My office is full of loud folks and it's really disruptive. My biggest issue is my tech lead will walk up behind me and pull off my headphones without any warning. It really startles me, so I've taken to not wearing anything and putting up as bast that I can with the noise
Can't tell if you're trolling or serious, or what your specific situation is, but you should be either telling your tech lead to please stop doing that, or asking your manager or HR to tell them. This is not acceptable behavior in a normal workplace.
This is NOT okay. I can’t imagine touching someone else or something that they are wearing on their person in the workplace (unless there is some good reason otherwise), and vice versa.
I know this is a form a victim-blaming, but the other party isn't here, so I can only address you: You can not treat this behavior in the way you've described. Every time somebody accepts victimhood even in small ways, it hurts everybody.
Basic, "default" levels of respect for people is the most foundational layer of humanity. For the sake of society, do not accept petty acts of disrespect.
This is definitely some creepy behaviour by the tech lead, but how is it sexual assault? This just deflates the meaning of sexual assault to mean any kind of "uncomfortable assault"?
I think this is very cool, but the edge warping negates a lot of the chaos imho. It keeps things interacting in the center of the screen, but it prevents the chaos of bodies being yeeted out into the void.
Many are negative but clickbait is rampant on youtube. There's a habit of exaggeration to get views to make money. It is a predator-prey bloodbath where the audience is prey.
Not even close. They optimized for strength-to-weight ratios, which is great for a ton of things, but a space elevator needs insane levels of brute strength. Were not sure the material can exist in our current understanding of physics
Don't forget that space elevators need more than brute strength: they need to be immune to all sorts of cosmic radiation and space debris, they presumably need to be electrically conductive since the elevator carriage will need a lot of power to travel upwards a few thousand KMs before their passengers starve to death, they need to be robust against the elevator carriage's friction, and probably a few other things.
> they presumably need to be electrically conductive since the elevator carriage will need a lot of power to travel upwards a few thousand KMs before their passengers starve to death
Even a slow space elevator that can only be used for transporting cargo would already be extremely useful. You could even load it with a container filled with life support if you really need to ship living cargo.
An orbit to ground space elevator would indeed be challenging, but the cable doesn't have to go all the way to the ground to be useful. Shorter tethers have many applications, and those can be made out of non-exotic materials (e.g. Kevlar).
One key feature of APFS was the metadata location didn't overlap with any hfs+ metadata location, so the two file systems could co-exist on the drive. So I presume they created the apfs metadata inside the hfs+ unallocated space, and so if it failed, hfs+ would happily overwrite the apfs metadata and continue on without any impact.
It was a massive change, but one they prepared for by having the same migration happen on laptops/desktops
The old filesystem was HFS+, released in 1998 and APFS was released in 2017.
APFS added encryption, data integrity checksums, copy on write, snapshots, logical volume support. The migration wasn't just a "search and replace the name and ship it", but an intensive re-writing of the filesystem metadata during the migration.
Released in 1998 for Mac OS 8.1. That HFS+ worked at all for Mac OS X was a minor miracle; it was absolutely not designed for use on a modern UNIX, and support for some features like deleting in-use files involved some egregious hacks (like temporarily stashing files in invisible directories).
I'm still shocked that they went with HFS+ for so long, for all its shortcomings.
Early Mac OS X did support UFS (not sure which variant, probably an early BSD?) but never fully and eventually removed it. HFS support for backwards compatibility was necessary, but making it the boot FS for so many years did hold the platform back.
There was talk about ZFS at one point, but it never happened - maybe due to licensing. A large variety of FSes is definitely something Linux has over BSD and permissive licensed software. Even ZFS isn't fully permissive which only leaves HAMMER(2) as the FS with next-gen features and a BSD license.
> I'm still shocked that they went with HFS+ for so long, for all its shortcomings.
At the same time, it's impressive that the basic design of HFS held up as well as it did! HFS was initially introduced in 1985, and HFS+ was a fairly conservative update to support larger volumes (and, later, metadata journaling).
> There was talk about ZFS at one point, but it never happened - maybe due to licensing.
That seems very likely. Apple's experiments with ZFS ended around 2009, right about the same time that Oracle finalized their acquisition of Sun.
