Fwiw I agree that SpaceX is generally completely detached from reality and I am as-close-as-I-can-be to sure that Elon is doing some heavy manipulation behind the scenes, but this has changed recently as lockups expired. IIRC the current float is ~30%, compared to it's initial IPO when it was comically low at ~4-5%.
30% is much higher than 4-5%, but it's still much lower than most public companies (~80%)
As others said, the market is generally unhinged currently, with enough extremely wealthy people needing somewhere to put money that doesn't really matter to them, and I suspect some level of "investing in SpaceX public stock" is done to appease/appeal-to Elon.
Bullshit plea deals are offered in bullshit cases like this only so that the "officers" involved can save face and claim "yupp, conviction!! we're the good guys!" because there is no additional downside or risk to them.
It really would be great if judges could (and would) issue sanctions and/or personal fines against people who are so clearly operating in bad faith.
A nothing event? Having access to our database is a nothing event? For most applications, all they keys a businesses castle are stored in a platform providers parameter store / secret key system. Downtime is bad for customers and slightly bad for a business. Stolen credentials are critical for both.
A stolen key isn't just a key to your customers' private data.
It's a key to your creditcard. Your revenue will be wiped out if you get the AWS bill after hackers booted hundreds of GPU instances under your account, moved terabytes in your data-transfer budgetm, burned tens of thousands of CPU-minutes in github actions under your creditcard, or used thousands of $s worth of tokens with your AI provider.
Obviously. It may even be a key to a no longer active account.
Naturally "a stolen key" here means that the key has access to something worth stealing. And my point was that there's far more worth stealing than your users' private data which many companies don't value that much.
> No, a leaked credential is a nothing event in a mass leak as far as expected loss goes.
Even if that were not absolutely wrong¹ these days², if your risk is mitigated by being one of millions the damage done if you are hit could still be so high that you can't afford to³ knowingly take that risk.
--------
[1] if the credentials can be easily linked to the relevant account, cycling through them to see what useful stuff can be accessed using which is not difficult to quickly automate
Late stage capitalism at its finest; protect the profits at all costs.
Thankfully, they clarified they're in Europe, so GDPR prevents them from ignoring known leaked credentials, lest they have that to deal with, on top of the revenue loss they'll make when all of their customers eventually find out: "they ran leaked credentials knowing our data was at risk, but decided to suck it and see".
> It’s funny that every security breach disclosure now has a mandatory “the attacker used AI!”
This isn't in the article? They do not at all claim "the attacked used AI!".
The only mention of "AI" is "We believe this is part of a series of attacks recently targeting platform companies with the aim of compromising AI inference providers." This is the same (apparently) end-goal as the Opencode breach last week, and is not blaming or finger-point at AI. It is stating (rightfully) that AI inference is very easy to resell and turn stolen credentials into cash.
> Github seems to have degraded measurably after they got acquired. As is tradition.
I'm not disagreeing with you that it has degraded, however it was acquired almost 8 years ago at this point, and the software world has been turned on it's head in the last... 3?
Software generally degrades post-acquisition, I'm not denying that. Github has definitely degraded. I'm not sure I would agree that the core reason in this case is "the acquisition" and not "AI making software and free-CI-load demand 3-5 orders-of-magnitude higher than it was 3 years ago"
The latest problems correlate pretty closely when they tried to migrate the entire platform onto azure in an insane timeline, something like ~1 year (for a project of that size, that's borderline insane).
It has been reported new user volume has nearly doubled, and commit volume 10x+ - that could certainly have an impact, but "Azure" and "scale" in my career are words that have never really gone together. Azure Cloud is the only 'hard no, will not interview' of any cloud provider that's listed on a job posting, and I've worked with just about all of them by now I think. Nothing even comes close to such a miserable experience.
The thought of migrating something at the scale of github to azure gives me the cold sweats.
