I'd say leaking an employer's internal data when not whistleblowing is definitely cause for termination, in the "no future employer should trust you" way, but yeah, calling this a CFAA case is a stretch.
Readit Newsocdtrekkie commented on U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel cnbc.com/2025/08/22/intel... · Posted by u/givemeethekeys
> "The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars,” President Trump wrote"
This wasn't any sort of investment, it was blackmail. No corporation in the country would voluntarily give up 10% of the company to the federal government - for free - unless overtly threatened. The Trump administration is hoping that by exerting control over Intel, it can begin dictating conditions to Intel's customers, thus the tech community at large.
I also assume that one of Trump's cronies will take a spot on the board or some other oversight role, and in the near future, Intel will enrich Trump in one way or another, such as stock, investments, insider information, etc.
Nothing about this is good for the U.S. or Intel. It's not a bailout or a sign of support, but a way for Trump to have power over the tech sector.
Arguably the alternative was the government just... not giving them the CHIPS Act money. (And there's certainly a point to be made that Trump altering the deal is... problematic.)
But I will say, I find the concept that when we invest public dollars in a private company, the public retains a stake appealing. I think about the strategic oil reserve, and how the government actually can make money by buying and selling oil to the open market. The idea that if we inject money into a company to help our domestic industries, that the government can sell it's stake back out at a later time is appealing.
(And again, to be clear, not a Republican or a Trumper here, and I assume in Trump fashion he will find some way to screw everyone involved and get paid himself personally... but the concept of the government acquiring a stake rather than just giving them a grant is on it's face... maybe not terrible?)
ocdtrekkie commented on Should the web platform adopt XSLT 3.0? github.com/whatwg/html/is... · Posted by u/protomolecool
Oh, that would be something! All I want is to be able to make a website with some reusable elements and simple styling and keep adding content for decades, without having to think about keeping up with upgrades, dependencies and shifting framework paradigms.
I have made a couple of simple websites using PHP to bolt on reusable elements (header, footer, navigation), just because it is the solution that probably will work for ~decades without much churn. But XSLT would be even better!
PHP is a bit more fragile than it used to be. It is probably a bit for the best but I've had to fix a lot of my 2010-era PHP code to work on PHP 8.x. Though... like, it wasn't super hard. The days you could just start using a variable passed in a URL without setting a default if it wasn't...
ocdtrekkie commented on Google did not unilaterally decide to kill XSLT meyerweb.com/eric/thought... · Posted by u/bkardell
> Like when ftp was torn down
FTP needed to be torn down. It’s sad, but true. There was no reason for anyone to be using it past 2010 - and in fact many reasons actively against using it
I have yet to find a website which pleasantly lets me download a bunch of things in an efficient and organized manner that compares with FTP. The hilarity of buying a Humble Bundle and pressing "download all" and watching your browser spam "save as" windows for a minute and a half...
I kinda wish I could (S)FTP a lot more things than I can today.
ocdtrekkie commented on Google did not unilaterally decide to kill XSLT meyerweb.com/eric/thought... · Posted by u/bkardell
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what standards are here.
The web is what the engines implement and what sites use. Always has been. A standard that's not implemented isn't worth anything.
Web standards exist to help browsers be interoperable. Before them one browser would implement something, and if another liked it they would too. That can still happen, but standards mediate the process to be less chaotic and more reliable.
Web standards cannot force browsers to do anything. If a browser doesn't implement a standard - and there are lot of unimplemented "standards" out there - then it just doesn't.
As a user then you have the choice to use browsers that offer better or different standards support. If you require XSLT support, and Firefox removes it, you can use Safari, or Chrome. If Chrome removes it, you can hopefully use an Blink engine that keeps the feature on (usually they're removed with a flag far before they're actually deleted with code).
And this is the real problem with a lack of browser diversity: Users need to be able to vote with their feet.
But... if all the vendors agree on something, as a user good luck with finding an alternative. I seriously doubt Opera, Brave, or Vivaldi is going to do the work and take the security risk to add back XSLT. Servo and Ladybird aren't going to come to the rescue here either. They most likely would love to have less to implement.
> A standard that's not implemented isn't worth anything
I agree, but this is not about that.
XSLT is implemented. Websites use it. I would argue the barrier to remove it should be incredibly high, not "we don't want to financially support the dude who maintains the library". Web standards should be close to permanent, which is why we should not add stupid ones left and right.