At the time ZFS on FreeBSD came with some pretty serious caveats regarding performance and memory usage. It was pretty clearly designed for servers and not really the sort of thing designed to run on your laptop, much less iPhone. Apple probably made the right choice for technical reasons alone.
Since then ZFS has improved and machines have become faster.
Apple wrote an interesting article[0] way back in 2000 about some of difficulties in integrating Unix/Mac, especially files and filesystems.
e.g. case sensitive vs insensitive, different path separators : vs / , lack of file IDs on UFS, resource forks, hard links and the above mentioned deleting files that are open.
I believe it has checksums on its own metadata, but no checksums on actual user data. So you won't lose a whole folder or volume due to bitrot, but it doesn't provide protection against a flipped bit in one of your photos.
I wonder why they don't do checksums on data. Too complex? Is bitrot not a common problem on modern SSDs? It's also not clear what should a user do after they've received a notification that a scrub found a mismatch. It's not like you can replace the soldered on SSD... It would be still great for external ones though.
They claimed it's not needed because Apple hardware is very good; from [1]:
"The APFS engineers I talked to cited strong ECC protection within Apple storage devices. Both flash SSDs and magnetic media HDDs use redundant data to detect and correct errors. The engineers contend that Apple devices basically don’t return bogus data."
I don't think it's a good decision either; obviously you can run systems without checksums (we've been doing so for decades) but "netter safe than sorry" seems to be the smart thing. It's pretty cheap to checksum data, which is why all the next-gen filesystems (ZFS, btrfs, bcachefs) do so.
Yeah it's strange and quite disappointing. Even if Apple devices never returned bogus data (doubtful), there's a whole industry of external disks, largely fuelled by Apple's ridiculous SSD prices, that you're putting APFS on and which are often of dubious quality. Then again, the interview is now 8 years old and they must have been working on something since.
Complex, systemic problems tend to require systemic solutions. Petty vigilante justice can make us feel good about ourselves but rarely makes much difference.
The podcast I linked in your other comment talks about a few potential avenues to help make real change, ranging from diplomatic pressure, to crypto regulation, to education.
I don't think Kitboga (or any of the other scambaiting people) would disagree with anything you're suggesting.
I agree that it's a systemic problem, and it is probably a job for regulators and maybe even the FBI/CIA.
I don't think any of these scambaiters are claiming that they're saving the world or "make much difference", but I think there can still be value in short-term solutions as well. It might take decades for politicians to actually solve the problem in a way that it needs to be, and in that time Kitboga wasting some time is making a small effect.
Kitbogas antics also bring visibility to the problem. He gets millions of views, millions of people made aware of the problem and how the scammers operate. If not for efforts like this, the scammer problem would be far less visible not least because the victims often conceal their victimhood out of shame or unwillingness to believe they've been had.
I would tend to agree if the stakes are small. But in this case, when you're dealing with human trafficking, there's a real chance their actions make the scenario much worse while being veiled in self-righteousness.
I guess what I take issue with is that you keep claiming that it's making the situation worse...How? In the short term what are the alternatives? Let the scammers keep trying to rip people off, with some level of success?
There's a couple things we need to agree on to get there.
1) A lot of this industry is based on human trafficking. I've linked elsewhere to a good podcast that explains this and others have chimed in with other references.
2) By wasting the scammer's time, you are putting them at risk of abuse because of #1.
So if you can agree that "increasing the risk of human physical violence to live out some vigilante sense of justice" is worse than "not," it leads to worse outcomes for disproportionately little net gain.
Edit: (sorry, I was actually editing this as you were already posting. I had already answered this in multiple other comments, so it was getting tiresome)
The UN is already working on diplomatic pressure in countries like Cambodia that seem to specialize in this sort of thing. Countries like China (where there are victims on both sides of the problem) have created movies [1], in part, to educate the populace. I'm not claiming there are any silver bullets, but I think the types of actions in the article are more about feeling like you're doing good than actually doing good. And it hits home because most of us have similar thoughts. It's a bit masturbatory in that regard, and I want to push back a bit on the idea that it's actually solving much of anything despite what our baser instincts are telling us.
You didn't actually answer the question. I'll agree with both points (though I take a bit of issue with the second with some of the wording), but you didn't suggest any short term solutions.