... The reason they did that is because the AI induced load. Their data centers and entire REGION couldn't support the increase in demand so they had to plan an accelerated migration to Azure. They forecasted COMPLETE regional capacity exhaustion.
The problem isn't Azure. Azure is the solution. They have written about this a lot. It's easy to research. You could even just ask ChatGPT to explain it.
These are incredibly complex and massive systems, they do not fail instantly. The failures happen incrementally until they become insurmountable and the system collapse. Incompetence doesn't show its head immediately, it can take quite a while.
Either way, it's clear the acquisition has not helped github in any meaningful way. GitHub is owned by a multi trillion dollar transnational corporation. They have enough money, resources, and human labor to achieve whatever they want, but this is what they want and this is what they've achieved.
Agreed. It's not at all clear that GitHub as an independent company would be doing much better at dealing with this new world than GitHub within Microsoft is doing.
Even taking into consideration the fact that Google never wants to talk to you for any reason, it has been my professional experience that Azure is -by far- the worst of the Big Three "cloud" providers.
Playing devil's advocate: from the graph alone, it could just be that the status page became more accurate, so same amount of down time, but reported more now.
On the other hand, I don't remember things being this bad before the acquisition.
You can very easily run to be part of your HOA leadership, and it is significantly easier to do than kicking an elected professional-politician out of office. The biggest issue with most HOA/COAs is that basically no one (especially the people who might have some qualifications) want to participate. This leaves only the people who want to be, frankly, petty little shits. It is not hard to exert influence over a group of 20-30 despondent neighbors.
> You can very easily run to be part of your HOA leadership
Yes, and then you find out just how petty petty politics can be.
The inconvenient truth, at least for HOA advocates, is that a community of 20-30 people, or even a hundred or so, does not need to be governed at the level of the community. Most people are reasonable and will respond to reasonable requests from neighbors if there is an issue, without having to drag in a higher authority at all. Those who are not reasonable, are not going to be magically made reasonable by having an HOA--indeed, as you admit, they're precisely the ones who are going to end up running the HOA. On balance, you're better off not having "governance" at all until you get to a larger population, like a town or a city.
You definitely need that level of governance if there are common elements which need to be funded and maintained (pools, parks, the building itself for condos)
You need an organization to manage the common elements, yes. But the only "governance" that's required for that is...to manage the common elements. Which isn't really "governance", it's just management, and oversight of whoever is doing the managing. There's no need at all for the rest of the intrusive rules and regulations that HOAs impose in the name of "governance".
Only in a very minimal sense. A management that is only empowered to maintain common areas of a community can't "govern" the community members except in the very narrow sense of enforcing whatever rules the community wants to have for the use of common areas. Which is just an aspect of the fact that the community as a whole owns the common areas and the owner makes the rules.
Such a management can't mess with community members about how often they cut their lawns, or what color they paint their house, etc. But that sort of micromanagement is what "governance" by HOAs ends up being when it goes beyond basic management of common areas.
> You definitely need that level of governance if there are common elements which need to be funded and maintained (pools, parks
Sure. I think very few, if any, people dispute that. If there actually are common facilities like pools, it makes sense to have a common pot of money everyone contributes into, to maintain those facilities. Just about everyone will agree with that.
How do you make the huge leap from that, into saying a HOA has any kind of right to demand what kinds of flowers or windowshades or decorations someone installs into their private (not shared!) property?
Okay, well, nearly half of all HOAs are condominium communities which inherently have common elements. I’m not saying that detached SFHs with no common elements should be governed by HOAs; I was if anything implying the opposite
> Okay, well, nearly half of all HOAs are condominium communities which inherently have common elements.
This varies widely depending on the city. In many cities, it's hard to find a detached house in a neighborhood (that isn't ghetto) that doesn't have an HOA.
In the article, the associations that appear to be causing the most problems, at least in Florida, are condominium associations. So it might be worth reconsidering whether filling a "need" for such governance ends up being more trouble than it's worth--at least if it goes beyond just maintaining the common elements (which it seems like condo associations in Florida do).
