future direction to facilitate sandboxing.

Exchange is often externally open in some way for OWA.

One that server is hacked, you may be wide-open internally.

I’d be at least as concerned about an Exchange vulnerability as I would be about Outlook, but probably more.

Maybe it's because I haven't dealt with MS products in awhile, but my first thought was who puts OWA on the open internet without requiring a VPN? That's just asking for trouble.

> the law should be written to ban both using a phone or playing harmonica while driving without specifically mentioning either, except perhaps as examples.

Slippery slope arguments shouldn’t apply to specific provisions in the law that target likely scenarios.

Let’s say you said that the driver shouldn’t drive distracted. You have now outlawed listening to radio, music, or others talking in a way not conducive to giving full attention to the car, perhaps even while the car is being driven automatically, if there is any chance of the driver needing to drive manually such that they must be ready to drive.

That said, I agree that the method of generating the outcome need not always be defined. For example, in some legislation, companies/vendors are named specifically, which may lead to de facto support by the government of some private institutions, which seems anticompetitive.

We do indeed see infotainment systems in cars that are the direct analogues of cell phones and cause distracted driving. They even connect to the phones and give similar touch screen apps.

These systems are legal but using the phone is not, so this really is a great example of trying to regulate technology rather than outcomes. All that happens is vendors put ports in their cars and route the phone interface to the driver in a fixed screen rather than in the phone's screen. Regulation bypassed.

While it’s the less plausible explanation, I think this theory should be explored further.

With a photo like this, what can we do to assist in proving or disproving the theory that it’s indeed flying?

Also, is the headline incorrect if it indicates that it’s flying when it’s not, if it appears to be?

And “Castles in the Sky” was about the development of radar in England.

Yes, we’ve had hovering craft for a while; they typically appear to be closer to the water, though.

It likely was- but probably the terrestrial, non-xenobiological kind.

the use of this term in this manner has been deprecated

By whom?

current US Pres Admin. there was a memo. did you not get it?

No, I don't get US Presidential memos. Also, last I checked, the US President was not in charge of how words are allowed to be used on HN.

Like there's really a memo. It's been in so many different news outlets. The current admin is trying to distance from previous use of the word. And if you think I was being serious, then you must not have gotten the memo on sarcasm. You should really declutter your inbox. You seem to be missing a lot of memos.

Perhaps you didn't get the memo - about charity, about not replying with snark or sneering, and about sarcasm often not coming across well in a text-only medium. All have been said here, by dang, frequently.