The problem I have in particular with how Google uses it's incredible clout to mismanage the web is it actively chips away at the web's stability. The goofiness the CA/B is up to is similar: Over 80% of organizations have outages every year due to certificate issues, and some absolutely clueless folks think 47 day certificate lifetimes is a good decision. The web in 2025 is incredibly fragile, and all signs lead to Google continuing to try to make it more fragile. You could pull in dozens of examples of centralizing forces that ensure one engineer pushing a bad configuration at one company takes down 40% of the web.
The Web is not Android. Apps on it should not break because you didn't submit a new version which updates to the latest platform framework within the last six months. Something on the web should, ideally, continue to work in perpetuity, unless acted on by an outside force (most likely by the site owner failing to continue paying the bill).
XSLT exists, it's supported by every major browser right now, and it should be nearly illegal to remove it.
ocdtrekkie commented on Google did not unilaterally decide to kill XSLT meyerweb.com/eric/thought... · Posted by u/bkardell
I think a key problem here has nothing to do with the merits of XSLT, but is that some parties involved have no credibility when it comes to their intentions.
They might not even realize how bad their credibility is, because they operate in a self-serving echo chamber.
This. If the WHATWG does not want to be brigaded while they destroy the web, they need to provide a clear venue for people to indicate whether or not the community is accepting of a change. The web is ours, not theirs. And I think we should rightfully set fire to the WHATWG's implementation discussions until they recognize that fact.
One of the things I learned about Google during the AMP4Email fiasco is that the standards-development folks there... do not know the word no. There is no process to tell them that something should not be done. If you do, you broke the code of conduct, because they're Googlers and they Know Better. People like Mason Freed in the XSLT thread are sad that people trying to tell him no are getting in the way of him talking to people who will tell him yes.
At the point where the courts have determined that Google abuses it's monopoly control of the web, honestly, there's a question why Google is involved in standards-setting as opposed to being relegated to an advisory position required to implement standards as-designed by everyone else.
ocdtrekkie commented on Florida lawmaker floats ban on HOAs amid growing backlash tampabay28.com/news/state... · Posted by u/bilsbie
Maybe you could explain why you think they refused to turn the engineer report over?
Obviously I don't know the details but their lawyer being an adversarial asshole sounds most likely to me.
What other explanation is there? Like... was the board planning to sell their units before people realized the building had problems?
So the HOA was indeed quite concerned with their property values and that a higher assessment impacts sale value. It's also important to note that this HOA covered multiple buildings, and none of the board lived in mine: So their unit was not at risk from the structure, but their assessment price was.
The buildings were approaching an age where more significant/costly maintenance is necessary and I don't think they wanted to have to do those things.
ocdtrekkie commented on Florida lawmaker floats ban on HOAs amid growing backlash tampabay28.com/news/state... · Posted by u/bilsbie
There's an agency problem here.
The building could have been perfectly safe but the lawyer wants to "win" so says "fuck you we won't provide the report". The lawyer has no stake in the health of the project, if they are a litigator they just care about "winning".
Alternatively the building could have been about to collapse but the lawyer wants to "win" and doesn't live there so says "fuck you we won't provide it." Same result, different safety profile.
So in Illinois merely refusing to provide the report is illegal on its own. So it's unlikely a condo lawyer did this "just to win" for a safe building. Specifically if you take the HOA to court for not revealing a document they legally have to, and the judge sides with the unit owner, the HOA has to pay the owner's attorney fees.
The issue is HOAs and management companies have warchests for stuff like this, individual owners of partial-buildings generally do not have a lot of money to fund lawyers until the judgment happens.
ocdtrekkie commented on Florida lawmaker floats ban on HOAs amid growing backlash tampabay28.com/news/state... · Posted by u/bilsbie
Is that legal?!
I would have thought your lawyer would be salivating at the prospect of raking your HOA over the coals. Or at least of mailing a nastygram with all sorts of colorful threats. I suppose not?
It is most decidedly not legal, but they had the largest condo law firm in the Chicago area on retainer who made the statement they wouldn't provide it. (Literally the lawyer I was recommended to use until it turned out... it was theirs.) Their lawyer's own website basically said the HOA can't hide stuff like this from owners.
Which is to say if I had had the time and money for a protracted court drama, I do think a judge would have literally laughed them out of the courthouse, but everyone involved knew the case wouldn't get that far.
One really fun fact I learned from this is lawyers mostly just email each other polite requests with the vague threat of "this could escalate to court" as the grease that moves things. And if one side doesn't think it'll end up in court they just... say no!
I would agree with another commenter Veeam's free offering is a great backup choice as long as you have a computer you want to backup separate from your computer doing the backing up.