331–340 of 627 posts
This seems to be the introduction of a boogeyman to cover up for failures. Or it might be true as well. Only time will tell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the email from the article, the person has admitted to it and claimed it was due to promotional reasons. "The full extent of his actions are not yet clear, but what he has admitted to so far is pretty bad. His stated motivation is that he wanted a promotion that he did not receive. In light of these actions, not promoting him was definitely the right move."
> In light of these actions, not promoting him was definitely the right move that's pretty short sighted cheesy hollywood movie reply. you can just get from this dismissing statement how much they care about their employees. a better reply would've been "we'll launch a review to see how it got to this point / what made this person behave this way".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But I do have a problem believing that all of the problems since the Model 3 started production were caused by sabotage. So, uh, where exactly is that said? In the email, or anywhere for that matter? On my monitor, the email doesn't claim any influence on Model 3 production problems, much less "all". > suggesting that other forces are involved "Investigation" and "be extremely vigilant" are a mite different from "s…
> You might want to consider talking about what is actually written. You might want to consider that the author knows full well that the implication is what really matters, and that people who only think about the literal written words are missing the point.
Is it correct to use 'are' here instead of 'is'?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the standpoint of anyone trying to sabotage Tesla, the risk/reward ratio is extremely high. To claim that someone is trying to do so is an extraordinary claim, and we all know the saying about extraordinary claims...
Uh it says the guy admitted to it...and gave reasons...a confession is more than enough evidence.
> As you know, there are a long list of organizations that want Tesla to die. Is it correct to use 'are' here instead of 'is'?
> As you know, there are a long list of organizations that want Tesla to die. Is it correct to use 'are' here instead of 'is'?
Compare:
> There are a hundred organizations that want Tesla to die.
> There is a hundred organizations that want Tesla to die.
> As you know, there are a long list of organizations that want Tesla to die. Is it correct to use 'are' here instead of 'is'?
I'm not sure, but my hunch is either is OK. Compare: > There are a hundred organizations that want Tesla to die. > There is a hundred organizations that want Tesla to die.
I made this same comment on the other discussion. I find it concerning that one person was able to push malicious code to 'production'. To me, this suggests that Tesla, a company building highly sensitive software, does not employ basic branch policies. How is is it that these changes could have made it through a code review process and get deployed? If a company like Microsoft or Google announced that a disgruntled…
This is a very naive comment. There will always be a small handful of engineers that can push the button to move code into PROD or even change code in PROD live. Ideally, with mature controls, the people in this list is short. But to jump to the conclusion that Tesla doesn't use good practises is very short sighted. Who's to say that external parties didn't target this person specifically because of their role/influe…
> This included making direct code changes to the Tesla Manufacturing Operating System under false usernames and exporting large amounts of highly sensitive Tesla data to unknown third parties.
This sounds like something out of the 1990s, that dark and romantic era of version control when we thought CVS was pretty cool actually and we didn't know what key-based authentication and 2FA were.
There are volunteer-ran projects that don't have this problem.
Edit: to be clear, I presume no one is debating the fact that someone with high enough credentials can push code to production. The questions that the email raises are:
1. Why can anyone, regardless of credentials, push mission-critical code without review (or, alternatively, if the changes did go through review, why did the review process not catch multiple malicious changes?)
2. Why can someone compromise several high-level credentials without anyone figuring it out (the changes were made, apparently, under "false usernames")?
I made this same comment on the other discussion. I find it concerning that one person was able to push malicious code to 'production'. To me, this suggests that Tesla, a company building highly sensitive software, does not employ basic branch policies. How is is it that these changes could have made it through a code review process and get deployed? If a company like Microsoft or Google announced that a disgruntled…
This is a very naive comment. There will always be a small handful of engineers that can push the button to move code into PROD or even change code in PROD live. Ideally, with mature controls, the people in this list is short. But to jump to the conclusion that Tesla doesn't use good practises is very short sighted. Who's to say that external parties didn't target this person specifically because of their role/influe…
I have very different experiences from a SEC regulated company. With SOX there are controls to prevent such a thing to happen. If this is a SOX breakage, Tesla is in deep trouble with the SEC.