Same here. And when you make a point of it in conversation you’re considered the crazy one. Let alone mention it to coworkers, you’re instantly a kissass.
Wow, overly dramatic and without a point. It’s a demo for a product that is supposed to make money.
What did you expect, a FLIR image of a tank then circling it to find the model? Or a dead palestinian child next to an object in Gaza, then circling the object?
People tend to project their personal preferences with an aura of superiority to the unknown future when everyone will ascend to their level and reach enlightenment.
For what it's worth, I think he is most likely correct that 20 years from now, any discussion of Dune and its adaptations will call Lynch's version "inventive, but flawed" and Villeneuve's "drab and lifeless, aimed at movie-goers who had freshly aged out of Iron Man and wanted to feel like it". I can practically feel this article stare at me from the screen already, too. And it probably wants to provoke a little. If anyone still cares, that is.
The reception of Lynch's version will continue to be colored by his overall ouvre, and it's all just so much more interesting and charming for anyone who has to see and write about movies all week long.
I agree completely. Security is not black and white, same goes for agents that are malicious, if you’re protected from script kiddies by changing your ssh port and adding fail2van then it’s a net positive any way you look at it. It’s important to be aware of course that you’ll need to go a step further if you want to protect from more competent attackers, but what percentage of us will be a target of one of those.
Israel did a lot of bad things. In this particular case it's doing something that's generally right.
Destroying the Hamas is 100% the right thing to do. It's an evil movement that must be eliminated, there's no middle ground here or two sides. To qualify the difference in levels lets look at the situation over the past week. Israel told civilians to move out of the northern part of Gaza so they won't get hurt. Hamas blocked the roads so civilians won't leave.
They use their own people as human shields. They kidnapped civilian women, children and elderly people. They are evil.
Innocent people sometimes get hurt when rooting out evil. That's terrible. But the Hamas must be removed for the sake of the people in Gaza almost as much as for the sake of the people in Israel.
Worldwide support is right. People who actually understand the issue have uniformly come out in favor of this.
Some smart people have said stupid things here, like calling for a ceasefire. That isn't an option. Every time the Hamas was given leeway it has used that to arm itself and attack. E.g. a few years back 1,000 Hamas detainees were released to free one kidnapped Israeli soldier. They promised that they would not attack as a condition of their release. Yet most of them took a part in the October 7th attack. To make matters worse they focused on kidnappings, they learned the effect that has.
At this point Israeli actions in Gaza have killed about 3x as many civilians as Hamas did. Hamas did an evil deed but the response Israel is taking is going to make more terrorists. There was a story yesterday about a journalist whose entire family was killed by an Israeli shelling. That's just as evil at the atrocities Hamas committed and support for Israel will ebb if that is their approach.
Not to dispute your point, but do you have a source regarding Israeli actions killing 3x as many civilians as Hamas? This would be an important fact for updating my perspective if it's true.
I did a quick search for this. Seems like there's some controversy over the numbers, even though they've tried to back it with evidence. That's approaching 5x the official numbers of Israeli casualties, so even if its been inflated my 3x is probably already low and out of date.
Now you might take that figure with a grain of salt, I cannot verify it and wouldn't trust it at present. However, there are plenty of individual stories being reported by agencies I have enough trust in (and some of which I wish now I had not read). You can't accurately shell buildings in a densely built up city like Gaza. Israel told people to move, but there are credible reports that they then attacked people in transit, shelled an area near the south they'd asked people to move to and shelled a refugee camp.
I'm sure that in every case Israel will argue they had intelligence. But I don't think the families of those who see their kids killed in those strikes are going to care. They're just making the next angry generation by applying indiscriminate vengeful violence.
It’s comparing apples and oranges, since Hamas deliberately targets Israeli civilians, while using Palestinian civilians as human shields. Many Palestinian casualties are Hamas’s fault, not IDF.
I'm sure their intentions are very different but it's dehumanising to say it's apples and oranges. Seeing your family members killed is the same, regardless of who you are, and being collateral does not abdicate responsibility, and does not reduce the resulting anger. IDF does have a choice of tactics and they do appear to be using shelling on a dense civilian location while providing unrealistic opportunity to evacuate.
I think if a missile blew up my wedding and killed my family, and I found out it was because some bad guys were hiding among the guests, I'd still be pretty angry at the people who fired the missile no matter who they were aiming for.*
Experts who study the propagation of violence say that the currency of radicalism is grievance. The more grievances happen, the more support goes to violent extremists to strike back, even if this only results in more bullets coming back their way in the future. I can certainly see this feedback loop playing out on both sides of this conflict, because every Israeli civilian casualty results in more support for hard-line military response against Gaza, and every Palestinian civilian casualty results in more support for Hamas.