ETA:
I want to clarify, these people will have violence inflicted on them if they're not collecting money. If Kitboga is wasting their time, they're not collecting money. If they just get a bad shuffle and don't get anyone gullible for a few days, they're also not collecting money. You seem to be purposefully ignoring this.
My whole point has been regarding #1. There is some probability that the scammers get "a bad shuffle" and get abused. However, if you deliberately waste their time, you have just increased that probability to 100%. I'm claiming that makes things worse.
If your new question is how do we solve the human trafficking problem that undergirds this industry, I'm afraid I don't think there's "this one hack" that can solve that. But at least we don't have to make things worse in the short term.
Ok, but this is the point that I think we disagree; I would think that the "bad shuffle" is what we want? I think you would agree that grandmother spending her entire retirement on Google Play cards is a bad thing. Deliberately wasting their time guarantees that at least that scammer is not extracting money from some random person. I'm having trouble seeing how that's a bad thing; all these scambaiters are doing is kind of forcing the "bad shuffle".
I think I must be misunderstanding because it genuinely seems to be that you're suggesting that the best course of action is to just let people get scammed for hundreds of thousands of dollars until there is a systemic solution. A systemic solution can take years, maybe decades.
It reads that we are speaking past each other and I think the misunderstanding comes from your consistent reframing as the choice between two bad outcomes. I've already commented that dichotomous thinking isn't helpful. So, again, I don't think there are only two options: a) let someone get scammed and b) let someone get abused. I think that kind of thinking is incompatible with finding good solutions.
But...since you keep framing it that way...I would say, between the two, allowing someone to lose money is a better outcome than making it likely that someone will be beaten while being imprisoned against their will. In a (falsely) dichotomously framed argument, there is a clear hierarchy. Physical safety trumps money. "My kingdom for a horse" and all that.
I think the best option for the person in TFA is to get proactively involved in providing systemic solutions. If they aren't up for that, the next best option is to ignore the calls. I wouldn't even put the "scam the scammers" in the same discussion because, as we'd talked about ad nauseam, it's not really a solution and probably antithetical to a solution because it potentially makes things worse. Again, at the very least, we can not make things worse. You seem to be advocating for the "making things worse" choice because you've constrained yourself to only two options and you already decided that one is unacceptable.
> But...since you keep framing it that way...I would say, between the two, allowing someone to lose money is a better outcome than making it likely that someone will be beaten while being imprisoned against their will.
Ok, so there's actually a word for that, it's called "extortion". It's generally frowned upon.
You have repeated that it's a "false dichotomy" like seven times now, but you haven't actually suggested a third solution to the problem. "Get involved in providing systemic solutions" is absurd; what the hell does that even mean? I vote for politicians that might do something about it? I write a letter to the UN? Ok, so that's great, maybe I make a change.org petition while I'm at it. Maybe in twenty years something will actually get done.
You also have not actually explained how things are "being made worse" by these scambaiters. I would argue that reducing extortion is good, and outweighs the risk of the traffic victims being abused. It's very sad, I don't like them being abused, but what you're suggesting is borderline-ludacris, short-sighted, and doesn't actually make any sense if taken to its logical extreme.
This will be my last reply because I've already responded to all those claims multiple times.
I think the gist is we fundamentally disagree about this point:
>"I would argue that reducing extortion is good, and outweighs the risk of the traffic victims being abused."
So if you were given a choice between handing me over your wallet, or me knocking out all your teeth (literally the example in the link I provided in another comment), you'd choose me knocking out your teeth? Okay, I guess, but I find it hard to believe. As long as you value money over physical safety, we probably will disagree. (I suspect it has more to do with psychological distance than really feeling that way. If, instead of some abstract person in a third world country, it was a loved family member at risk, would it change your response?) So, in that context, along with rehashing the points I've already addressed, your responses come across as either someone who makes sport of arguing for its own sake, or you're just incapable of accepting information when it's provided.
E.g., >but you haven't actually suggested a third solution to the problem.
In the post above this, I literally said ignoring the call is preferential to either "scamming the scammer"
>what the hell does that even mean?
