There were no repercussions at all to their competitor (and, the Supreme Court sided with them), so it was logically the right move for a corporation. If the country or its people don’t bring the repercussions now, why wouldn’t these things continue to happen? It’s not a corporations job to regulate itself. If anything we can only blame the short sightedness and pettiness of humanity, which is causing bigger issues to flourish today.

This is the thing that frustrates me so much about this sort of discussion:

Just because something is legal, it doesn't mean it is ethical.

We keep dismissing ethics as any consideration from business conduct.

It is legal to ignore any and all environmental costs that have not yet been made illegal, so are corporations duty bound to ignore any obvious deleterious consequences as long as there is money to make today? Something feels very wrong about this approach.

I'm not sure I follow your train of thought. What sort of repercussions are you alluding to?

I’m just saying it’s not “corporate jealousy”, it’s a rational strategic decision. If you want it to stop, you have to affect the rationale.

This either 1) assumes a homeomorphism between rationality and ethics, or 2) is technically true but missing the point. Akin to saying: "Human deaths via a tsunami isn't a 'bad thing', it's a natural phenomenon"

> I really dislike that so much of hacker culture is $$ focused now.

I don’t think that’s hacker culture. It’s just the mainstream adoption of hacker culture, don’t let it replace the real thing in your mind. When lots and lots of people started playing candy crush on phones, it wasn’t gamer culture that changed, just the public perception of gaming.

There are still people out there who conform to the description you laid out. Are there lots and lots of them? No. It does seem to be a growing segment though.

Thank you for sharing that, it’s awesome to see so many of us still around!

(Not trying to gatekeep—anyone can be a hacker, no matter when they start. Just sharing some fun memories—I still remember upgrading from a 386 to a 486, then to a Pentium 133. Or the LAN parties. Or when IRC splits let you take over a popular channel for a while! Fun times! The new tools being built today, especially around AI, are just as exciting and remind me of the early days of the internet. There's so much more to create!)

>Not trying to gatekeep

You really should. Without gates everything of value is stolen and we're left with nothing but grifters.

It seems more likely that necrophilia was a major problem (compared to today), given how the Egyptians handled it and stories like Botan Dōrō. Very strange that you’re saying cloning voices with AI is “exactly what they mean”…?

I think the strictly anthropological view is that it's because of the political and social power you accrue if you can convince people the ancestors are on your side. I'm sure there are several reasons though and I accept that one as likely part of it also.

It's a little worse than that. From now on, blackhats will have a favorite #1 browser to pentest, at least for the next few weeks.

And who's going to take the bet that they'll find nothing? Not me.

It is very strange to me that their attitude is "no one was impacted" and this is "hypothetical". Any serious company would immediately consider this to be a case where everyone was impacted! This is like coming home to the worst neighborhood on the planet to find your door wide open, and immediately putting on a blindfold so you can continue to pretend nothing's changed.

Since everything is stored in their DB, they supposedly can audit logs and sources for boosts themselves to confirm if anyone was actually impacted.

Can you explain? How are they able to check whether someone did a quick “in and out” keylogger or cookie extraction? I doubt they can, because I doubt they store every request (that would go against what they claim for privacy) and I also doubt their DB backup happens on such a high frequency that they could catch this (e.g. minute-to-minute).

So…how? Are you claiming they have oodles of logs and a perfect dork* to find suspicious JavaScript? If they had the latter wouldn’t they already be using it for security?

If you have some method that works do tell.

* https://www.alibabacloud.com/blog/what-is-dork_600025

I don't think you're using "dorking" correctly here, since web crawlers aren't anywhere in the picture. Server log queries aren't "dorks." Besides, if you can reproduce the issue and _if_ it's somehow logged in the database, it's usually not too hard to figure out how to query for other occurrences.

With that said, I think you're probably right. I doubt Firebase audit logs contain update contents, and based on the bug report, your "in and out" proposal is as simple as:

firebase.collection("boosts").where("creatorID", "==", "attackers_user_id").update({"creatorId": "victims_user_id" });

sleep(time);

firebase.collection("boosts").where("creatorID", "==", "victims_user_id").update({"creatorId": "attackers_user_id" });

(okay, not exactly, because this would also set the ownership of the victim's legitimate Boosts, but the actual code isn't much more difficult).

The play button is for an audio overview, afaict.

> We never would've gotten GPT-3 and GPT-4 if this didn't happen.

"We never would've gotten [thing that exists today] if [thing that happened] didn't happen", is practically a tautology. As you saw from the willingness of Microsoft to throw compute as well as to hire ex-OpenAI folks, as you can see from the many "spinoffs" others have started (such as Anthropic), whether or not we would've gotten GPT-3 and GPT-4 is immaterial to this discussion. What people here are asking for is open AI, which we might, all things considered, have actually gotten from a bona fide non profit.

> 100% eliminates chance of accidental secret checkin or upload

You've never worked with humans, have you?

What does “losing track of the flow” mean to you?

Not sure if you intended this, but you just turned causal into casual.

As the French say, “Tushy”