You speak of "responsible disclosure", but what about "responsible launch"?
If a backend is coded this poorly, it betrays irreparable and highly dangerous levels of idiocy, laziness, and lack of foresight in the ones who coded it. Everyone deserves to be informed of this blunder so they know to avoid this group like the plague.
Public ridicule and preemptive destruction of the brand is the only conscionable reaction.
I see this implied repeatedly by everyone, so could someone explain how customers on the ground using Apple Maps are somehow providing Apple with any data that could improve the maps?
Apple intentionally cripples their browser here and there to nudge developers toward creating actual apps that are served through the App Store and to discourage them from making things that can load through the browser.
The site owner recently revealed he pushes 3500000 GB per month. My lowball estimate puts that at roughly $77,000 per month, just under a million dollars per year to keep the site running. There are no ads on /b/, which is the main board, representing I'd guess 95% of the entire site's traffic.
That, combined with the plausibility of the following, leads me to believe he receives massive government subsidies:
get on google and type X -> top suggested result Y:
CrossRider a -> "CrossRider adware"; CrossRider d -> "CrossRider delete"; CrossRider m -> "CrossRider malware"; CrossRider r -> "CrossRider removal"; CrossRider s -> "CrossRider spyware"; CrossRider u -> "CrossRider uninstall"; CrossRider v -> "CrossRider virus"; CrossRider w -> "CrossRider web apps virus"
I was not making an argument; I was stating a fact. Refraining from addressing someone's statement other than to label it "ad hominem" is itself an ad hominem argument, however.
The major thrust of her article is where she presents herself as the typical specimen proving that women both exist in the tech world in large numbers and are oppressed by pronouns in comments on the internet. Unfortunately, her chromosomes, as well as the male privilege she spent the majority of her life reaping the benefits from, make her the ultimate antithesis of her own point, and she does the opposite of dispelling any stereotypes people may harbor.
No. What's absurd is that Amber Yust reaped all the benefits of having blue eyes in her profession for most of her life, and then proceeded to author this article about how it's wrong to assume that people in her profession have blue eyes, written with all the fury of someone who had brown eyes for their entire life.
I say this because she has a Y chromosome and only updated her driver's license to read Female one year ago.
Chromosomes are directly responsible for most developmental differences between living creatures. If someone uses this fact to convince themselves it's why women aren't seen in the tech world, Amber has done nothing to disprove it.
Amber has benefitted from male privilege for most of her life. If people believe male privilege, brogrammer environments, etc. are why women aren't seen in the tech world, Amber has done nothing to disprove it.
She is literally the worst possible piece of evidence to use to disprove the stereotype.
This is not a burner account and I am not transphobic.
The stereotype is primarily accepted by two groups of males:
1. Men who believe women do not succeed in the tech world due to social pressures
2. Men who believe women do not succeed in the tech world due to differences that are genetic in nature
For the second group, author Amber Yust only fuels the fire of the stereotype, because she was born a man. For the first group, using herself as an example of a woman succeeding in the tech world is invalid, because she was a man for most of her life and benefitted from all the consequent privileges.
I find it dumbfounding that she wrote this article.
I fail to see how it's irrelevant. In this article, someone who was a man until a year or two ago used herself as the perfect example of a woman who succeeds in the tech world.
