I don't think that is the point though so much as that Google has one standard for their internal findings and another for project zero, which also deals with other companies with the justification that it is better. Mozilla doesn't audit other companies so what they do with their internal finding isn't relevant for that argument. One can of course argue whether it is good, or justified, or not. But I don't think that changes that their is an argument there. If someone wanted to sue Google (ha!) over a project zero disclosure that is likely something they would try to argue. That Google knows that disclosing has consequences.
How it is appalling that people disagree with you? You say yourself that it is a "net benefit" meaning there are things to disagree with. Your opinion isn't the one being hidden en masse. I tend to find it appalling to when hacker news argues against for example a free press and when publications like valley wag and democracy now was banned. Arguing against arguably the most powerful software company in the world because you disagree with their practices? Not so much. That is essentially the entire raison d'etre for being a hacker. That doesn't mean you have to agree with them, but it certainly makes it weird to dismiss people for it. Especially in a "we should know better" way.
>How it is appalling that people disagree with you?
They didn't say they were appalled at people disagreeing with them. They said they were appalled at the lambasting. There is valid criticism raised here, but the majority of the criticism is based solely on the fact that its P0. Not for any technical reason. Not for any security related reason. Just because it's Google. If you think "Google is worse than China and Russia" is a worthy criticism... So be it.
>I tend to find it appalling to when hacker news argues against for example a free press
Huh. Can you expand on this, in the context of this thread?
>Arguing against arguably the most powerful software company in the world because you disagree with their practices?
Very few of the legitimate criticism I have seen here has been about P0's practices - and the ones that have brought up P0's practices have brought it up in the context of the security industry as a whole (i.e. what responsible disclosure should be).
> They didn't say they were appalled at people disagreeing with them. They said they were appalled at the lambasting
Whether you think something is legitimate criticism or not is subjective and I don't see an argument why it is. Anyone is certainly free to argue, or not argue, with those comment and they have.
> Huh. Can you expand on this, in the context of this thread?
I was calling out the line "I thought Hacker News would have a community which understands the critical importance of security research". People argue against important things here all the time.
> Very few of the legitimate criticism I have seen here has been about P0's practices [...]
Again, subjective. Here is the first comment hidden by downvotes:
'Why should end-users "have nothing but gratitude" when vulnerabilities are disclosed and they are immediately placed at risk until they get a chance to update, even when the vendor has promptly provided a correct patch? I know I certainly don't appreciate that and can't reasonably expect any normal person to appreciate it either.'
Seems like a legitimate opinion to me. (The same users had almost all their comments downvoted as well, most of which seem perfectly fine). There are a number of others saying that Google has a conflict of interest, which also seems legitimate.
What I see is people doing everything they can to not address those arguments. It is one thing to call out people when they are the majority, another when mostly normal comments are being suppressed. That is not legitimate if anything. I can't see how the people creating that environment expect to get anything out of it, but I guess that isn't the point. Very few smart people you meet in real life spend any time on hacker news.
And if you rule out "all companies like Google", you've basically ruled out everyone with enough capital to donate to research, depending on your definition of "like Google".
And really, it absolutely is a donation. The ROI on Project Zero is likely 50x or more less than if that money went to the marketing team.
If you don't want to engage in discussion why are you even commenting here in the first place?
You are saying that this gives more power to google and someone asked if you could elaborate on why you think that. Not everyone has the same background and what may be obvious power to you may not be to others. This forum is supposed to be participated in with good faith.
Thankfully there are many ways to participate. But maybe I was a bit short. My point is that if you don't 'meet me half way' I can't do the subject justice in a forum where a significant number of the comments arguing that point is hidden. That increases my effort to make an effective argument and diminishes my returns for that effort. Especially since I don't feel that strongly about it. You are better off trying to find a blog post about it that won't disappear in a couple of hours.
But on the other hand meta isn't that interesting either. If large companies wanted to do security research that wasn't objectionable to people they could do so by consensus, standards and agreements. No one could really question that. Instead the idea is largely that "the ends justify the means". That is what people tend to disagree with. That large companies can unilaterally decide how things are done, not just for themselves but in a way that affects other companies or their users. It doesn't really matter if it is for good or best practice because it is about them, especially as large companies in the industry, having that influence.
I mostly agree, but I think (affordable) time and place is actually incredibly scares these days. To the point where people will travel half way across the world for it. Pretty much everywhere is pricing themselves out of having communities. That is where a lot of these places fail. They have all sorts of barriers like high costs, difficult admissions or rules, and then expect people to be creative.
> Sure basic economics tells us that increasing supply ought to drive down prices for everyone, but at the individual level it's tough for people to make the connection.
Basic economics tells us that more supply lowers prices if everything else remains the same. Which it won't if the area becomes more popular.
