Meh, if Mark Zuckerberg has only that one, same, tired sideways quote dragged out and tossed around every time criticism is leveled against him, then Christ almighty if he isn't squeaky clean. A little too clean, if you really wanted my opinion.
His attitude and all-around conduct is pretty much that of a boy scout, and to be honest, I find it boring. Linus Torvalds curses like a sailor, and he doesn't spare anyone's feelings with his criticism, whether it's an individual or a broad generalization. Would you mistrust Linux based on the principal developer's language, or is it more about the project's overall opacity?
Mark Zuckerberg's general demeanor can be read from many obvious tells across all the things he touches. He's not dating super models, he's not buying people Audis, his flagship website has one theme for everyone, two colors (blue & white), five uninteresting emojis, and all the personality of AOL and Yahoo! combined. Yet this reveals nothing about what goes on across Facebook's backplane.
If you're going to criticize his character, you have to criticize the depth and breadth of whatever the faustian bargain is, according to the Snowden leaks. You can compare Zuckerberg to Snowden in terms of choices made, but you really can't fault Zuckerberg for using harsh language in casual conversation. It comes across as whiny and pathetic, like some petulant child. Actions speak louder than words, as they say.
The fact that it's posted often doesn't change its power. And that you rush to defend Zuck says quite a lot.
One thing is true: Those at the top rarely mean what they say. They are masters of dissembling, because they understand how dangerous it is to reveal one's true feelings.
This was a rare glimpse into raw, unfiltered Zuck. And what we find is that he's just like the rest of those in power. No wonder they love him so much.
We're the dumb fucks to them. And that should be at least a little worrying.
Raw, unfiltered me fifteen years ago was probably a misogynistic "nice guy" on a regular basis. Raw unfiltered me right now is all for feminism and social justice, and hates the shit out of that guy I was fifteen years ago.
If the worst quote attributed to him shows him calling people dumb for throwing their personal info at someone they have no reason to trust...that's not a very strong indictment of his character. And even though it's reasonably bad, there's no way fourteen years of responsibility won't change people.
The idiot who said "dumb fucks" is an entirely alien person to the person now. And the quote calling people dumb for giving some online rando their personal data doesn't exactly demonstrate a conclusive disregard for the value of that data. If anything, it's an insult to people's intelligence because they should care more.
It doesn't make him a hero, but doesn't make him a villain, either.
Assuming he's the same person as back then but hides it better, do you think that his true self thinking people are dumb to give an unknown and untrusted online service their information extremely freely is wrong? Or just an asshole at the time?
Point is, as much as it might color his character, so does his observable conduct in all the years since. Reiterating: with context (would appreciate if you don't forget I'm not disregarding it and talk past me) - it really doesn't give much context, though it's an amazingly compelling soundbite.
Well, besides that quote there's also the part where he's running and expanding the world's biggest (or second biggest?) corporate surveillance machine which might indicate that he is a person of questionable character.
But other than that, I'm sure he's a great guy to have a beer with... most evil people are quite nice when you get to know them.
Zuckerberg called his users dumb for the very act of using his website. Did Linus ever call people dumb for the very act of using Linux as it is intended to be used?
You're focusing too much on the swear word and too little on the meaning of the sentence.
Hmmm, so a there's a broad suspicion that endocrine disruption is a widespread problem, and suddenly we see a dubious article provoking confusion, and possibly a lot of very costly research only to determine we might've been barking up the wrong tree?
ABS uses software, I'm not aware of a mechanical ABS.
Limited slip differentials in all their varieties still don't do what stability control and traction control do. You need software for the systems to perform in a way we have come to expect.
A car without any software at all would be carbureted and have no ABS or traction/stability control.
> A fully mechanical system saw limited automobile use in the 1960s in the Ferguson P99 racing car, the Jensen FF, and the experimental all wheel drive Ford Zodiac, but saw no further use; the system proved expensive and unreliable.
Those systems were used in aircraft, not cars. The operation was significantly different as well.
Anyone who owns a car with mechanical fuel injection will tell you how much more reliable carburetors are.
My point is simple: we have used software in automotive systems for decades and those systems have proven to be reliable. Removing all software from a car will not make it safer just because new automation systems are poorly built.
The only way true isolation will emerge, is by regulatory mandate of a purpose defined hardware implementation, with a separate protocol, different datagrams (instead of TCP/IP/UDP packets) and independent land line plants, undersea cables, satellites and more.
