> My opinion is that open source documentation is like polite dinner conversation: It’s not the proper place to discuss politics.
I know this is a common turn of phrase, but I can not help thinking that if the political conversation is impolite it is because some in the conversation is being impolite not due to the topic itself.
They were able to replace the downloaded executable with their own version. From the article:
> 2. Even though the bad actors have lost access to the server from the 2nd of September, 2025, they maintained the credentials of our internal services existing on that server until the 2nd of December, which could have allowed the malicious actors to redirect some of the traffic going to https://notepad-plus-plus.org/getDownloadUrl.php to their own servers and return the updates download URL with compromised updates.
Standard answer to a potentially compromised machine is to start with a factory reset machine and add the software and data you need to do your work/use the machine. Do not take executables from the compromised machine and use them any where since they too could be compromised.
There are more steps you can take to ensure greater safety. The above is the minimum a I do for myself and what the minimum IT department and my company executes.
My minimum is start with a freshly formatted hard drive then reinstall the os, software(fresh not transffered), and data required for your use.
> There are more steps you can take to ensure greater safety.
There are firmware infections that can persist even after hard drive format. Though to my understanding os/user space to firmware infections are rare. As far as I know a 'factory reset' on phone and some laptops does not reinstall firmware and clear out firmware infections. So to my understanding the 'factory reset' found on phones is analogous to formatting your hard drive, reinstall the os, software, and data required for your use.
I do not think it is uncommon for someone to do this, then see the side they oppose win more in elections, public perception, etc then decide to engage more and that is "why is there political messaging literally everywhere".
Since we can't remove it, the next best alternative is to participate and advocate for responsible political engagement. I think until we have some shared understanding of what responsible political engagement is we will continue to have it everywhere.
> Otherwise it is just noise. This is absolutely no statement about the status quo, but just how my brain works. It's also not a statement against activism in general, just about my personal opinion of it in certain places.
I considered the majority of the population to be affected by repeated messaging, messages in the background, or in other words availability bias. So the messaging be having the desired effect on society in general but not on some subset who filter it out completely.
It has an effect on me too: it makes me begin to extra-quickly ignore any messaging of that sort. I become so tired of it that it starts actively frustrating me to see. And I bother people to take it elsewhere. This is a behavioral issue on my part, but I'm still struggling to justify to myself that they couldn't be getting more out of it by putting it somewhere more appropriate.
> I become so tired of it that it starts actively frustrating me to see.
Something similar, significantly different though, happen to a friend. They started distrusting the incogni.com after seeing their advertisements over and over again. To them they saw/felt/reasoned that only an untrustworthy actor would be pushing the messaging so much and a trustworthy actor would rely more on word of mouth via their good product inspiring people to speak up about them. I had to point out that they probably saw much more of incogni's advertising due to their rate and type of media consumption and most people probably do not get that level of exposure. If incogni lowered their advertisements to hit them correctly it would not be nearly enough advertising to reach the average consumer.
I see the frustration at the repeated messaging to likely be a natural protective mechanism. Instinctively reject repeated messages is not necessarily a bad instinct since manipulative people will use repeated messaging to manipulate, but repeated message exposure does not only happen due to an attempt to manipulate.
17MPH is way to fast, depending on the details. I do not think the article gives the details to know if it was a reasonable speed to be going or not, enough details to know it might be to fast, like proximity to a school and children present, yes.
Driving is based so much off of feel so my numbers may be off, but in the scenario you are talking about 5mph seems reasonable, 10mph already seems like to much.
The want to be E but really armchair engineer in me for this context says there's far too little Engineering safety of the situation.
That school should not be on a busy roadway at all, it should also not have a child dropoff area anywhere near one but instead, ideally, a slow loop where the parents do drop off children, and then proceed forward in a safe direction away from the school in a flow.
It's funny because now you're sounding like you're blaming the school/the city for the situation.
Things are what they are. Driving situations are never perfect and that's why we adapt. The Waymo was speeding in a school zone. Did a dangerously fast overtake of a double parked car. It's engineering safety failure over engineering safety failure from Waymo's part, on nobody else.
Source? The article doesn't list a speed limit, but highways.dot.gov suggests to me that the speed limit would be 25mph in the school zone, in which case the waymo was going significantly under the speed limit.
jira, bitbuck, etc historically and currently are all slow(still faster than they used to be, considerably so). So in comparison to a set of tools I have always seen talked about as slow, gitlab is faster.
> Some of this is over-the-top paranoia. If ICE wants to get into your car, they'll just break the window.
Then when I get to my car I can see the broken window and report it or at least know someone broke into my car. With remote entry law enforcement or ice can get in and out potentially without notice.
Just because police/ice/thieves/etc can break down my door and enter my house does not mean I am on board with giving any of them a key.
I know this is a common turn of phrase, but I can not help thinking that if the political conversation is impolite it is because some in the conversation is being impolite not due to the topic itself.
reply