Maybe so, but in this case they made it easy for them [1]:

> Upon examining those logs, Volexity found that in January and February, password-spray attacks had been carried out against this service and three accounts had been successfully compromised by an attacker.

> ...

> The Enterprise Wi-Fi network, however, did not require MFA and only required a user's valid domain username and password to authenticate

> ...

> While the Guest Wi-Fi network had been believed to be completely isolated from the corporate wired network, where the high-value targeted data resided, there was one system that was accessible from both the Wi-Fi network and the corporate wired network.

Bad passwords, no certificate based network authentication or MFA, bad network separation. Basic stuff.

[1] https://www.volexity.com/blog/2024/11/22/the-nearest-neighbo...

(This should have been the referenced page IMHO.)

I compile a lot of C++ code from a lot of places, and the only time I run into code that somehow simply doesn't work on newer versions of C++ and where the developers aren't even sure if they will accept any patches to fix the issue as they claim it "isn't supported" to use a newer version of C++--even for the public headers of a library--is, you guessed it: code from Google.

Meanwhile, most of the C++ code from Google seems to be written in some mishmash of different ideas, always at some halfway point along a migration between something ancient and something passable... but never anything I would ever dare to call "modern", and thereby tends to be riddled with state machines and manual weak pointers that lead to memory corruption.

So... I really am not sure I buy the entire premise of this article? Honestly, I am extremely glad that Google is finally leaving the ecosystem, as I generally do not enjoy it when Google engineers try to force their ridiculous use cases down peoples' throats, as they seem to believe they simply know better than everyone else how to develop software.

Like... I honestly feel bad for the Rust people, as I do not think the increasing attention they are going to get from Google is going to be at all positive for that ecosystem, any more than I think the massive pressure Google has exerted on the web has been positive or any more than the pressure Google even exerted on Python was positive (not that Python caved to much of it, but the pressure was on and the fact that Python refused to play ball with Google was in no small part what caused Go to exist at all).

(FWIW, I do miss Microsoft's being in the space, but they honestly left years ago -- Herb's existence until recent being kind of a token consideration -- as they have been trying to figure out a tactical exit to C++ ever since Visual J++ and, arguably, Visual Basic, having largely managed to pivot to C# and TypeScript for SDKs long ago. That said... Sun kicking Microsoft out of Java might have been really smart, despite the ramifications?)

> I agree with the sentiment of this. I think our obsession with innate ~~mathematical~~ skill and genius is so detrimental to the growth mindset that you need to have in order to learn things.

I strongly believe that the average human being can be exceptional in any niche topic given enough time, dedication and focus.

The author of the book has picked out mathematics because that was what he was interested in. The reality is that this rule applies to everything.

The belief that some people have an innate skill that they are born with is deeply unhelpful. Whilst some people (mostly spectrum) do seem have an innate talent, I would argue that it is more an inbuilt ability to hyper focus on a topic, whether that topic be mathematics, Star Trek, dinosaurs or legacy console games from the 1980’s.

I think we do our children a disservice by convincing them that some of their peers are just “born with it”, because it discourages them from continuing to try.

What we should be teaching children is HOW to learn. At the moment it’s a by-product of learning about some topic. If we look at the old adage “feed a man a fish”, the same is true of learning.

“Teach someone mathematics and they will learn mathematics. Teach someone to learn and they will learn anything”.

Maybe? Any regulation is very welcomed in this area

>Why is it UPENN's responsibility to solve these issues?

Who's responsibility is it? Have you seen how the government operates? Why wouldn't UPENN want to help solve it?

> There is nothing inherently superior about Western culture.

I'm not necessarily intending to contradict this outright, but after having just spent a summer reading through the history of the collectivist cultures in Russia/China during the last century, all I could think of is how lucky I was not to be born into that.

So, sure, nothing "inherently" superior, but certainly comparatively superior, in my opinion.

This is the more correct answer. It's also answers why developed nations became developed and undeveloped nations did not. The west advanced just fine without "brain drain" in the centuries prior.

That being said, I wouldn't use the US as some bastion of progress. Technically, we haven't progressed much since the 70s? 80s? outside of GDP going up, but that's just a number on a chart. Most of us today could go back to the 70s and live not much different than now (compared to the any earlier decade). It's mostly a side effect of being the world's reserve currency.

On the other hand, I'd rather see cables get cut than watch shells get lobbed between world powers.

> When Apple shuttered development of Aperture, there were rumors it did so because it entered into a gentleman’s agreement with Adobe to give Lightroom the space it needed to take over the photography software industry. That worked, and Adobe applications ran great on Apple computers.

I’d not heard this theory (though the only pro-space app I care about is Logic for audio). I’d love if Apple started smashing the funding button for their pro apps again, but they’ve already caused a lot of distrust when they killed Aperture.

Not to mention other products that don’t get ongoing updates (HomePod, Mac Pro for about a century, Xserve line that was killed, and other more recent items that aren’t top of mind atm). Justifying the risk of conversion will be an uphill battle.