611–620 of 645 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the comment says that users wouldn't even see posts from the Twitter employee assuming their account in their own timeline. What legitimate purpose would that serve?
I would assume some kind of "don't disturb the user while testing" but if everyone else sees them ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats a major error in judgement. Even billionaires are capable of this
The man injected himself into an ongoing crisis he had little insight into, and when rejected, his ego was so hurt that he used his influence to accuse individuals he knew nothing about if pedophilia, all while they were in the midst of trying to rescue a dozen children from imminent death. That’s not a “major error in judgement”. That’s the behavior of a completely deranged individual.
That's quite a large exaggeration. I can think of some much much worse things that an actual "completely deranged individual" would do.
Musk was butthurt and lashed out. That does not equal "completely deranged individual"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So many people don’t understand this. It’s not even clear if Musk does.
Of course he does. He's just grasping at straws to get out of the mess he's created for himself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The contract Musk signed was very very one sided, from everything I've been reading there's very little Musk can claim that would let him scuttle the deal.
the contract does not allow twitter to commit fraud. Which they have.
Just to clarify for those who don't catch it in the article: Mudge's whistleblower complaint predates the Musk/Twitter feud entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you understand what it means to burn all bridges. He is literally unhireable right now in any corporate context. You are naive if you believe he is doing this out of some hacker ethos.
The idea that he is "unhireable" in the security space because of this is rather amusing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that he is "unhireable" in the security space because of this is rather amusing.
It’s honestly really hilarious. Oh no, a literal God of Security is gonna have to beg for entry level employment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A criminal conspiracy can now use the "Wasn't me, must have been some random Twitter employees" defense. I could see this being billed as a feature of a privacy-forward chat platform. Messages are slipped into conversations without either party having actually sent them and no way to tell whether they were real or not.
I’ve heard of similar things to this being discussed… Eg. simple things like tracking-busters where it randomly clicks links in headless chrome to fool the algorithm, p2p vpns where you use a random user’s IP address to randomize who made what request, etc. There is also a school of thought that you should periodically publish private keys for plausible deniability (“was it me, or did someone sign that after I publis…
The whistleblowing case is a new dimension. To me as an outsider it implies Agrawal may have also been the manager in his previous technical role for a lot of the tech problems Zatko identified, and what made Agrawal CEO was his ability to leverage these problems to play ball with all the interests in that company and board, while sustaining through neglect some of those concerning practices within the organization.…
Ooof... > They needed a steady hand who wouldn't be vulnerable to being swayed by principle. That's my golden quote of the day, time for bed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is amusing is I am a fan of musk precisely because "he's truly worked very hard to be the most provacatively pustulent punkass of tech" I tend to like people that blow up social norms and conventions
What like calling a first responder a pedophile?