> It is hard to write a simple definition of something as varied as hacking, but I think what these activities have in common is playfulness, cleverness, and exploration. Thus, hacking means exploring the limits of what is possible, in a spirit of playful cleverness. Activities that display playful cleverness have "hack value".
I do not think that Margaret Hamilton would appreciate her exploration of the limits of what is possible, which was extensive, being described as dedicated to a spirit of playful cleverness.
I think it's very disrespectful for you to be speaking for someone who has just died, and at that, someone whom many of us on this website consider to be personal hero.
It is very disrespectful to come to a memorial where people are mourning a great loss and tell them that they are not allowed to mourn here.
You should frankly be incredibly ashamed. This is not a place or time to argue either, I have zero interest in carrying on a conversation with you and this is not the thread for it, so don't waste your time replying.
Your comment reads as if I had contacted you, but in fact it was you who initiated contact with me. You said, "This is not a place or time to argue" in a comment where you initiated an argument with me and "I have zero interest in carrying on a conversation with you" in a comment where you initiated a conversation with me.
About your central contention, that it is "disrespectful [...] to be speaking for someone who has just died", it seems to me that, on the contrary, it is an important token of respect to take the wishes of the dead into account (as best one can make them out) when choosing how to memorialize them. Your advocacy of ignoring Hamilton's wishes is disrespectful; my advocacy of considering them is not.
I suggest reading the linked page to see what he thought was an especially good example. It involved using chopsticks to eat Korean food in an unnecessarily difficult way.
Of course, but none of this is relevant to what Margaret Hamilton thought about hackers, except in the sense that she didn't appreciate people "messing around" with the systems she depended on, in ways that had very little to do with computer security, which wasn't a thing in that context. (Though other researchers on campus were working on it.)
Saying "Medicare Portal" buries the lede a little here.
Medicare is part of "Services Australia", the larger social services government agency that looks after unemployment, support payments and public health. We access all of that through the one portal
Accessing "non-public" data through that is endictment on their infra security more than it is OpenAI
> Accessing "non-public" data through that is endictment on their infra security more than it is OpenAI
No, it is not. Medical/health information is pretty much the most sensitive and confidential information possible on a personal level. You do not let a system already known for unwanted intrusion near any such system. Unless, of course, you're a sociopathic reckless money-grubbing cowboy, which is a long-winded way of writing "CEO".
What you are arguing is essentially if people have weak locks, its their fault if they get broken into. Or if a bug doesn't taste bad, then it's their fault if it gets eaten by a bird. This thinking puts the blame on the victim, which is 100% the wrong place.
Yes, I agreed that the Australian Government should have better security, but in government that's actually pretty hard when people see a government contract as license to charge $200 for a hammer. See the Australian Bureau of Meteorology website upgrade for an example of that kind of debacle.
'In mid-2014, IBM, one of the biggest global ICT companies was contracted to provide a relatively simple e-Census application, ensure the application was available to the public over the 8-week Census response period, provide sufficient capacity to deal with the peak response load expected on Census night of August 9 and ensure effective security for the e-Census system. The contract to IBM was worth around $10 million, within the total Census budget of around $500 million.
IBM failed to deliver the contracted service to the necessary standards, and they have provided financial recompense to cover the additional costs we and the Government have had, and will still incur as a result of this incident.'
https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/Australi...
It's crazy that universal health is the political third rail in most modern countries but for the opposite reasons
In most of the world it's the policy that cannot be touched, just in Europe, Canada and Australia its _existance_ is invoilable, in the US the _introduction_ seems to be the unwinnable war
And the cruel tragedy is that it becomes this self-reinforcing cycle.
Sleep bad > "Bad" ADHD day > Harder to fall asleep. Rinse. Repeat.
reply