Heh I literally at the same time you posted answered to someone else that I think I er where I’m coming from.
Personally my issue is more with the framing (“looking for an employee”) than with the fact that they want/need a contractor.
I still wish them the best and would encourage everyone qualified to put their energy into a project like this rather than … Close to anything else!
I get where you’re coming from. I highly respect this project for its privacy push and it’s sadly a good example of “not all issues have the same priority”.
I honestly can see them just not being able to handle the business risk of a full employee would bring or several other reasons why it’s “okay” from their perspective. I now basically have to choose between two subjects that I find important.
For me I came to the conclusion that I still wish them the best - I can’t hold them to a standard ass high as the corporate world personally, let alone one higher.
“you will be employed as an independent contractor”
Dear (US) companies: this is not “employed”. This is commissioned or mandated, depending on the contract details.
It’s the Google account people log onto with thats the issue from a security perspective.
That said neither a malicious update was so far identified nor anything that 2FA wouldn’t take care of.
This can happen to fdroid apps as well by the way. It’s just the downside of small or solo devs that they are on their own when it happens.
I’m actually more confident in the smarttube rev now I have to say. He disclosed it fast, flagged his own apps as compromised even without specific proof and published it from what I can tell pretty much right after finding out.
I meant the one above that - but from your answer I deduce that that’s actually what Windows looks like nowadays? Oo
Thank you!
What is that? I first thought this is what Windows might look like today but now I’m curious what functionality a program like this solves!
I wish I could blame auto correct but I’m afraid at least 2/3 of that was (and is) sleep deprivation :(
Hopefully a bit cleaner now and thanks for the pointer.
Thanks! Highly appreciated :) Your “compile” time alone I wasted when I accidently screwed up disk encryption - and couldn’t figure out what’s wrong with my kernel parameters for a long time. So your numbers are not really shocking.
Edit: decrypted message.
Yay AMA! ❤️
How do you feel when you(have to use) a different linux system of that happens? Is it as different that it’s like “using” MacOS or Windows to you?
How lo does it take you to set up a system from scratch?
what’s the biggest downside from your perspective?
Thanks in advance!
In the very first post on this thread I pointed out that I’m not talking about this specific case at all.
To your last point I fully agree!
For the first point: that’s how I understood you - what I failed to convey: adultsshould fall victim more in cases like this because parents can be a protective shield of a kind that grown-ups lag.
Children on their own stand easy less of a chance but are very rarely on their own.
And to be honest I think it doesn’t change result of requirements for action both in general but respectfully for language based bots, both from a legal as well as an educational point of view.
I see your point but there is one major difference between adults and children: adults are by default fully responsible for themselves z children are not.
As for your question: I won’t blame the parents here in the slightest because they will likely put more than enough blame on themselves. Instead I’ll try to keep it general:
Independent of technology, what a parent can do is learn behavior and communication patterns that can be signs of mental illness.
That’s independent of the technology.
This is a big task because the border between normal puberty and behavior that warrants action is slim to non-existent.
Overall I wish for way better education for parents both in terms of age appropriate patterns as well as what kind of help is available to them depending on their country and culture.
The first part is a technical question and the second part a definition one.
For the how to: the most common approach is to simply blacklist their IPs on a provider basis. This leads to no provider that obeys your blacklists to allow their users traffic to that target. Usually all providers in a nation obey that nations law (I assume, I only know that for my own :D)
For the censorship: I don’t like that word because it’s implications fan be used against any and all laws. A shitload of content is made inaccessible because it breaks laws from active coordination of attacks to human trafficking. All of this can be described as censorship.
Forthe UK law it’s… I’m not British and to me it appears to be a vague tool to silence and control all types of content under the guise of protecting children. Not with the intention to protect or prevent something but with the intent to control. I would fully understand and emphasize with using the word censorship in this context.
Understandable, he was right very often and “only” his tone was…unfiltered. but I ignore the “was right” part when using that phrasing :)
I’d like to imagine that this would be close to the phrasing Linus himself would choose, although I could be off of course!
I really don’t enjoy Linus’ content without context I have to admit.
He was an absolute dipshit back then and he’s one of the few people I’ve read about who not only acknowledged that but also put effort into changing it - and succeeded.
Yeah the newer mails are not as funny to third parties anymore but I’m really happy for him and especially the kernel devs around him.
Oh yeah I see…
As some old philosopher once said: “shit’s fucked, yo”.
Seems to be appropriate here.
Because a security engineer focused on cloud would rightfully say “pod security is not my issue, I’m focused on protecting the rest of our world from each pod itself.”. With AWS as example: If they then analyze the IAM role structures and to deep into where the pod runs (e.g. shared ec2 vs eks) etc. then it would just be a matter of different focus.
Cloud security is focused on the infrastructure - looks like you’re looking for a security engineer focused on the dev side.
If they bring neither to the table then I’m with you - but I don’t see how “the cloud” is at fault here… especially for security the world as full of “following the script” people long before cloud was a thing.
Old knowledge disclaimer, but if they didn’t change it then:
Because Apple literally tells people that they’re not allowed to charge less somewhere else - at least that was the case several years ago…
Hey,
I’d be very grateful if you could share your approach den if it’s only to compare (I went with a “be assertive and clear, skip all overhead” system prompt.
This is not only interesting for chatgpt but understanding how people solve these issues comes in handy when switching to local variants as well!
Thanks in advance
They are employed by themselves. They are not employed AS anything else. You have it right just your conclusion is inconsistent.
It’s for me not about the wording of the last paragraph by the way but about the context and requirements list which makes the impression (to me) of offering an employee/employer relationship which is only broken up in the last line. That’s the part I really don’t like.
This kind of advertisement would be illegal in Germany btw as it would encourage pseudo self employment: someone self employed who is relying on one client only. (And no, not exaggerated: I’ve a legal department at least pull job description from the tech dept similar to this).