Thank you?

It sounds like someone got ahold of a 6 year old copy of Google’s risk register. Based on my reading of the article it sounds like Google has a robust process for identifying, prioritizing, and resolving risks that are identified internally. This is not only necessary for an organization their size, but is also indicative of a risk culture that incentivizes self reporting risks.

In contrast, I’d point to an organization like Boeing, which has recently been shown to have provided incentives to the opposite effect - prioritizing throughput over safety.

If the author had found a number of issues that were identified 6+ years ago and were still shown to be persistent within the environment, that might be some cause for alarm. But, per the reporting, it seems that when a bug, misconfiguration, or other type of risk is identified internally, Google takes steps to resolve the issue, and does so at a pace commensurate with the level of risk that the issue creates for the business.

Bottom line, while I have no doubt that the author of this article was well-intentioned, their lack of experience in information security / risk management seems obvious, and ultimately this article poses a number of questions that are shown to have innocuous answers.

It sounds like someone got ahold of a 6 year old copy of Google’s risk register. Based on my reading of the article it sounds like Google has a robust process for identifying, prioritizing, and resolving risks that are identified internally. This is not only necessary for an organization their size, but is also indicative of a risk culture that incentivizes self reporting risks.

In contrast, I’d point to an organization like Boeing, which has recently been shown to have provided incentives to the opposite effect - prioritizing throughput over safety.

If the author had found a number of issues that were identified 6+ years ago and were still shown to be persistent within the environment, that might be some cause for alarm. But, per the reporting, it seems that when a bug, misconfiguration, or other type of risk is identified internally, Google takes steps to resolve the issue, and does so at a pace commensurate with the level of risk that the issue creates for the business.

Bottom line, while I have no doubt that the author of this article was well-intentioned, their lack of experience in information security / risk management seems obvious, and ultimately this article poses a number of questions that are shown to have innocuous answers.

Everything is transient and eventually becomes shitty, sure, but I generally trust them because they’re able to make money just from people using the service. I don’t know how profitable they are, but I am reasonably certain that as the card issuer they get a cut of every transaction. Given that they aren’t issuing physical cards and have no obvious costs other than maintaining their platform, I don’t see a reason not to trust them in the medium term.

I’ve generally had good experiences with Privacy.com. It seems like a decent solution when I want something from a semi-reputable website.

I particularly enjoy the bit where cards are vendor-locked, which has been interesting to observe in a couple of instances where a site seems to have had their credit card db breached and the attackers turn around and try to use the card on another site, where it is inevitably denied, but I still get an email that shows which site got hacked and where the attackers were trying to use the information.

Wait, you don’t inherently trust pictures of text posted by anonymous strangers online? Clearly this sentiment deserves downvotes. /s

On a less sarcastic note, I’ve noticed this a lot with my gen z friends - instead of using the share button that is built into pretty much every website and app these days, I get a screenshot of a headline from an article and am left to find the source on my own. Infuriating.

This is a great explanation of how the disinformation machine works, thanks for sharing.

For MANY Americans, the US is their whole world. 🤷‍♂️

I think Lemmy paints a difficult picture to decipher if we’re considerate of the broader voter base.

Tin Foil Hat time! We know that Russia and China, among others, have troll farms working across social media to try to shape the narrative. One of their stated goals is to increase divisiveness among westerners. Lemmy is such a small community that it would not take much effort for them to dominate the conversation here.

At least thats what I tell myself, because I refuse to believe that there are so many people here stubbornly refusing to believe experts who have studied their fields for years. Just because I don’t understand something doesn’t mean that nobody understands it. I’m constantly amazed by people who make advances in areas that I have little experience in personally, but I know enough about the scientific community to agree that these contributions should be lauded.

Nevertheless, expect to be brigaded by downvotes for trying to bring logic into the discussion.

Sorry bud, you’re in the wrong community if you’re looking for allies when you bring logic based on reality into the conversation.

You lucky bastard. 😁

How many wrong guesses were you allowed before the system would lock your account?

You’re probably in the minority, but probably not the only one.

WhatsApp is also owned by meta, so out of the 7 options, 3 of them are owned by the same company and yet continue to lack support for interoperability.

Alright, so while you’re totes cool with posting links to a “news agency” controlled by the Iranian government, you have a bone to pick with the NYT? C’mon man, either you need to touch grass or you’re actually on the payroll for Iran.

Gonna go ahead and label this user as “Iranian Propagandist” and move on with my life, and I suggest that others do too.

Aight, pay up, where’s the western media reporting on this?

That sounds like an incredibly large cover-up operation, if true. I’ve seen the US government in action and I’m here to tell you that they simply cannot contain stories this big. Ukraine has a free press and they have unrestricted access to the internet. If it were as bad as you suggest, why have we not heard of it?

It sounds to me like you need to get your facts straight.

Your title is worded in a way that suggests that Ukrainian citizens are ready to sue for peace, but the actual study doesn’t conclude that at all. Vast majorities of those surveyed believe that Ukraine will win the war and restore their original territory.

The options available were, basically, “the war can only end through military means” and “in addition to the military efforts, diplomatic efforts should be taken to end the war”. It isn’t particularly surprising that people understand that diplomatic efforts are necessary to conclude the war, but this shouldn’t be taken as a sign that they’re ready to simy give up. Far from it.

I’m not entirely sure how to respond to this, seeing as your quote is of a comment made by Candelestine, so I’m not 100% sure this was intended as a response to me in the first place. Nevertheless, I do have some thoughts to share.

Main thought - I agree with you. We’re clearly on the same side, arguing about nuance. Biden is super unpopular. I’m not entirely sure he’s unpopular for the right reasons, but that doesn’t change the fact that he doesn’t poll well.

I also agree that the main reason he’s even in the race is because he’s the only one who has ever beaten Trump. I, like many others, am terrified of a future where Trump wins and ushers in a fascist dictatorship. Thus, the party wants to back a proven winner. We’re going for the least bad option here in a choice between ol Joe and a Christo-fascist state.

If there was another Democrat out there with similar name recognition who had raised their hand, we might be having a different conversation, but conventional wisdom dictates that something really catastrophic would have needed to happen under Biden to change the math on the incumbent advantage. On reflection, while Biden still isn’t my favorite, his administration has done a lot of things right. I’ve lived through both options and there’s no contest, for me, between 4 more years of Joe or 4 more years of Trump.

Regarding winning a primary without being on the ballot or campaigning - the results in NH speak for themselves. If there was an alternative who stood a chance there wouldn’t be any discussion about being on the ballot in any state. Since we already know the Dems are going all-in on Joe, the goal now is to keep the message as clear as possible and minimize muddying the waters with spoiler candidates. It wouldn’t be an issue if every state used ranked choice voting, but we need every vote and first past the post makes spoilers extremely costly.

Dean Phillips? I’m fairly engaged in mainstream political discussions and the only reason I’ve heard his name is to point out that he’s one of a small number of potential spoiler candidates.

Even the article you linked is full of quotes bashing his campaign.

The guy taking campaign donations from Harlan Crow ought to be enough to tell you everything you need to know. This guy isn’t here trying to win, he’s just trying to muddy the waters.

I know Biden is a really tough pill to swallow. It’s true, I feel it too, but unless he drops dead tomorrow, he’s the guy that has already beaten Trump, so smart money is going to the proven winner. The sooner we all accept that and start focusing on the down-ballot races, the better. Because truthfully the president doesn’t make enough difference if Congress continues to be absolutely fucking useless.