* This example is taken from an Obama-era US drone strike in Pakistan, because I'm far too distressed to track specific tragedies happening in Israel and Palestine in real time.
I believe you're talking about the 2008 missile strike on wedding convoy in Yemen while Bush was in office during a firefight between US forces and the Taliban. I do not think the US officially took responsibility for that attack.
You're partially right; I can no longer find a source for the strike in Pakistan that I thought I was remembering, although there are numerous that weren't wedding-related. Perhaps I was confusing it with a few different US wedding airstrikes (as perhaps you are as well, as the Yemen wedding attack was in 2013, and no Taliban firefight was involved).
Okay. If you're going to make a point based on an event, I would recommend making some effort to get the details right. It's hard to have a discussion that isn't grounded in truth.
AFAIK, the US and Israel make explicit efforts to avoid killing civilians in an effort to abide by international rules of engagement. Compare this to Hamas, who makes explicit efforts to target civilians and use them as human shields (even glorifying and celebrating it), and you can see why it's impossible to draw a moral equivalence of the two. Like I said, apples to oranges.
Okay. Not sure if you're trolling. I did make some effort to get the details right, about as much as you did when you referred to a "2008 missile strike on a wedding convoy in Yemen while Bush was in office"; that's about as much research as I'd expect for an aside-comment on HN posted from mobile where the date and place of the attack are not really the point of the comment, but rather the point was that a wedding got blown up in a drone strike, leading to a lot of aggrieved civilians. This discussion is grounded in truth as much as it needs to be, and now I've followed up by providing citations for seven civilian wedding parties that were blown up by US missile strikes aiming for terrorists. In some cases, there were terrorists hiding in the area, in some cases, it was bad intel, in some cases, they just apparently mistook a convoy of vehicles in a remote area as being terrorists.
Obviously in no case were US military commanders evilly rubbing their hands together and looking for innocent brides and grooms to blow up. Perhaps it was a lack of due diligence, or blind faith in unreliable sources. Perhaps it was trigger-happiness. Perhaps it was the fog of war. Perhaps it was a sense of guilt by association. Perhaps a few false positives were deemed to meet somebody's threshold of acceptability. Perhaps it was an understanding that there would be little reporting and no major reputational consequences. Perhaps it was an understanding that principles like "it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" do not apply to non-citizens in poor, far off lands.
If I were the bride or groom, I don't think any of this would matter greatly. I'd still be pretty mad at the people who launched the missile, and it's very likely that this would propagate the cycle of violence. As far as the civilian casualties go, every innocent human life is an apple, and they all count the same, regardless of how guilty their neighbors or cousins or government are. They all feel the same outrage, pain, and grievance when their 13-year-old kid is killed in an explosion, whether it's a car bombing or an air strike or a mass shooting or an improvised rocket. It takes near-superhuman levelheadedness to shrug and say "well I guess I'll forgive them for killing my children, since they meant well". That was my point. Nowhere did I say "Israel and Hamas have exactly the same moral standing" or "The USA is just as bad as the Taliban" or something like that. If you're developing a feeling that anyone disagreeing with you is a supporter of Hamas or an enemy of Israel, it's probably time to put down the keyboard and go for a walk.
Not trolling. Just trying to understand the details of the situation, which you boiled down to: the US bombed civilians because "bad guys were hiding among the guests," which I highly doubt is the case. Although maybe you're just saying that's how a Pakistani person would probably interpret the situation, which I absolutely agree with.
Meanwhile, Hamas routinely fires artillery shells directly at Israeli civilians, and people get offended when I say this is different than Israel attack Hamas's terrorism infrastructure embedded in civilian areas.
> If you're developing a feeling that anyone disagreeing with you is a supporter of Hamas or an enemy of Israel
Total strawman. I'm getting the feeling that nobody is capable of talking about this conflict rationally, which is why it's so toxic. Which brings us back to the actual topic: a man got fired for a tweet that sympathizes with a dying Palestinian civilian, which is totally absurd.
The person responsible is the one who pulls the trigger. If a murderer runs into a crowd of people it wouldn't be OK for the police to just mow down those people to catch them. And that's an exact analogy here, just because a terrorist hides within a community does not mean you have any kind of moral justification for killing with impunity. Blame the community? Sure, does that blame extend to the kids growing up in that community who know nothing about what's going on. No, it doesn't.