Otherwise, you'll always have some goon plugging in a wi-fi router, rigging it to a sat phone with a modem, all just to play quake with their friends, while they idle on some crane barge, or wherever their stuck, bored on some hurry-up-and-wait project plan.
Even then, you'll still have wonder about silicon bugs, or tempest and row-hammer style attacks, for anything software ever touches, when a given industry fails to identify such threats themselves.
>purpose defined hardware implementation, with a separate protocol, different datagrams (instead of TCP/IP/UDP packets) and independent land line plants, undersea cables, satellites and more.
If you come up with a different network, then the attackers will just switch to that network.
Remember, the internet used to be lots of different networks. I'm old enough to remember bang paths, BITNET, and e-mail taking a week or more to make it across the Atlantic. Even back then, there were vulnerabilities, and even cross-network vulnerabilities.
And a private satellite is a terrible idea for "security." In a previous life I used to have to operate a satellite uplink, and I can tell you that replacing a transponder's intended content with your rogue content is really quite easy if you just put your mind to it. (It's happened before.)
Yes, that's the idea. Force specialization in the attack sphere, reduce the attacker population with prerequisite knowledge as an entry barrier, simultaneously shrinking the targetable hosts.
Yes, I get that electronic signaling is electronic signaling, and none of it is actually different, at the transmission layer. It's just more DSP and more fast fourier transforms under the hood.
Yes, technical barriers can be eroded with adapters and facades, but it's an added cost to attack, and reduces detective work in that you have to know someone to jump the learning curve and enter the attack envelope. That means detective work can happen within a smaller social graph, and that alone becomes a deterent from sharing information, because everything becomes need-to-know, and insider awareness is a give away for inside jobs.
It's also easier to stamp out, and ostracize insiders, if they have loose lips or have a tendency to lend and give away the car keys.
Not everything needs to be as cheesy as Encryption DRM for optical movie disks and video games. For critical infrastructure safety is important enough to warrant independent military-grade safe guards.
Do military protocols fail? Yes, we have the enigma machines sitting in enough museums to prove it.
This in not an XKCD "too many standards can be solved with one more standard" concept. Isolation and specialization can be effective defense concepts.
"Isolation and specialization can be effective defense concepts."
Thank you - appreciated.
Many people (unwittingly ?) argue against defense-in-depth because they look at individual layers of the defense and declare them inadequate. They are always correct.
What they are missing is that nobody ever proposed only using (port knocking, or stack obfuscation, or fake login banners, or whatever). They are always additive layers of security on top of the existing set of best practices.
In books, probably. But this was before the web, so I don't know if there are any authoritative web sites about it. You might check the old late 1970's and early 1980's computer magazines on archive.org.
A large part of the delay is that messages were transmitted in a store-and-forward scheme (often via uucp). And most machines didn't send messages more than once a day because connectivity was expensive and measured in dollars per minute. And when they did connect to the next machine, it was usually not a very long hop. Sometimes one part of a campus to another. Or to a computer in the next town.
I really don't know exactly how the messages crossed oceans. Satellite transmission would have been unthinkable. My guess is that eventually they hit some big east coast computing center like MIT or BBN and went via undersea cable, but that's speculation.
I ran a node of one of the pre-intenet networks. Like most of the other nodes, it was connected via 150 or 300 baud dialup modem. Later there were a few 1200's, but they were rare.
My node was important because it was oddly located so that it could span two states and two area codes without incurring toll charges. That made it very busy, so the early morning (2am) message transfer sometimes took a couple of hours.
I tried to write a couple of articles about the old American dialup networks on Wikipedia once, but someone in another country deleted them saying they didn't exist because he'd never heard of it and if there was no web site to link to as reference it didn't happen. I stopped contributing to Wikipedia after that.
UUCP links over 1200 baud modems, connecting only at night
for cheap rates, but stymied by busy signals, down hosts,
deep queues of other data, stalled daemons, out-of-date
routing tables. Trans-oceanic links had high costs and
limited available bandwidth, and priority queueing could
impose quite a delay.
Effort is a multiplier. A bad idea with a ton of effort won't go anywhere. A good idea with a little effort will succeed in a small way. But a good idea with a lot of effort... that's when things are massively successful.
It's more complicated. Sometimes a simple spin to the messaging is all that requires. Sometimes your idea can be too early and at times little late by the time you built it. It's almost like fashion - no body knows what becomes a hit, even though some popular design agencies can give some good boost to a particular trend (y-combinator).