I deliberately left it vague because it's up to you to decide what level of effort is reasonable given your value system. On one end you can simply try to lift the veil of ignorance and recognize the complexities of the issue and on the other extreme, you could go to Cambodia to actively work against it. Even simply marking the call as spam is more reasonable IMO than actively increasing the risk of physical violence on someone being trafficked because it's of no consequence to you. There's plenty of wiggle room for each individual to figure out what works for them. Again, at the very least, I would argue they have a duty to not make things worse. Apparently, you think losing money is worse than being physically harmed. I disagree. There are many situations in life when doing nothing is the better option.
>what you're suggesting is borderline-ludacris, short-sighted
The irony is that my point is that "scamming the scammer" is short-sighted because they do not take into consideration anything past the immediate interaction. In the short-term, it makes them feel good because of our innate bias toward a sense of justice, but once you get past that bubble it's worse overall (my claim, which you obvious disagree with, but haven't really explained why). There is a certain arrogance in it which effectively says, "I am so very very smart, I will outwit this scammer for the lolz" while being oblivious to the larger consequences. My entire point is that people need to be aware of the larger consequences and it's pretty clear the subject of TFA is not.
>if taken to its logical extreme.
This is exactly what people with dichotomous thinking do. By not recognizing any grey, you are constraining yourself to only two extreme choices.
I've explained why it does more harm. I've explained why it confuses what the real problem is. I've offered better options, both at the individual and nation-state level. There are some potentially reasonable philosophical reasons to disagree with those points, but you just bypass them like you never read them to begin with.
A scammer comes up to you and says "give me your wallet or my boss will knock out all my teeth." Do you give him your wallet, or tell him to fuck himself? It's your wallet so that's on you, but what you're suggesting throughout this discussion is that other people have a moral responsibility to reduce the harm suffered by the scammers. That's fucked up.
I'm suggesting that's the way grown-ups should act in a society, within limits. The main point that seems to get lost is that, globally, I'm saying the upside of this tactic is far outweighed by the downside. There's a weird abstraction that this discussion displays related to psychological distance that minimizes that downside. And, putting aside moral arguments because they can be debated forever, there is a legal concept related to proximate cause that somebody has a duty to avoid those actions if it is foreseeable that they would cause an injury. So while not legally applicable in a case that crosses borders, it is certainly an acceptable concept.
E.g., if you are on the phone negotiating with a kidnapper and I snatch the phone, tell the kidnapper to go fuck themselves and hangup, I'm probably liable for injuries to the victim.
> So if you were given a choice between handing me over your wallet, or me knocking out all your teeth (literally the example in the link I provided in another comment), you'd choose me knocking out your teeth?
It's not analogous. Of course I'd hand my wallet over. The better analogy is asking if I would hand my wallet over to protect some stranger's teeth from being knocked out, and that's a "it depends" situation. I don't want to be extorted. It's not about the money.
I mean, there's a reason that DHS typically does not negotiate with terrorists; they don't want to create a system that incentivizes people to try and extort money out of them.
> In the post above this, I literally said ignoring the call is preferential to either "scamming the scammer"
That is not a solution. If we "ignore the scammer" like you suggested, they will be beaten in the same way because they are not extracting money. I already explained that and you decided it wasn't a point worth responding to. This is why I said you didn't actually provide a solution. You didn't really "explain" why it was preferential, you just asserted multiple times making vague allusions to the idea that somehow the scambaiters wasting time is going to lead to more violence than people ignoring the call.
> On one end you can simply try to lift the veil of ignorance and recognize the complexities of the issue and on the other extreme, you could go to Cambodia to actively work against it.
That just sounds like even more vigilantism, and puts yourself in serious risk. The only thing that would make any sense is to get the authorities involved.
> The irony is that my point is that "scamming the scammer" is short-sighted because they do not take into consideration anything past the immediate interaction.
The "larger consequences" of what the extortionists do are beyond the scambaiters control.
What you suggested instead is to just lightly fund this extortionist operation, enough to keep them going so that they don't beat the trafficking victims as much, until the "systemic" solution comes out.
> Apparently, you think losing money is worse than being physically harmed. I disagree.
People commit suicide because of these scams. People have their entire lives ruined, and they will continue to have their lives ruined. It's not just money; they have their identities stolen, they're blackmailed, they're made destitute. The scambaiters wasting time isn't going to save the world, but it might prevent just one person from having their life ruined, that's a good thing, and it's better to not fund terrorists just because they threaten to hurt more people.
That is why I said what you were suggesting was ridiculous.