Sorry, but you've just told me that it's OK to kill innocent civilians, including children, by shelling them because you think a terrorist is hiding in their midst but you can't tell me the difference between that and my scenario. I'm either drastically misunderstanding your scenario or I think your moral compass is well out of whack.
And just to be clear, it's not siding with the terrorists or those directly complicit with them to question these methods, just as it wouldn't be siding with criminals to suggest police can't act with impunity.
> you've just told me that it's OK to kill innocent civilians, including children
No, I did not, and the fact that you believe this is just proving my point. You’re being unreasonable, and no amount of explanation is going to help here.
The source is the Hamas itself and they have proven themselves to be dishonest repeatedly. E.g. the Hospital bombing which was triggered by a misfire of the Islamic Jihad. They knew it wasn't an Israeli bombing when they reported that. There are voice recordings of their leaders discussing this. So any number should be taken with a HUGE mountain of salt.
Regardless of your point the 3x number is irrelevant. This isn't about retaliation. Israel isn't aiming at civilians. The exact opposite. Israel has asked them to leave, they are trying to leave. The Hamas blocks their path so people like you would blame Israel.
> Hamas did an evil deed but the response Israel is taking is going to make more terrorists.
There are no great options here. The Hamas, must be destroyed and any option will be painful. A ground invasion will probably result in even more civilian deaths.
I suggest googling some of the child programming in Gaza's TV station. Pretty horrific stuff. They used the past decade to raise the next generation of terrorists/human shields. All the while their leaders have been amassing vast amounts of properties living in Quatar, Turkey, Lebanon etc.
> There was a story yesterday about a journalist whose entire family was killed by an Israeli shelling. That's just as evil at the atrocities Hamas committed and support for Israel will ebb if that is their approach.
That is a terrible comparison. No one was aiming at that journalists family. Based on your logic the Nazi's should have been appeased. We know how that turned out.
There was a mistake of letting the Hamas survive, even supporting it. It was always a genocidal organization that had no qualms about Palestinian deaths as part of its Jihad. War is messy and terrible, I feel bad for that family. They shouldn't have died, it's not their fault. The natural reaction is to stop violence and in 98% of the cases that's the right thing to do.
This is the 2% case. It's going to get a lot worse but the Hamas (and Islamic Jihad) can't exist when this is over. This is the only path for a future Palestinian state. If you support a Palestinian state then the only path to get there is this.
Not in American public opinion, but the US government has a very supportive relationship. So I guess it depends on what kind of support we're talking about.
On the other hand, they're spawned from decades of systematic oppression of Palestinians (I've seen it fh) by Israel, isrealis, and their insecurity.
And now the world is basically standing-by, if not encouraging events, while Israel freely exacts revenge, if not genocide, justified by Hamas' atrocious (but quite predictable) outburst.
Do they really think removing 'radical elements' (along with whatever collateral damage) will solve the problem? I feel myself becoming more radical just by watching events, and I have absolutely no connection whatsoever to the region.
Counter question, how has Okta proven that they have integrity and are competent and can be trusted to run critical IT?
What quantitive evidence have they ever demonstrated that shows they can stop the attackers who would like access to the billions of dollars of assets whose access they authenticate? A criminal enterprise can literally hire tens to hundreds of skilled hackers full time for years to target these systems and still turn a profit.
The default assumption is that systems are easily hacked. Claiming protection against even small teams of moderately skilled attackers, let alone organized crime, is a extraordinary claim. Where is their extraordinary evidence?
So I can just give you a cardboard box and call it a vault? You can not prove me wrong upfront so you have to believe me? That is ridiculous.
There is plenty of evidence you can provide to establish confidence that a certain degree of security has been achieved. Robust auditing, thorough review, formal methods, exhaustive testing, competent red teams exercises failing to find any vulnerabilities, etc. The only people throwing their hands up claiming security can not be evaluated have nothing useful to say about security because they do not even believe it is possible to know if they did anything.
Counter argument. Okta does all those things. Provides all the evidence, the red teams, etc. and still you don’t trust them (because they continue to have breaches) so to argue that one can prove security is false. One can only practice security and find assurance in certainty that they can identify events after or when they occur. No one can predict the future and no one can guarantee security in perpetuity. So I agree with you that Okta sucks. I also agree with the argument that you have to keep the knife sharp but you can’t just state the knife is sharp. You have to draw some blood to prove it. Likewise security postures are tested when incidents occur, through testing oneself or from another testing you. Complacency in this is when holes form. Security can only be evaluated at the moment in time. You can audit the past, but you can’t audit the future.
