>I didn't find any of those tweets unprofessional.
"There was a lot of work done to brainwash African people to believe that the white man had the monopoly on truth & that he was favored by God. We need to understand the way Christianity has been used to dominate African people, land and resources."
Spouting that nonsense is absolutely unprofessional, and ahistorical.
>I found them to be a genuinely interesting perspective on social issues that I am interested in.
That speaks more about you than anything.
>I am not sure how that's unprofessional of her.
I just highlighted how. Making crazy claims about a religion is accepted in no professional environment I've ever been in, and I've worked in SV for a long time.
>She is entitled to tweet whatever she wants to from her personal twitter account.
No one said otherwise, you're strawman-ing really hard now. You specifically asked for things that "she [said] that made her come off that way to you?" I provided examples. The fact that they came from her personal Twitter account is immaterial. She links her Twitter account on her LinkedIn, web page, etc., so, it's not specifically a personal account.
>Do you think its reasonable for her to follow your idea of how a Director of Engineering should tweet?
It's not my idea, it's generally accepted that spouting racist, anti-Christian rhetoric on Twitter is unbecoming of any leader.
And on, and on, and on. She tweets so much it's kind of sad. Practically none of her tweets have anything to do with actual engineering. It's all identity politics and other leftist nonsense.
Reading her Twitter feed made me shake my head in disgust.
The fact that someone as deranged as her can rise to the level of director of engineering at GitHub is simultaneously hilarious and sad. Not that this is out of line for GitHub (https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/08/report-anti-white-...), but I wonder how much value Erica Joy actually provides to GitHub's engineering team.
Wouldn't surprise me if they got her in as a diversity hire where she spends her entire day virtue signalling and complaining about racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. instead of actually spending time on engineering. None of her talks or writings have anything to do with actual engineering.
Kerberos (sssd-ad) backed authentication for SSH is really the best.
You no longer have to deal with SSH keys whatsoever and all the management that goes with them:
When users get their access revoked on AD, they get their SSH access revoked as well.
You can have group based authorization (only those in the SRE group can access this class of QA endpoints), so when dozens of people a month are being added and removed from the various groups, you don't have to worry about giving them keys/access.
They can SSO from their laptops, so all they have to do is open PuTTY and they can connect away without even typing their usernames and passwords.
etc.
Lots of these new generation "devops" and "full-stack developers" haven't had the experience of AD and Kerberos, so they spend all this time, blog posts, money, etc. to reinvent the wheel.
>So, the same thing I referenced from my dictionary lookup: that literally was used for emphasis while not being literally true.
You still don't get it, and you're wrong as you didn't reference a dictionary.
Both literally true, and used for emphasis are both false statements. There are people who care (literally), and there are enough people who care that "literally no one cares" (figuratively) is incorrect. QED.
>And I argued that this issue is something generally fixed fast (within days by most companies), and thus the speed MS fixed it doesn't prove that it's not a small (trivial) issue.
That is not fast for a critical customer data leak by any stretch of the imagination.
>I wrote "days" precisely to argue these issues are fixed fast. Replying that such issues are fixed in hours, not days, doesn't counter my point, it's just a pendantic correction that re-inforces it.
You wrote "days" because you appear to be clueless. It does counter your point because there is a large difference between a couple of hours and a couple of days. It's a pedantic correction that re-inforces that you're wrong.
>You'd be surprised. Don't believe the hype:
I can hear the goalposts being scraped across the ground.
All of what you listed only proves my point that this was by no means a "slap on the wrist". Multiple indictments and the largest fines ever levied to an auto maker by definition makes this not a wrist slap. QED.
The sentencing and fines were at the top of the sentencing guidelines for the crimes.
>Poor people have gotten worse sentences for stealing a TV...
>The original claim was a casual "people don't care". Not a mathematical formalism for "absolutely nobody cares at all about this not even enough to wanna vote in on HN".
Eh, I disagree. They stated "literally no one cares", but the fact that it's news and hit the front page literally means someone cares. No math involved. QED.
>So, yeah, a tiny number of people (the HN upvoters) "do care" in the sense of voting this up and wanting to read about this. Then again, they also care about all minds of trivial posts, so there's that.
It wasn't trivial if Microsoft cared enough to fix it in a few days, which is like light speed for Microsoft.
>Heck, I read it and I don't care.
Anecdote, immaterial here.
>How about it's a insignificant series of small, insignificant purchasing decisions?
Possible, all conjecture at this point.
>Companies do apply it to everything. E.g.
You're just agreeing with what I said. It's illogic though because those companies didn't get away with it. Your links prove my point.
Not really, it means people do care, which is opposite of the original claim.
>Do you really think that significant purchasing decisions are going to be influenced by this? That’s not a snarky rhetorical question, I’m actually asking.
Not sure honestly. Even if it's a series of small, insignificant purchaso decisions, it can still amount to something significant.
>I ask because I can tell you for a fact that at my large enterprise, they will not be. If anything, this incident will be used as an example by those looking for cover. “if an org like Microsoft can make this mistake, you really have no justification for being mad at our department for a similar leak.”
That sounds like an insanely toxic environment. This is illogic that you can apply to everything: "well, if Microsoft can get by with cooking the books and violating customer's privacy, so can we."
I think more people would think: "if this is how they handle customer search data, imagine how terribly they handle data elsewhere."
I still don't understand how things like this can happen at companies of that size.
There are so many great tools (that MS can buy) and procedures (that they could have implemented decades ago) to prevent this garbage from happening in 2020, and it still happens every day.
>People whose existences are deeply politicized (and they do indeed exist) are not often excited to have political conversations with people who say things like "'existence is political' thing is just a bullshit phrase."
It is a bullshit phrase though. They don't want to bring it up because any skepticism is viewed as a direct attack on their ideology, and their ideology is the core of their existence/identity, so, calling out the illogic of their ideology is a political attack on their existence.
They want to TELL you, they don't want a discussion.
"There was a lot of work done to brainwash African people to believe that the white man had the monopoly on truth & that he was favored by God. We need to understand the way Christianity has been used to dominate African people, land and resources."
Spouting that nonsense is absolutely unprofessional, and ahistorical.
>I found them to be a genuinely interesting perspective on social issues that I am interested in.
That speaks more about you than anything.
>I am not sure how that's unprofessional of her.
I just highlighted how. Making crazy claims about a religion is accepted in no professional environment I've ever been in, and I've worked in SV for a long time.
>She is entitled to tweet whatever she wants to from her personal twitter account.
No one said otherwise, you're strawman-ing really hard now. You specifically asked for things that "she [said] that made her come off that way to you?" I provided examples. The fact that they came from her personal Twitter account is immaterial. She links her Twitter account on her LinkedIn, web page, etc., so, it's not specifically a personal account.
>Do you think its reasonable for her to follow your idea of how a Director of Engineering should tweet?
It's not my idea, it's generally accepted that spouting racist, anti-Christian rhetoric on Twitter is unbecoming of any leader.
And those tweets were just from September...