because he changed the repo permissions to allow the UnrealEngine organisation write access, and github automatically watches repos for you when you're granted write access.
Just been hacked through this method and cannot believe how redis can ship with such ridiculously insecure defaults, and that they don't even MENTION the security concerns from the quickstart guide, which is what the majority of people would use to get redis installed and set up.
Like having port 6379 be open to anyone who happens to wander by? Your firewall was horribly configured and you got burned, take this as a learning opportunity to fix your mistakes.
exactly, but one wrong doesn't excuse another. just because I didn't have my firewall configured correctly doesn't mean software that I use should a) have insecure defaults and b) not make a song and dance about them on the page designed to get you up and running with it.
"If anyone feels this strongly about a certain group (like Elia), they will find "devil's advocate" (for a lack of better expression) reasons to disagree with them simply because they don't like them, or otherwise try to diminish the person in various forms to deter them from contributing."
why on earth do you feel that you're an authority on how people _will_ behave? don't judge everyone else by your awfully low standards of professionalism, almost everyone i've ever worked with has been capable of working with people with which they have disagreements, without their differences of opinions causing issues.
> why on earth do you feel that you're an authority on how people _will_ behave?
I am not an authority on how people will behave; it was simply a prognosis. I am sorry, if I somehow implied otherwise.
> don't judge everyone else by your awfully low standards of professionalism
Generally, if someone has horrible personal antics, it's very likely they'll carry those into other aspects of their life, even GitHub or work. We're only human.
> almost everyone i've ever worked with has been capable of working with people with which they have disagreements, without their differences of opinions causing issues.
Well, consider yourself lucky, then. Not everyone's had the benefit of such experiences. I myself haven't had horribly bad ones either. Although, I know people to whom it happened and how it affected their general emotional well-being; it was horrible watching them slowly deteriorate because they were in such a position.
There are two reasons someone would make the non-utilitarian answer to the questions:
- They wouldn't feel that they could bring them self to cause someone's death (but they could still be utilitarian in principle)
- They feel that it's not the right ethical choice
A well known consequence of consuming alcohol is "dutch courage", becoming bolder and more risk-taking. I suspect the differences seen are actually just the utilitarian-in-principle folk being a bit braver.
Rather than asking:
"people must choose whether they would flip a switch to divert a runaway trolley, killing one person but sparing five others"
They could've asked what they think the correct thing for someone else to do would be.
The downvotes for the original poster in this thread are probably due to the rather vitriolic sounding language used.
But, setting that aside and responding to your question :
It's ironic that if you had ever followed Private Eye, you would have read all the details of money laundering through London; the original article is really about exactly that and how people can use anonymous companies (often in Nevis) to launder huge sums through London property and the lack of action by UK authorities even when egregious abuses take place.
Exactly - the UK is the home of financial fraud. Many of the problems of tax evasion stem from their tax havens set up around the world.
The City is a cancer that is feeding on the entire world. The City needs exorcising from the UK. And like all parasites it would not survive without protection for long.
Ah, I completely misunderstood the original commenter and in my mind conflated "outright aggression since prior to WW2" stuff with the black money, I was probably confused because the money laundering is kinda what the graphic alludes to.
This would be more of a story if the ruling went the other way. Someone threatens to kill people at work and loses his job, no shit. Imagine working with that person after you've had quite a specific and calculated death threat from that individual, completely impossible.
Some situations are just unfortunate, but that doesn't mean they're unjust.
When I worked remotely, I had a coworker that was hard to deal with (with everyone) and openly threatened in logged work chat to come to my house and shoot me in the face.
Over nothing.
He still works there. I don't. Jerknuts would flip out to HR over every minor grievance but was completely immovable from a team where everyone (including his boss) hated him. HR did nothing about his threats (which were to more than just me). Did nothing about his consistent efforts to undermine his boss and the work of the team. Did nothing about him deliberately misleading and trolling his coworkers and _our customers_.
You got burnt out, no need to turn it into a sob story or a bitter industry rant. You couldn't manage your time effectively.
By all means if you're unhappy change your lifestyle -- and pronto -- if you can eek out an existence in a more fulfilling way then get to it, but don't try telling everyone they work in a "stupid, backwards, fledgling industry" because you didn't like your job.
Just another "woe betide me"-disaffected-techie rant.
I don't think it's unprofessional and I wouldn't want to work with anyone who did, so if that's the effect it has for some people, then it's self-fulfilling!
