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

I pwned half of America's fast food chains simultaneously

mrbruh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 513 posts

Re: I pwned half of America's fast food chains simultaneously

#491

Post by redcobra762 »

Eisenstein wrote: post #488
redcobra762 wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep thinking beyond the immediate for another step and you will see how harming self esteem means a person won’t productively alter their behavior. It’s in the literature I’ve cited if you’re actually curious. And you made a value judgement about the people who end up in jail/prison, which was completely uncalled for.

You know that things can be bad sometimes and not bad some other times? Shaming people to make them feel bad is not good; however feeling shame for having done something wrong is good -- it motivates one to avoid doing that again. > And you made a value judgement about the people who end up in jail/prison, which was completely uncalled for. You are being silly.

So you admit that shame can be bad? Then you’re close. Next you need to realize that shame’s effectiveness is dependent on a person feeling shame the way you want them to. But that’s not how it actually works, is it? Instead, shame is sourced from the judgements of others, so one way of effectively mitigating shame is to hide the behavior from others, rather than stopping it. So shame is ineffective.

And I’m not being silly. You tried to dismiss the legitimacy of my citation by dismissing an entire category of people. That was inconsiderate.

Re: I pwned half of America's fast food chains simultaneously

#492

Post by Eisenstein »

redcobra762 wrote: post #485
pests wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused too. People live inside such safe spaces now. The thought of a negative emotion is to be avoided at all costs. Shame makes people feel bad, so we must do all we can do avoid making anyone feel that. What's next? Is "disappointment" next? Having someone disappointed in you feels bad, therefore no one can ever show disappointment to others?

You’re confused about how shame could make someone unproductive? How shame could drive a behavior underground rather than eliminate it, thus exacerbating the issue rather than reducing it? As you are demonstrating, shame is more about causing pain than changing behavior. You seem to want to hurt people, and that’s one reason why shame is not effective. You don’t care that equally or more effective means exist for imp…

It isn't letting me reply to you above because it locks down comment chains that get replied to quickly to avoid flame wars, so I will reply here and be done.

> So you admit that shame can be bad? Then you’re close. Next you need to realize that shame’s effectiveness is dependent on a person feeling shame the way you want them to. But that’s not how it actually works, is it? Instead, shame is sourced from the judgements of others, so one way of effectively mitigating shame is to hide the behavior from others, rather than stopping it. So shame is ineffective.

I never claimed that shame couldn't be bad -- I said it is essential for society to function properly. I cited two studies which demonstrated that shame can be prosocial and beneficial depending on circumstances.

> And I’m not being silly. You tried to dismiss the legitimacy of my citation by dismissing an entire category of people. That was inconsiderate.

I dismissed your studies because they were both irrelevant to my point and did not contradict anything I cited. If you feel that I am othering prisoners because I said that the situation of the people in the study made it useless to make your point, then I object to that and say that you are grasping at straws since you have no reasonable argument otherwise.

Look, you have every right to be absolutely wrong in this case, so don't bother changing your mind or looking at my actual standing on the issue and instead imagine I am some kind of meany pants who wants people to feel bad if you want, but I am done with this conversation.

Re: I pwned half of America's fast food chains simultaneously

#493

Post by Spivak »

redcobra762 wrote: post #489
Spivak wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you're being downvoted, shame is one of the most powerful motivators that exists in humans; I'd put money on it being the most powerful. People who are loudly disagreeing don't understand that "shaming (v.)" doesn't always equate to shame actually being felt in the target of said shaming. The act of shaming loses a lot of effectiveness when you can find a community of people who will tell you that it…

Setting aside how wrong everything you just wrote is, companies aren’t people and do not have shame.

Sounds like someone is jealous they didn't get to have any of the apple.

This is why words have meanings. Companies aren't people and hence "shaming a company" can't possibly mean "shaming the legal entity" because that's nonsense but instead shaming the humans that make up that legal entity. Saying such a thing is impossible actually treats the company as an autonomous metamind.

I interpreted what you said as nonsensical and I'm making that your problem isn't really an argument.

Re: I pwned half of America's fast food chains simultaneously

#494

Post by redcobra762 »

Spivak wrote: post #493
redcobra762 wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Setting aside how wrong everything you just wrote is, companies aren’t people and do not have shame.

Sounds like someone is jealous they didn't get to have any of the apple. This is why words have meanings. Companies aren't people and hence "shaming a company" can't possibly mean "shaming the legal entity" because that's nonsense but instead shaming the humans that make up that legal entity. Saying such a thing is impossible actually treats the company as an autonomous metamind. I interpreted what you said as nonsen…

You’re saying things like “metamind” but I’m the person writing nonsense? Okay, bud.