I'm on my HOA board, and not because I want to be, I can tell you that.
I showed up to my first annual meeting where basically no one was there other than the president. He asked if I wanted to be on the board because they didn't have enough people participating. I asked what I'd have to do, and he said "just vote on things". I said OK, and he said the rules let him appoint members to vacancies (spoilers: the rules don't), so he "appointed" me on the spot.
At subsequent meetings, I discovered most of the board was completely disinterested in doing anything, other than the president who would probably fall under the "petty little shit" category, but he seemed like he knew what he was doing (spoilers: he didn't), so everyone pretty much just voted in favor of what he wanted to do. I was the only board member who worked from home, so I would be the only one on site to deal with things that involved vendors working on the property, so then I became the guy everyone expected to do everything.
The president got diagnosed with cancer and had to step down. He wanted me to be president, but I was like fuck that. The VP took the role, but she has pretty much done nothing and is clueless, so I keep being the one people expect to take the lead on everything.
I'm honestly tired of it and wished some competent people in the association would get on the board. There were massive mistakes I caught as a board member because I'm the only one who actually reads anything in the bylaws, CC&Rs, and all that shit. The HOA had been paying hundreds of dollars a year for decades on things that didn't need to be performed because our property management company misclassified us under some statute that didn't even apply to us, and nobody knew any better or even bothered to ask, "Hey, why the fuck are we actually doing this?"
I'll not say I'm a "good" board member. I don't care about enforcing house rules, and I don't want to get involved when people complain about their neighbors unless it's something that affects the association's financial health. The only reason I stay on is because I've done enough after-the-fact clean-up of the previous president's mess that I'm terrified of what insane things might happen if no one is keeping an eye on the other members. If you're in an HOA, I'd encourage getting involved to keep the crazies in check, at least for as long as you can stomach it.
> The biggest issue with most HOA/COAs is that basically no one (especially the people who might have some qualifications) want to participate.
That's an argument not to have HOAs, right?
> You can very easily run to be part of your HOA leadership, and it is significantly easier to do than kicking an elected professional-politician out of office.
In my so many decades of existence, I've yet had a reason to want to kick my mayor out of office. And none of the cities I've lived in have passed laws related to what I can do with my house that were particularly problematic.
At least for the HOA I was a part of, the CC&Rs were nearly impossible to change. Getting elected didn’t give you the power to change them. They were a contract signed with each individual homeowner - changing them required getting consent from every homeowner individually.
Being on the board gave you power over how budget was allocated within those CC&Rs. I.E. the maintenance and upgrade of shared spaces. Vendor selection for violation detection/enforcement. Etc.
> most HOAs manage a tiny amount of communal green space that should have been turned over to become city property, but was held back as HOA property to give the HOA a reason to exist.
You are just making this up at this point. Why do you think the city would accept property that they would have to legally maintain and be responsible for, when it is generally isolated and (largely) accessible to only a specific neighborhood?
Yes, that is explicitly and exactly the reason municipalities exist. In the U.S. they are typically made up of elected and appointed representatives and they manage public space and services in their boundaries.
Mostly I don't understand why an individual neighborhood would need it's own out of band election process (that typically allows people to gain tremendous power and authority without anyone voting for them), and representatives completely decoupled from the state or government but often times acting in parallel.
This is exactly what happens for many HOAs around the country.
Typically elections would take place during the annual meeting. Usually there is such low community engagement that there is no home owner quorum under the Covenants Conditions & Restrictions. Depending on the CC&Rs a property management or build rep will appoint the open board seats, or for example in the case of my HOA they will go by default to whomever is attending the meeting and wants the spot, assuming the current board doesn't object to that person.
For my association the board has basically been self appointing each other and their spouses for the last 15+ years. The current president has managed to obtain several proxy votes of rental property owners and the current board members use these to overrule any objections to them reseating themselves. They also squash any attempts to force a community wide vote, because again lack of quorum. Basically impossible to get enough people to actually attend the meeting to get the current board replaced, especially when they've gone all digital and tend to cancel/reschedule the meetings last minute and then provide very little notice of the new time.
