That’s a bit reductive. You may be right, but it would be less facile to say that poor designs can be made by anybody, but that a mismatch between design and business objectives led to bad results. Not all business people are morons, and not all designers are good at design.
If the business objectives lead to a design so bad that it hurts the business, surely the people who came up with these objectives didn't do a very good job?
20 years ago when the internet was just hitting its stride, it would be unthinkable for any individual or organization to systematically attack anyone on the internet for the content they created.
The fact that so many have devolved into a religious fervor over silencing any views they don't like is anathema to the fundamental purpose of the internet itself.
Edit: and entirely predictably, I am being attacked for saying this. HN is part of the problem.
The internet is a place where usually people can state their views openly. That is happening. However, what's also happening is people find his views and comments disgusting and they're commenting on it. Totally within their rights to do.
And it's not as unthinkable as you say at all that an individual or organization would attack others for what content they create. Since there has been an internet there's been people who attacked others for their content. I'm not sure what internet you saw 20 years ago but it wasn't the same I saw.
rotten.com? stileproject? goatse.cx? were there even other sites 20 years ago? The Smoking Gun? When did Cryptome/Cartome start? I don't know, but I know users on slashdot weren't pearl-clutching prudes, for example.
Sure people "commented on" things they didn't like, on their own websites. Not on platforms from which they wanted to kick others, certainly not as a habitual normal thing a sane person would consider. Yes, "such people always existed", so in that sense it was "thinkable". But it wasn't done as a matter of course, as a way to win debates.
>With QUIC, however, the identifier for a connection is not the traditional concept of a "socket" (the source/destination port/address protocol combination), but a 64-bit identifier assigned to the connection. This means that as you move around, you can continue with a constant stream uninterrupted from YouTube even as your IP address changes, or continue with a video phone call without it being dropped.
This is the ultimate dream of every surveillance company & gov't. Of course Google is solving this "problem."
In a typical scenario, when you connect to a website with one IP address, then change your network and connect again with different IP but using the same device/browser, that website knows that you are the same user. I don't see how having an identifier inside encrypted connection makes anything worse.
This is definitely a risk. There are valid needs to wanting to resume a connection as it hops between gateways, but I definitely see abuse for this. The identifier doesn’t necessarily tie you to a location or name, but once you can associate that it is a risk.
IIUC, the stream identifier is not a persistent client identifier but more similar to a TCP connection.
So yes, as opposed to TCP, it will be able to work with changing IP addresses, but other than that, it's still a relatively short-term identifier. Google et al will still have to use cookies and whatnot to identify users over longer times.
Preventing educational debt from discharge in bankruptcy is one of congress's greatest crimes. The fact that they exempted their own children from the law is just the icing on the cake.
It's not true. The original source of the claim appears to be a misrepresentation on Fox News years ago of Congress' student loan repayment plan for staffers.
Just another example of the utter amorality of the silicon valley mindset–which has been exported globally. Everybody cares about what they can achieve technically, while virtually no one cares whether they should or not.
Essential has nothing to do with it. Upgrading to a ten year old standard as a minimum is not burdensome. If these services are so critical, they have far bigger problems due to these gaping security holes.
