> In terms of the origins of the app, Google told me “this is not an Android platform nor Pixel vulnerability, this is an apk developed by Smith Micro for Verizon in-store demo devices and is no longer being used. Exploitation of this app on a user phone requires both physical access to the device and the user's password.”
If an attacker has your phone and your password, it's game over anyway, who cares if some random app could allow MITM connections over HTTP.
Living the same thing here and keep getting told it seems like we aren't "finishing" anything and projects seem to just drone on and on. Well when you keep introducing things as "high priority" and "urgent" it means something has to drop off the list (even if it doesn't "officially") however in his brain that can't be true.
> Hour later he called back to find out what we had done, the answer was "nothing". Again I had to explain:
"I have 4 P1s, 5 P2s and I don't know how many other tickets."
This reads as a lesson in miscommunication more than mismanagement. On his first call, he should have explicitly asked for an ETA. (Even if the assumption was you would immediately start working on his ticket.) On the first call, after his ticket was escalated, he should have been provided with the new context.
The solution, ironically, might be inserting a manager between you and him who can better handle communication.
Normally I wouldn't have even spoken with the sales guy, but I saw his name on my phone and "Bob" was generally a good sales executive and actually pretty good to support so I answered. Long story short Bob's next call was to my management team (who already knew I was swamped) to get me some resources.
This was very much a situation where things just had to reach a certain point / inconvenience the wrong people before it was resolved.
What my favourite is managers creating whole new lists for themselves so they can say they are at the front of the line. Then are baffled that this is insufficient prioritization that 7+ top lists can't all be top. It really helps highlight who are the do somethings vs the do nothings in an org.
I was actually still on the phone with the first P1 from before "Bob" the sales guy first call. Normally I wouldn't have even answered on my second line but generally Bob was a good guy and I knew he could pull the needed strings to actually get extra resources needed. Eventually Bob got the right people on the line, demanded I work his issue (we had a good working relationship) and some other techs took my other tickets. I preferred that outcome anyway.
Bob was actually a good guy, his questions weren't unwarranted, it's just a really good story to demonstrate how people forget that other people are busy too.
This is how most teams I've worked with "solved" this problem: By creating "P0". Now, everything we are actually working on is P0, and we don't know how to prioritize among them. Soon, someone will propose a P-negative-1...
In related news, if you've ever wondered how good Bill Gates is at poker, he played a little with some locals from Kemmerer while there for the groundbreaking.
At first I thought maybe this was showing that I'm way less good at JS than I thought I was. But after thinking about it some more, I'm still fine at JS. All my sites work just fine. My clients are seemingly happy with them and I get paid for it. Instead, I'm just not good at the weird edge cases that nobody actually ever hits, which is what all these questions are!
(that being said, I do roll my eyes every time I have to clear out an array by doing myarray.length = 0 instead of myarray = []. JS is such a silly language sometimes.)
> I do roll my eyes every time I have to clear out an array by doing myarray.length = 0 instead of myarray = []. JS is such a silly language sometimes.
In your example, if myarray was the only reference to your array, it would likely not matter which way you do it. Clear the original array, or reassign the variable to point to a new empty array.
It becomes important when you have another reference to the same array.
That's not just a JavaScript thing. Any language where [] creates a new array/list, and the = operator copies a reference will have the same behavior.
Take Python for example:
>>> a = [3,2,1]
>>> b = a
>>> a
[3, 2, 1]
>>> b
[3, 2, 1]
>>> a = []
>>> a
[]
>>> b
[3, 2, 1]
>>>
>>> a = [3,2,1]
>>> b = a
>>> a
[3, 2, 1]
>>> b
[3, 2, 1]
>>> a.clear()
>>> a
[]
>>> b
[]
>>>
Or Ruby:
irb(main):001:0> a = [3,2,1]
=> [3, 2, 1]
irb(main):002:0> b = a
=> [3, 2, 1]
irb(main):003:0> a
=> [3, 2, 1]
irb(main):004:0> b
=> [3, 2, 1]
irb(main):005:0> a = []
=> []
irb(main):006:0> a
=> []
irb(main):007:0> b
=> [3, 2, 1]
irb(main):008:0>
irb(main):009:0> a = [3,2,1]
=> [3, 2, 1]
irb(main):010:0> b = a
=> [3, 2, 1]
irb(main):011:0> a
=> [3, 2, 1]
irb(main):012:0> b
=> [3, 2, 1]
irb(main):013:0> a.clear()
=> []
irb(main):014:0> a
=> []
irb(main):015:0> b
=> []
irb(main):016:0>
And JavaScript to compare with the other two:
> a = [3,2,1]
(3) [3, 2, 1]
> b = a
(3) [3, 2, 1]
> a = []
[]
> a
[]
> b
(3) [3, 2, 1]
> a = [3,2,1]
(3) [3, 2, 1]
> b = a
(3) [3, 2, 1]
> a.length = 0
0
> a
[]
> b
[]
Python and Ruby do have that nice clear() method instead of having to set .length to 0, but the underlying semantics are the same in all three languages.
Julian Assange is behind Cicada 3301. He definetly assambled a big crew to make it real, and probably some members was from MUMS also. But definetly not all members.
Here you can read about main goals of Cicada 3301 - https://pastebin.com/rn4gTF1Z
It is privacy, anonimity, freedom of information, anti-censorship and development of appropriat PO, that support this goals.
Meanwhile, in 2012, the year of the first game by Cicada 3301, Julian Assange, together with his associates, published the book “Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet”. In that book they talking about the same things exactly.
And yes, as you can see, Julian Assange was very interested in puzzles. And organized very elaborate Puzzle Hunt, while studying at university. Actually MUMS Puzzle Hunt is very similar to Cicada 3301 games in terms of general theme, long duration, atmosphere, openess to the public and some puzzles.
I'm not even Australian, but thanks to Wake In Fright, even I know gambling in AUS is something guaranteed to strip you of your civility and turn you into an outback maniac:
The money would probably be nice but I suspect a lot of people here would hate the amount of travel and the degree of scheduling morning, noon, and night that the CEO of any size of company has.
reply