"The assumption behind a demand curve or a supply curve is that no relevant economic factors, other than the product’s price, are changing. Economists call this assumption ceteris paribus, a Latin phrase meaning 'other things being equal'. If all else is not held equal, then the laws of supply and demand will not necessarily hold."
But even in the case where the area becomes more popular, a larger supply will result in lower prices than if the area had become more popular and did not increase supply.
Not necessarily and not from an economic perspective. One can argue that, but it depends on how building affects the market. For example by shifting demographics. But even so renters, without rent control, are only interested in the part of the market they can afford where they live. That is, the quantity supplied at their income level. Which is even more susceptible to changes. The assumption people are making about "basic economics" just aren't true. More supply just isn't a solid argument for affordability without supporting evidence, and especially not when it comes to housing.
That is sort of the problem though. Climate change arguably wouldn't have been much of a challenge for western countries if we had continued to evolve our cities, infrastructure and applicable technologies. Instead our economies are mostly paper based so we can't make real world changes without affecting someone's contract, mortgage or stock value. Therefor we are left changing our papers around, which of course upsets anyone who need the improvements.
> Now finally these new BART trains rolling out, some NYC trains were also modernizing some about a decade ago, but I haven't been to Sweden or much of the rest of Europe in a long time, and I wonder how much further they've progressed.
Unfortunately very little in Sweden. Really the only thing of note close to Sweden would probably be the subway in Copenhagen. Maybe Spain would be impressive, but most of it is happening in Asia these days.
Safety regulation might be a burden for aircraft manufacturers, but it is what enables competition among airlines. The reason we can have low cost airlines are because safety isn't really in question. Of course you want to "optimize" regulation, but deregulation as in leaving it up to the participants frequently can't support a competitive market.
Things don't take up much space in themselves, activities do. What you lose when living smaller aren't the things themselves, but a kitchen were it is easy to cook healthy food, a kitchen table to discuss politics at or a workbench were you can leave your tools out. There isn't really much of a replacement for those spaces. While I do think some American concepts are outdated the idea of having capabilities in things like a larger home and a car wasn't unfounded. One of the best ways to not be part of something is simply to miss it. Having a lower standard of living is one easy way to do that. It tends to be hard to explain way things happen, but fairly easy to explain why they don't. People not having the time or space for them tends to be a common one. (Of course it is still always hard for people to accept). The 'next big thing' is unlikely to be created at starbucks. They will be created at kitchen tables and in garages and bedrooms like they always have been. Because that is where you don't have to ask anyone for permission.
> Because that is where you don't have to ask anyone for permission
Some cities have hscker or maker spaces, but the result is similar (at least what I've seen) : you can't leave you stuff out (it'll get stolen), make too much noise etc. Nothing like a garage where no one will get on you for cutting bricks with a chainsaw.
More simply we miss paying some bills by living in a small apartment where there's not room enough for a desk to out to do that so they end up on the kitchen table covered with kids' spaghetti etc
There is of course also the opposite problem of having a lot of space but ending up in essentially a house size cubicle without connection to other people.
But it seems like the larger problem today is that it is hard for people to wrap their heads around that when something becomes available, or even common, whatever enables or let's you explore it becomes more important.
It used to be that to be a musician you had to end up in a studio or a stage (or at least in lessons or rehearsals). People would fly across the world for auditions and recordings. Today everyone can have their studio or even stage at home. But that makes your home so much more important. If you don't have the space, the time, if it is too costly, not connected to a community or unstable then it is a lot harder to become a musician.
And that isn't just true for something like being a musician but everyday things like cooking, reading or exercise were we now have more possibilities than ever. Virtual cycling is for example a thing now.
Within reason, check out what your local library may have. It's not going to be a workshop, but some of the same kind of things have been showing up at local libraries as they shift to meet changing usage patterns.
> Your last sentence is very true - economists on the most "conservative" and "liberal" sides of the profession all agree that rent control is counter productive.
No, I wouldn't say it is true. The things is most people on hacker news would agree that it is so because you have read it so many times before. But they can't actually specify what that actually is because that isn't really known. All that economists really agree on is rent control is unsurprisingly a worse way to allocate resources based on money. But that says little to nothing about the political and social costs which makes the economic discussion largely irrelevant. If rent control decreases market efficiency by 5%, but increases political efficiency orders of magnitude because people no longer fear that building more will force them to move, it is a worthy trade off. Similarly to achieve affordable housing without rent control in an already hot market requires the government to implement changes to the direct detriment of landlords and land owners, which usually isn't popular.
Economics isn't a field like others. It is very overtly political. Unless you know exactly what they can and can't prove, and to what degree they can prove it, it might not be relevant. Which isn't something you will actually find most of the time, because it often isn't.