> The current president has managed to obtain several proxy votes of rental property owners and the current board members use these to overrule any objections to them reseating themselves
If they are using "proxy votes", then there is in fact a vote. If your objection is that they ran unopposed because no one else bothered to give a damn, then... you should try giving a damn. Apparently you can be the person able to "gain tremendous power and authority" just by showing up, and then you can do something about it.
The current board members would need to pass away or move away first, and I personally don't want any power or authority over my neighbors and I wish they didn't have it over me.
Not OP, but that is exactly what happened in my neighborhood. It has parks and trails and several sports courts, two playgrounds, dog parks. It was all turned over to the city to be public land to avoid having a HOA.
> generally isolated and (largely) accessible to only a specific neighborhood?
No. It's just land around the neighborhood, easily accessible to anyone in town (or nearby towns).
This is true sometimes, but if you are upset at a specific HOA, look at your docs to see what it actually manages. HOAs exist to pay for community obligated costs; sometimes that is a pool, sometimes it's "water and gas bills", and sometimes it's an entire golf course.
Further, if you're talking about a condo building (which, yes, is technically a COA, but the two get combined all the time), it is literally paying for your roof and elevators to work.
Buying into a "little club" and agreeing to pay your share of expenses only works when everyone participates. If not, your neighbors are just paying upkeep on your property; why should they have to do that?
> Buying into a "little club" and agreeing to pay your share of expenses only works when everyone participates. If not, your neighbors are just paying upkeep on your property; why should they have to do that?
Neighbors in a HOA are very clearly never paying upkeep of your property, that's is nonsense.
A condo association is a whole different ballgame, since there is legitimate shared structural walls, roofs, elevators, etc. But single family home HOAs, there is nothing the HOA does to maintain individual homes.
Conceptually, HOAs seem to be similar to medieval guilds. They are private governments, where voting rights are based on a private right (property ownership) rather than involvement in the area the government controls (residency).
Such arrangements used to be common, but they have become increasingly rare in the past few centuries. Many were explicitly abolished by law when free markets started getting popular. Often for antitrust reasons, or because people thought it would not be in the public interest to have certain types of contracts the previous owner made also bind the new owner.
I can think of a few similar arrangements in Finland. For example, membership in student unions at research universities is still mandatory, as is membership in reindeer husbandry associations. Those entities perform government functions, and the actual government has chosen not to assume the responsibility for one reason or another. As a consequence, the entities and their officials are subject to the same regulations as the government when wielding powers used to justify mandatory membership.
Condos are another story. If the entire complex is a single property for legal or practical purposes, it makes sense to have a single entity in charge of it.
What the the purpose of this comment? Neither of those "red flags" you linked to are related (one is about config loading precedence, and the other is about Codex CLI, which is completely a completely different product and development team.
Exterior-compliance proxies, yes, are a good thing; but are also completely unrelated to the fact that OpenCode's hosted solution, that requires having credentials in some fashion, was popped.
Shitting on anyone who uses OpenCode (rather than your preferred vendor-specific product) as not being "sensible" is also completely out of hand and unnecessary.
I submitted one of those originally and do think that incident is relevant. Not related, but it does qualify as a red flag generally for the company and their attention to their system designs with respect to security.
Our read on the situation is too much eyes and brain free coding, that they assumed the ai redesign of the configuration system was sound. It took a couple of PRs and explanations for them to bring the system to a better place, such that MDM config was respected at the highest priority.
I do give the OpenCode team a lot of credit, at least Aiden, for the handling of this case.
I'm now trying to get the Pi harness to support MDM, but it is not going well... see this and please consider sharing your perspectives or support there
30% is much higher than 4-5%, but it's still much lower than most public companies (~80%)
reply