Another analogy is viral music videos, even though some videos have all the ingredients they never take off, while others go viral. Same is sometimes with not-so talented getting popular due to various factors. Another analogy I could think would be movies or game production, no one can really know when it will go viral, but you can do some calculated risks and make sure that it will become at least a modest success. Like sequel to a hit movie or a poker/gambling games that won't go viral but can give consistent returns. That can be thought of as b2b in software markets, while b2c leans towards viral/large success stories..
Worth pointing out in a tongue-in-cheek way... Effort alone is useless, execution is what is important. One of the things you learn in an MBA program is how to tell the difference. :-)
There's no particular correlation between MERIT and success, never mind effort. My own work's increasingly based on the notion of, if you want merit/quality, come up with some way for it to survive outside of the success dynamic, then pursue that way.
Much ado about nothing. You could say a waste of time is worth a waste of time.
I don’t think there’s anything to fix here, when the real problem is adults with the power to vote, can have their votes swayed by Saturday morning cartoons, because all they ever look at are Saturday morning cartoons.
Yeah, one terabyte is simply an absolutely gigantic octal value, with a trillion place settings.
Perfect for storing a quantity of high resolution “unique numbers” which you might need to recall at some point, when you want to match them up with other oddly similar (but not precisely equal) high resolution unique numbers.
I hear that you can convert images to “unique numbers” using a technique known as “lossless compression” but that stuff’s all way above my pay grade.
Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality have some really limited applications. There are maybe 5 or 6 silver bullet consumer ideas I can think of, but they’re such prohibitively expensive concepts that I can’t think of a way to bring these ideas to a wide audience to distribute costs, such that mass appeal gains realistic traction toward high adoption and growth potential.
In fact, these ideas might only make sense under circumstances where there is literally nothing to do for really, really long periods of time, waiting around in tight quarters until you’re able to unbuckle and move freely. In other words during space travel.
I hope that’s where this is going. Any other setting or context for application of such technologies doesn’t make any normal amount of sense. And this fits, since space travel isn’t exactly normal yet.
My intuition tells me Carmack and Zuckerburg have discussed this WRT rocket ships and outer space. And that combination of subject matter, legitimate credibility, intellect and wealth is the only thing that makes sense, to justify such a bet.
Feature phones that run android will lack an accelerometer, might lack a camera, but any phone without a microphone would certainly be strange.
Nonetheless, there's nothing preventing a system bus from reporting that a virtual device exists, even if there's no physical hardware to match. Besides, as soon as you plug a headset into the audio jack, the microphone becomes available.
You can reason about what kind of device is this and in general basically look for statistical patterns. Which is what they seem to be pretty good at. If you have modified device then it's likely that you are an outlier.
Well I'm only thinking for a few seconds before writing a comment and they have some pretty smart heads working full time, but you could imagine compromising infrastructure of some popular app and adding your shiny bits there. The famous black box of radio also has some pretty decent hardware access. Gemalto sim cards hack etc.
When you help with some specific operation like drug trafficking you can probably limit amount of devices that you need to monitor by location. Then maybe deploy some zero cheaper zerodays there (or fivehundreddays, not everybody cares about the updates).
I agree that this is kind of paranoid talk. Maybe removing these parts does indeed help. If it does though, then I definitely wouldn't want to provide info about these modifications to the press.
His attitude and all-around conduct is pretty much that of a boy scout, and to be honest, I find it boring. Linus Torvalds curses like a sailor, and he doesn't spare anyone's feelings with his criticism, whether it's an individual or a broad generalization. Would you mistrust Linux based on the principal developer's language, or is it more about the project's overall opacity?
Mark Zuckerberg's general demeanor can be read from many obvious tells across all the things he touches. He's not dating super models, he's not buying people Audis, his flagship website has one theme for everyone, two colors (blue & white), five uninteresting emojis, and all the personality of AOL and Yahoo! combined. Yet this reveals nothing about what goes on across Facebook's backplane.
If you're going to criticize his character, you have to criticize the depth and breadth of whatever the faustian bargain is, according to the Snowden leaks. You can compare Zuckerberg to Snowden in terms of choices made, but you really can't fault Zuckerberg for using harsh language in casual conversation. It comes across as whiny and pathetic, like some petulant child. Actions speak louder than words, as they say.