Re: I pwned half of America's fast food chains simultaneously

#495

Post by redcobra762 »

Eisenstein wrote: post #492
redcobra762 wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re confused about how shame could make someone unproductive? How shame could drive a behavior underground rather than eliminate it, thus exacerbating the issue rather than reducing it? As you are demonstrating, shame is more about causing pain than changing behavior. You seem to want to hurt people, and that’s one reason why shame is not effective. You don’t care that equally or more effective means exist for imp…

It isn't letting me reply to you above because it locks down comment chains that get replied to quickly to avoid flame wars, so I will reply here and be done. > So you admit that shame can be bad? Then you’re close. Next you need to realize that shame’s effectiveness is dependent on a person feeling shame the way you want them to. But that’s not how it actually works, is it? Instead, shame is sourced from the judgeme…

That’s not how HN works, individuals are slowed by IP, there is no “slow a specific conversation”, but thanks for making it clear you’ve been flagged by dang as a troll.

And one of the clearest indicators to me that a person knows their argument is weak is when they declare themselves correct (or me wrong). Of course I’m free to be wrong, the problem you have is you’ve done a terrible job demonstrating that fact.

Re: I pwned half of America's fast food chains simultaneously

#496

Post by pnutjam »

gosub100 wrote: post #481
pnutjam wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well you didn't answer my question. But I'm going to assume you're hinting at the false equivalency conservative line to trot out about prejudice against poor it rural people. Prejudice is rooted in lack of knowledge and unfamiliarity. Racism is familiar and has it's own body of knowledge; all wrong, but vehemently defended. Racists try to build their own narrative.

I didnt ask what the difference was, I asked why one word isn't used anymore. Why are you not paying attention?

You still haven't answered me, but I'll leave this for you consideration. Sub in racist for anti-semite. I believe this applies to you

"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past." Jean-Paul Sartre

Re: I pwned half of America's fast food chains simultaneously

#497

Post by int_19h »

randomdata wrote: post #471
int_19h wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It took that position because it was what the first viable RDBMS used, pretty much. Similar to how JavaScript became the standard PL for browsers. The simplest SQL queries map perfectly to relational algebra, so I'm still unclear as to what you had in mind. The two major deviations that SQL has over strict relational algebra are non-uniqueness of rows in a table, and NULL. The first one rarely comes up in practice, a…

> It took that position because it was what the first viable RDBMS used Then wouldn't we be using LINUS today rather than SQL? "Viable" is quite hand wavy, so maybe you don't consider MRDS to have been viable enough for some reason. But even once relational databases were moving into the mainstream, there was no clear winner between SQL and QUEL for quite a long time. Even what is arguably the most beloved DBMS of al…

In practical applications, you pretty much always have synthetic row IDs in cases where there aren't any natural ones.

I think it would be more helpful if you could give a specific example of a simple SQL query that does not map nicely to a relational expression, since it's kind of hard to discuss the specifics in these vague terms.

Re: I pwned half of America's fast food chains simultaneously

#498

Post by randomdata »

int_19h wrote: post #497
randomdata wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It took that position because it was what the first viable RDBMS used Then wouldn't we be using LINUS today rather than SQL? "Viable" is quite hand wavy, so maybe you don't consider MRDS to have been viable enough for some reason. But even once relational databases were moving into the mainstream, there was no clear winner between SQL and QUEL for quite a long time. Even what is arguably the most beloved DBMS of al…

In practical applications, you pretty much always have synthetic row IDs in cases where there aren't any natural ones. I think it would be more helpful if you could give a specific example of a simple SQL query that does not map nicely to a relational expression, since it's kind of hard to discuss the specifics in these vague terms.

I don't understand what you are looking for. There is no specific SQL query I know of that could not expressible in relational calculus in some manner. But that also has nothing to do with the discussion.

The discussion is about why SQL became the standard. Being first is not it. It wasn't first. It was second, but QUEL came along hot on its heels before SQL established itself. It was approximately another decade after that before SQL solidified dominance.

- Was there a specific technical reason to choose SQL over QUEL/LINUS?

- Was there a specific human reason to choose SQL over QUEL/LINUS?

- Was it just random chance and if we were to do it all over again we are just as likely to see QUEL/LINUS become the standard instead?

Re: I pwned half of America's fast food chains simultaneously

#499

Post by pstuart »

pstuart wrote: post #483
iamhamm wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi Albertsons/Safeway VP of Security Engineering here. Thank you for disclosing this. I’ll have it fixed along with the fact our VDP submission link is missing from the Safeway site. Here it is for future reference https://albertsons.responsibledisclosure.com/hc/en-us

As it's still not fixed, I tried the form there. It let me fill it out and send it in and then told me I needed to create an account, which made it appear that my submission wasn't sent. I've done enough here but ffs, if that form requires an account to be created beforehand then don't let the submitter go to the trouble of filling it out and then discard it.

Edit: my bad. Looks like browser cache was "helping out". Problem is resolved from my vantage point.

Re: I pwned half of America's fast food chains simultaneously

#500

Post by forward1 »

ziddoap wrote: post #371
forward1 wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think you're entitled to anything, let alone a "normal" life, in this world? No one forces you to live in and participate in society, but if you choose to, it's at your own risk.

This reply seems rather… unrelated to my comment. But perhaps it'd be a fun philosophical debate at some other time.

It's directly related, perhaps you just struggle with comprehending the message?

Where does your entitlement come from? I bet working in tech too long.

Post reply on HN