Counter argument, prove that Okta does any of those things to any meaningful degree. They are responsible for guarding the authentication to literally billions of dollars of assets. They are a prime target for organized crime who can field teams of tens to hundreds of hackers and state actors who can field teams of thousands for years. The recent Ceasar's attack had a 15 M$ payout, which means it would have been profitable to spend 5-10 M$ of hacking resources to pull off that attack. Okta is a much juicier target. They need to have security adequate to defeat a attack with 10 M$ of funding at a bare minimum.
So yeah, show me a red team exercise with 10 M$ of funding, they get a 30 person hacking team and 1 year fulltime, that failed to find any vulnerabilities and failed to gain access to any sensitive data, then we can talk about if they provided evidence of adequate security. I bet all they have is what everybody else has which is red team exercises that had 3 people for a month that reported 27 serious vulnerabilities, then another red team exercise that found a different 23 vulnerabilities, then another, then another, then another, always finding new ones because their systems are actually at the 100 K$ quality level. Those exercises do provide evidence and confidence in their security, you can be extremely confident their systems are grossly inadequate for their threat landscape. I have not looked, but the same can almost certainly be said about their certifications, audits, etc. since the gold standard that everyone aspires to is, when looked at objectively, grossly inadequate.
No and no, but I was just providing a counter argument so we can get past our bias and get to the heart of the issue. Can we trust Okta going forward? Do they understand the scope? The risks? Or are they full of Id and Ego that they think they are untouchable?
Having red teams, having audits, having scans, etc is simply not enough for some folks but in Okta’s eyes, it’s enough for C-suite talks of taking Authentication/authorization off the plate of their IT department.
I firmly believe for every individual who thinks they are untouchable, there’s a hacker who knows more and is willing to throw it all away to prove a point.
Great, so your argument is based on misinterpreting my single usage of the word “prove” to mean the mathematical definition rather than the colloquial definition meaning substantiated as is obvious to even the most casual observer based on how my statements talk about evidence, not logical inference rules.
I mean, do you seriously think that if person A says: “My vault is secure for 15 minutes against a human with a crowbar.” And person B says “Prove it.” That person A would ever respond with: “I can not because a vault is not a mathematical object and therefore proof is impossible, but I can substantiate it.” That would be ridiculous beyond belief. That is what you are doing.
Not that I am aware of, which bolsters my point. If airsoft pellets keep ripping through everybody's "bulletproof" vests and they all keep telling you to have faith in their new vest, and no, they will not provide you any evidence that it works, then any sane person would be running for the hills. You should be completely skeptical that an entire industry that can not even stop airsoft pellets can suddenly able to stop bullets, 354th times the charm for sure, until they show you some extraordinary evidence. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 354 times in a row for three decades, shame on me.
It’s actually comical that Cloudflare is trying to blame Okta for this. A Cloudflare employee uploaded secrets to Okta’s support tool. That is what caused the breach.
'Malicious Okta employee' who already has privileged access in the systems the customer has chosen to outsource their auth to?
If Okta employee is a high priority threat model... then the customer is better off not using Okta.
Not that it shouldn't be considered, but if Okta top-to-bottom penetration is expected and accepted, then that's taking Zero Trust to a whole new length.
It's literally a policy from Okta to investigate issues, which isn't Cloudflare's fault. The tool from Okta got compromised and all clients that needed support from Okta could/have been damaged as well.
Additionally, it was Cloudflare that SAW something was off and notified Okta. Cloudflare didn't get breached at all.
> The root cause is that Okta got compromised.
It's even suprising that Cloudflare's policies are so good in detection that they detected this at all, before Okta.
Purely anecdotal but their systems are designed very poorly, they outsource their support to some really low quality vendor (read: you get 0 support). This is not a company I would trust if I had the choice.
I was at an org who started using Okta a few years ago (left a few months later, unrelated). Among the issues, it wasn't confidence inspiring that the policies that org set (like requiring the Okta app for 2FA rather than TOTP, or enforcing certain properties about the passwords you're allowed to use) were only enforced in the browser and could easily be circumvented by just sending an appropriate request. Maybe they're fine otherwise, but my rule of thumb is that every security-critical single-point-of-failure like Okta will have major problems, and they certainly haven't presented enough evidence to sway that opinion.
Completely agree, tbh both decisions (sanctions and no sanctions) have certain bad implications. But imho sanctions are much more dangerous in the long run for the US foreign policy.