> I would say, between the two, allowing someone to lose money is a better outcome than making it likely that someone will be beaten while being imprisoned against their will.
That is tactical thinking as opposed to strategic thinking. What if 1000 beatings saved 10000 beatings and saved 100000 little old ladies from being scammed out of thousands of dollars. Making the scam industry unprofitable is more important than making it profitable to avoid some violence. No matter what, someone has to sacrifice, why not sacrifice where the end goal eliminates the problem rather than exacerbates it?
>why not sacrifice where the end goal eliminates the problem rather than exacerbates it?
It doesn't eliminate the problem. Covered by others, but it's a collective action problem. The fact that a few people "scam the scammers" doesn't actually make the industry unprofitable. So unless you can get a tipping point where lots of people are willing to spend inordinate amounts of time "scamming the scammers" (you won't), it doesn't do anything to eliminate the problem, and probably makes things worse.
I don’t buy this argument…especially any speculation about it making it worse. I certainly don’t accept this notion that we “probably shouldn't scam bait and just let some people get monetarily victimized because some other person half a world away might be beaten by another”.
Someone evil enough to traffic and enslave another to scam grannies is not going to give less beatings if Kitboga stops what he is doing. These content producers are shining a light on these assholes, the more views they get the more the people see and can identify and convey the red flags to their loved ones to shrink the market of potential victims.
I think this is just rationalizing behavior (which humans are really, really good at), and it's exacerbated by the psychological distance from those who bear the actual cost. If you read through some of the discussion above, people are making the case that the consequences of scamming are worse than human trafficking. That's a really, really weird perspective and demonstrably false. There is no cosequence in scamming that doesn't have an correlary in human trafficking that is worse. Even as tragic as it is, a suicide driven by a scam is still less bad than a murder of a trafficked victim. The latter has less agency than the former. I would also argue that the probability is higher for those being trafficked. So if both the severity and the probability are higher, the risk is higher. That means people are trading a lower risk for a higher one. Why? I'd say it's because it's more about the gratifying feelings of self-righteousness of the act than actually improving anything. And that's a feeling deeply rooted in our evolutionary brain, so we will go to great ends to rationalize it. Humans are going to human, and we bring all kinds of weird biases that don't really make much sense upon inspection. Add a sprinkling of tribalism, and people get really weird about their justifications. (e.g., even though scambaiting is done under the guise of protecting a stranger from being scammed, people here still use the justification that protecting a stranger being trafficked is less valuable on account of them being a stranger)
> people are making the case that the consequences of scamming are worse than human trafficking
I’m not making that case, but I am sure a trafficking component doesn’t apply as much as being suggested here to the Kitboga, Pierogi, and Jim Browning videos considering where those scammers originate and the types of scams they are pulling. If you watch their videos, scammers are far too proud and smug about what they are doing even when called out. Even if they are forced, their joy and lack of concern for their victims make them complicit.
Also, I can certainly feel sorry for someone forced by another into that situation under threat, but that does not mean we shouldn’t protect those getting scammed under some altruistic assumption that the scammer on the other end of the line might be being forced to do this against their will, and might have violence perpetrated against them because their scam was thwarted.
In other words, I think it’s better to stop the evil you know is happening as opposed to ignoring and hoping your inaction somehow prevents an evil that you don’t know for sure is happening.
Sure, I get that. The major distinction in our views is my rating of severity. Because I weigh the human trafficking aspect as much more severe, that probability can be much less certain and still have a higher risk in my eyes. Again, risk = severity * probability. And I think it’s important to differentiate between the probability of someone trying to scam, and the probability of it working. It’s definitely a big problem, but not a commensurate risk IMO.
The word “might” is doing most of the heavy lifting in your argument. And I agree, there’s no certainty that someone will get beaten. The problem is you are only applying that to one side of the equation. There’s also no guarantee that someone will get scammed if you hang up. My contention is that when there is uncertainty on both sides, you should defer to the side with higher risk. So if you agree that the consequences of human trafficking carry greater risk than the consequences of scamming, it follows that you should err on the side of the person in bondage.
I would concede that if the probably between the two sides gets highly skewed, that could change. But nobody has made that argument (and I doubt they could given the lack of data)
Did they expect that Apple would stop dropping support for old hardware for them?