> But here we are, thousands of years later,

Not like there was a general lack of tragedy, pain, suffering, war, chaos in the intervening thousands of years.

Seems so superficial to ignore everything and just say if we're here, we exist, then the claim that things will go bad is proven false. The only thing proven false is if anyone ever claimed humanity will be extinct. But think of all the suffering in all the wars between the roman empire and now. Is that nothing? Does that not qualify as very bad stuff? Did humanity advance continuosly, or was it a chaotic path, with ups and downs? Don't the downs qualify as what the complainers predicted?

To me it seems history teaches us we will survive as a species. But there is definitely a lot of room for very bad stuff to happen. It has happened before.

There's a first time for everything, and an end to most things. The roman empire lasted hundreds of years, and then it ended. Many empires did. The sun will end too, at some point. Ice ages last for thousands of years, then they end. And there are countless other examples.

"X has lasted a long time so it will last more" is so obviously wrong. Think about it for more than 3 seconds.

Or was it sarcasm? I can't tell anymore.

> “X has lasted a long time so it will last more” is so obviously wrong.

Smarter people than you and I have thought about this problem and come to the opposite conclusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect

Looks like this one might be while in general the rule does not hold. Good regulations exist, and so do bad ones. Arguments without nuance often do more harm than good to your side.

> Morality is a luxury that only the independently wealthy can afford.

No. At least as I understand the word, "morality" means something different than "do the right thing when it is easy". If only those who can afford it do it, it is not morality. Morality is choosing the right thing even when it costs you, even when it is hard.

Speaking as someone that has spent a large amount of time unemployed because I have a moral compass - let me know when you actually walk that talk.

For me I could only do it because I had "f*ck you" money gained through investments, other people are able to do it because of welfare systems, or even through friends and family.

Textbook ad hominem. If the implication is that nobody sacrifices things for a principle or ever makes hard choices, that is so obviously wrong. Read some history.

I literally said that I personally had done so; so the only ad hominem is coming from you.

I also asked if you had done it yourself, because, as I also said, from personal experience, it's a LOT easier said than done.

Edit: fixed subject as I hadn't realised the person accusing me of making an ad hominem was the person I had originally replied to.

How can you respect someone who betrays a principle you care about for money?

Not to mention that the principles are not being betrayed now for the first time.

You could believe it is not about money.

Most importantly, this seems to rest more on if you believe the principle was being followed or not.

It is possible to believe one thing, have another person believe another thing, and respect that their decision is sincerely held but subject to a different perspective, as is our own beliefs.

You can stand up for what you believe and still respectfully disagree with someone with a different stance.

The problem is when you decide that reality always conforms to you opinion. If you assume the other person is aware of that reality and decides differently than it becomes a betrayal of principles. Assuming to know the internal state of another's mind to declare that it is for money becomes disrespectfully presumptuous.

Your problem is not in understanding how X can occur if Y. It is assuming that everyone agrees with you on Y.

You might be right about Y, you might be wrong. Even if you are right, it is still possible that Y is a belief a rational person can hold if their perspective has been different,

> respect someone who betrays a principle you care about for money?

That is one of my many questions too. I am not certain I believe her either. People predicted AI would be used in such nefarious manners way before AI even existed.

Something about the whole resignation and immediate social media post seems more like an attention grab than anything else to me. Whatever her prerogative is, I still believe she is still partially culpable for anything that becomes of this technology -- good or bad.

I get the impression that often it isn't laziness but the concept that error details leak information to an attacker and are therefore a vulnerability.

I disagree with this view, but it definitely exists.

In a message returned by a server to a client I suppose it's defensible. For writing to syslog, event log, a log file, etc, it's not.

Yeah, along those lines we have requirements on never logging PII, and not logging anything that potentially contains PII, such as folder names.

Maybe tokenise the PII part of the folder name when outputting it?

ie `$HOME`/.config/foo/stuff.cfg` rather than `/home/joebloggs/foo/stuff.cfg`?

Or have an encrypted data portion, so that the sensitive details can be revealed as-needed, and redaction occurs by rotating a key.

Obviously that depends on the messages being infrequent in production logging levels.

This particular line serves only to highlight the author's limited knowledge. I wonder what they meant by it.

Also greyed out options have a point, they only seem "fucking useless" if you don't know it.

You're right, I didn't know about what that "..." meant. It's kind of obvious what I meant though: "I don't know why all of these have ..." I've added that information to the post.

The greyed out options have no point because 99.99% of the links I click are already clean. Like so many of the other privacy enhancing options, just provide an option to "clean links automatically."

Link "cleaning" will sometimes just break a link entirely since it's a heuristic-based thing that removes query parameters that appear to be nonfunctional tracking parameters. Doing it by default would be setting up users for the occasional very bad experience.

Did you really make a blog post to tell the world that you don't know some things? That's not usual. If that is true, the only conclusion is that you should learn those things, and I'm not sure what I am supposed to get from reading it.

I think, or at least the way it reads to me is that you believe Firefox devs are wrong. This is what it looks like you meant. You believe the "..." is wrong to be there, and it should be removed. Which I do not agree with, and in any case we should first consider the "..." conventional meaning and only then we can maybe get to the conclusion that it should be removed. That it should be removed because you don't know why it is there is not reasonable, not to me.

In my humble opinion you should reflect a bit more on what you actually meant to say by this and also other points in the post.

> The greyed out options have no point because 99.99% of the links I click are already clean.

Frankly that's nonsense. They obviously have a point, and the fact you disagree with the point is something completely different. Firefox isn't specifically made for you. I appreciate the greyed out options in general, it helps me know they are there and that they may become available under some conditions.

> Did you really make a blog post to tell the world that you don't know some things? That's not usual

You are focusing on 5 words out of a 1000-word post. Get a grip lol.

In a world of usual, I like to be unusual.

> The point is show how much you know and how smart you are.

I like that this sentence can be read both as a productive, well-meaning view on interviews, as well as a highly cynical one.

Also makes me wonder if the person will keep showing how much they know and how smart they are after they are hired, and if that is a good thing.

My read of the story is that the decision to hire was already made, the interviewer goofed but was then set on the right track by his boss.

The question was bad if using Postgres would really be a better solution than designing and implementing a bespoke system, under the stated constraints. Either they should provide a better problem statement, or at least immediately follow up with “okay, suppose you can’t make use of an existing system like Postgres for $reasons”.

> nobody wants to break international law

I was with you up to this point, but my suspension of disbelief has its limits.