I've never heard of Hacker News censoring comments that do not abuse the site guidelines, with rational opinions. This comment thread is being heavily censored. This fundamentally abuses the trust that users have put into this site.
My original comment was deleted, so I'll try this again.
I've read the comments here and quite surprisingly there are a lot of folks saying that the value of this hack isn't worth more than roughly one year's salary at Twitter (as an intern). I appreciate the pragmatism, but unlikely.
Anyone with this kind of exploit could have sold it, moved to Russia, and received immunity from extradition. Secondly, people should be scrutinizing any moron willing to give away thousands of dollars to billionaires for a promise of a 2x return. Especially in these times.
So, reason can only allow us to arrive at a most likely cause. That this was indeed an inside job. It was not about money. It was not a security flaw. But rather, it was simply a group of employees that were unhappy with Twitter allowing the federal government to investigate bad actors on the platform behind closed doors.
Has anyone replicated the issue described by the Twitter user? It's probably important to verify these kinds of claims before they get upvoted. This looks and feels like disinformation.
Personal opinion here. If you trace the funding of anything on the internet, you usually get to the bottom of things. Here is an article that was published on WIRED that traces those roots. https://www.wired.com/story/freedom-from-facebook-open-marke...
I think what the site says is basically true, but also I think it's vaguely disingenuous.
If there was any way to translate the legacy code running on mainframes into a Java application, naturally, there would be an infrastructure migration issue. The new plan plainly states that the infrastructure is dependent on: "Establish Cloud Management Office and Cloud Governance", which also depends on installing the new "Procure and deliver ECM Release 1 Cloud platform on Treasury Cloud".
This stuff takes a lot of time and they've been preparing for the change since 2015. This is entirely not simple.
In no way do I mean to take away from the really great work of these researchers, but there is one thing here that people should be aware of. By using karaoke style lyrics, this scientific study invalidates itself and the credibility of those that went forward with publishing it. By reading the lyrics while listening to the audio, the brain will automatically convince the listener that the audio result is better than it is. What is the proof for this? Well, look no further than the infamous Yanny/Laurel audio clip. When you read the word "Yanny" or "Laurel" at the frame rate of the audio, your brain switches between two different auditory suggestions.
All your points make sense. Also, Wolfram is trying to create a language and tool for others because he very well realizes that his part in all this won't be solving those 7 things.