Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Cybersecurity Firm’s Sharp Rise and Stunning Collapse

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: A Cybersecurity Firm’s Sharp Rise and Stunning Collapse

#31

Post by robocat »

wildmusings wrote: post #3

Here is a proper news article for those who can do without a dozen pages of drivel about the CEO's hairdo, flying lessons, and underwear shopping: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/18/fbi_raids_cybersecu...

Normally I prefer El Reg but that is dry and uninformative, whereas the New Yorker article rocks a heap of other critical information.

Most importantly they are colouring in the people and their flaws, without specifically labelling them (e.g. psycho/sociopathic is never said, but the behaviours are).

The interactions with politicians and federal entities are critical to understanding the story.

What you see as irrelevant information is all extremely relevent if you care about protecting yourself against fraud, manipulation, bad actors, etcetera.

Think about the legal and social context of this article, and you will see other facets of the reporting that are clever.

Re: A Cybersecurity Firm’s Sharp Rise and Stunning Collapse

#32

Post by robocat »

SilasX wrote: post #29
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And New Yorker article submitters don't understand that the HN crowd tends to prefer the Register style Speak for yourself, buddy.

I'm speaking for the quality of discussion that happens when everyone is aware of the all the facts presented in the article, vs when everyone is mired in unproductive guesswork because they missed the critical details of the threat vector because it's wedged between a description of some boss's pursed lips and the coffee used that in that office. Edit: And "buddy"? Really?

Alternatively, The Register article contains so little information you can't discuss much and hners create their own "facts".

Re: A Cybersecurity Firm’s Sharp Rise and Stunning Collapse

#33

Post by robocat »

wildmusings wrote: post #3

Here is a proper news article for those who can do without a dozen pages of drivel about the CEO's hairdo, flying lessons, and underwear shopping: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/18/fbi_raids_cybersecu...

The El Reg persona:

I am a middle aged intelligent man who used to be an engineer, and now I have moved up the ranks. I work in IT for a droll company, so I can afford some toys and vacations, and a bit because I just like hardware.

I treat El Reg like a British pub, where wit is appreciated, and sometimes we talk about "the war" (our collective past), and certainly taking the piss out of ourselves and everyone else is a good laff.

I also need to know some of what El Reg writes about for work; at least they make it fun, unlike most of the rest of my job where much of the pleasure is black.

Re: A Cybersecurity Firm’s Sharp Rise and Stunning Collapse

#34

Post by SilasX »

robocat wrote: post #32
SilasX wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm speaking for the quality of discussion that happens when everyone is aware of the all the facts presented in the article, vs when everyone is mired in unproductive guesswork because they missed the critical details of the threat vector because it's wedged between a description of some boss's pursed lips and the coffee used that in that office. Edit: And "buddy"? Really?

Alternatively, The Register article contains so little information you can't discuss much and hners create their own "facts".

Only if the debate hinges on the idiosyncratic mannerisms of the subjects of the story. I saw plenty of substantive facts in the Register article, with less filler.

Re: A Cybersecurity Firm’s Sharp Rise and Stunning Collapse

#36

Post by gwern »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #12

The author seems to confuse peer-to-peer file sharing networks and onion routing. The explanations in the article don't make any sense.

I was also a little puzzled by

> In the nineties, Microsoft pursued a canonical FUD strategy, creating phony error messages to make consumers wary of using Windows on a competitor’s operating system—a tactic that resulted in a legal settlement exceeding two hundred million dollars.

Re: A Cybersecurity Firm’s Sharp Rise and Stunning Collapse

#37

Post by notzuck »

SilasX wrote: post #34
robocat wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively, The Register article contains so little information you can't discuss much and hners create their own "facts".

Only if the debate hinges on the idiosyncratic mannerisms of the subjects of the story. I saw plenty of substantive facts in the Register article, with less filler.

Just accept that not everyone wants the same as you.

I like brevity but the first article painted a much better picture. The second one barely a dip into the most pertinent facts. This company is unknown to most and without the backstory my care level was at 0.

Re: A Cybersecurity Firm’s Sharp Rise and Stunning Collapse

#38

Post by acdha »

gwern wrote: post #36
baobabKoodaa wrote: post #12

The author seems to confuse peer-to-peer file sharing networks and onion routing. The explanations in the article don't make any sense.

I was also a little puzzled by > In the nineties, Microsoft pursued a canonical FUD strategy, creating phony error messages to make consumers wary of using Windows on a competitor’s operating system—a tactic that resulted in a legal settlement exceeding two hundred million dollars.

I believe that’s a reference to this code and the resulting court case:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code

Re: A Cybersecurity Firm’s Sharp Rise and Stunning Collapse

#39

Post by gwern »

acdha wrote: post #38
gwern wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was also a little puzzled by > In the nineties, Microsoft pursued a canonical FUD strategy, creating phony error messages to make consumers wary of using Windows on a competitor’s operating system—a tactic that resulted in a legal settlement exceeding two hundred million dollars.

I believe that’s a reference to this code and the resulting court case: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code

Huh. I was thinking it was something to do with MS Word or other MS apps (which I know often had cross-OS or alternate OS versions, like Mac support). But no, that is indeed about... running Windows on a non-MS OS (non-MS DOS). Back when Windows was a GUI shell around DOS. Now that is history.

Re: A Cybersecurity Firm’s Sharp Rise and Stunning Collapse

#40

Post by SilasX »

notzuck wrote: post #37
SilasX wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if the debate hinges on the idiosyncratic mannerisms of the subjects of the story. I saw plenty of substantive facts in the Register article, with less filler.

Just accept that not everyone wants the same as you. I like brevity but the first article painted a much better picture. The second one barely a dip into the most pertinent facts. This company is unknown to most and without the backstory my care level was at 0.

And yet you can’t give examples of the relevant facts that are in the NYer but not the Resgister (style of CEO’s jacket doesn’t count).

I know people have different preferences. But beliefs —about which articles lead to productive discussions — can be confused. No one is spending the hour to read this before commenting. Expecting that is a bad idea.

Post reply on HN