False equivalence. In your straw man, the elephant isn't misled into believing that by posing for a photo it could be "helped," nor is it possible to communicate such an idea to an elephant. In the story, money was raised for the boy's cancer treatment, and that money was improperly withheld, denying him the treatment those funds could have provided. He was harmed by that, and by being misled into thinking he could get treatment by appearing in the video, he was scammed. Lying to the family and stating the funds weren't raised is also scamming them.
But, of course, you know that, but you would rather dig and (try to) play semantic games than admit you are wrong. Do better.
I think the kid in the article who got $27k raised in his name for cancer treatment, received $0 in cancer treatment from those funds, and subsequently died of cancer definitely got scammed.
A lot? Also irrelevant. All it takes is one for the statement "nobody can see the bubble" to be false. Take the housing bubble for instance. Do you think the people who called that one were successful purely by chance, or does the fact that a few investors observed that mortgage lenders were underwriting loans to people with extremely poor credit and approving loan applications the lenders knew to be materially fraudulent at a massive scale indicate that the call was more of an educated wager? Did they know to a certainty it was a bubble? No, of course not. Was it a very reasonable guess? Absolutely.
That's the conventional wisdom, undercut by the fact that people have guessed (and bet their fortunes) that previous bubbles were bubbles well before they popped.
Its more accurate to say that bubbles rely on most people being blind to the bubble's nature.
I published my scripts[0] and notes[1] about doing append-only backups with Borg on rsync.net since at the time rclone studio wasn't supported. My strategy is to do Restic backups to a backup server at my house and Borg backups to rsync.net as my offsite backup, so the scripts handle both.
The post I linked above also outlines how I handle expiring old backups (requires either manual action with your privileged key, or a suitably isolated host that has the ability to purge the backups automatically.). You really don't want to fill up your disk (or hit your hard quota) with Borg. Recovering -- even deleting existing backups -- requires a bit of extra space unless you want to rm -rf.
Rust has debug asserts for that. Using expect with a comment about why the condition should not/can't ever happen is idiomatic for cases where you never expect an Err.
This reads to me more like the error type returned by append with names is not (ErrorFlags, i32) and wasn't trivially convertible into that type so someone left an unwrap in place on an "I'll fix it later" basis, but who knows.
The security world overemphasizes (fetishizes, even,) the "advanced" part because zero days and security tools to compensate against zero days are cool and fun, and underemphasizes the "persistent" part because that's boring and hard work and no fun.
And, unless you are Rob Joyce, talking about the persistent part doesn't get you on the main stage at a security conference (e.g., https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bDJb8WOJYdA)
I used to work for medium/big tech companies (8,000 - 70,000 employees.)
I always had a sticker on my laptop - everybody had the same laptop (or maybe one of two models.) It was a reliable way to quickly identify mine in a big group at a meeting or conference.
I once worked at a place where one of the partners consistently claimed the engineering team over-built and over-thought everything (reality: almost everything was under-engineered and hanging on by a thread.)
His catch phrase was "all you gotta do is [insert dumb idea here.]"
It was anxiety inducing for a while, then it turned into a big joke amongst the engineering staff, where we would compete to come up with the most ridiculous "all you gotta do is ..." idea.
Your first example I was referring to - which you've now edited out of the article[0] to be more generic - stated:
> When Deutsche Telekom customers want to watch YouTube, that traffic flows directly from Google's network to Deutsche Telekom's network at a Frankfurt exchange point—maybe four or five router hops, minimal latency, no intermediaries. It's elegant. It's efficient. And it's exactly what Vodafone is abandoning.
Later:
> Deutsche Telekom pioneered this model in Germany, and the results have been catastrophic for customers. Not "slightly annoying" or "a bit slower"—genuinely, documentably terrible.
After using Deutsche Telekom as an example of how great direct peering is, a few paragraphs later the article uses Deutsche Telekom as an example of the dangers of using peering provider intermediaries.
0 - https://www.amazon.com/Dealers-Lightning-Xerox-PARC-Computer...