591–600 of 627 posts
> 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'?
UK vs. US English. We (English people) say "The Football Team are playing well", for instance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They haven’t been accused in this case, so let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
Maybe not accused directly but Musk's email seems to heavily imply it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>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. What? Why? Nobody on my development team has access to the production code signing keys. And nobody - at all - has the ability to remotely make a production system take an unsigned update.
You know that backup system your production servers have?
That also has perfect _write access_ to everything, and it's needed so _restoring_ after something goes wrong works.
> 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'?
It depends on which part of the sentence you would like to emphasise. In this case, the _organisations_ want Tesla to die, not the _list_. Hence the plural form. Not all collective nouns work this way, but in this case either is grammatically correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, but we are trusting this 'young and rambunctious' company to produce software for self driving cars, where lack of appropriate policy controls could result in serious consequences if another "disgruntled employee" decides to sabotage the codebase
Really, the most worrisome aspect of this story isn't the alleged sabotage: it's that a single unauthorized employee was able to make such widespread changes to the software. Says horrible things about Tesla's security policies, especially for a company claiming that it will unleash true self-driving sometime in the next 6 months.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but he seems very eager to steer the thing towards external interests and sabotage rather than this being an isolated incident. Sounds to me that he is fishing for scapegoats in general...
I read it as a general motivational tactic. Everyone else is out to get us. We need to pull together. They want us to fail, let's prove them wrong. From coaches or CEOs. This is essentially newspaper clippings in the locker room.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what are the odds then that they created a new user account on some local machine and used that to make the changes?
If we're talking about changes to the software that's used to manufactures vehicles that are driving on public roads, I sure as hell hope the odds are zero.
> 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. How do "false usernames" work in a modern development environment where all commits are tied to a single real-world user?
I've already said this, but there were no malicious code changes, rather malicious and deliberate misconfiguration of the software.
Perhaps they should have better security measures? If I understand correctly, Tesla cars can be updated OTA including critical functions, so someone who manages to insert a malicious software update might be able to kill everyone driving a Tesla at some moment, plus numerous bystanders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We used to do this at LAN parties in the 90s... of course goatse was the preferred background. People quickly learned never to leave their seats for more than 30 seconds. Most people would just do a 5-10 minute power-nap in their chairs.
Why not simply lock the screen?