Chances are we not only live in a simulation, but that reality in turn is in a simulation. Heck the entire lattice may be infinitely recursive.

Thing is, it doesn't really change anything. We are still part of the onion, who cares what layer we belong to.

The Mother Box is a fictitious personal computing device Jack Kirby invented while making comics DC. It's rather prefect, just look at the wiki description:

"...they are generally thought to be sentient, miniaturized, portable supercomputers, although their true nature and origins are unknown."

I cannot think of a more apt description for the magical box I keep with me at all times.

I live in a city where rental properties are hastily being converted to Airbnb rentals at an alarming rate.

Many middle class folks, myself included have been recipients of no-fault evictions as landlords rush to cash in on the short-term rental craze.

At least in my city, Airbnb drives up the price of property, making the dream of home ownership an increasingly distant fantasy for many in the middle class.

Sure when I travel, I can more easily afford a room for a night, but I'm a lot more concerned with the affordability of a the property I have to rent longterm. One day I hope to afford a mortgage, but I don't know how that will happen if every property gets converted in to an ad-hoc hotel.

Now if you happen to be one of the lucky middle-class people who already owns 1 or more properties, you might be able to make a little money with Airbnb, but for the most part Airbnb is doing nothing to help the middle class.

That's a terrible idea. It sounds like a proposal made by someone who doesn't understand how computers work.

Enforcing this would be a nightmare. If they did a cost/benefit analysis of this, I suspect the cost of implementation & maintenance would far outstrip the earnings they hope to "protect".

Let's not forget Godwin's Lab: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1

I suspect it is the most common logical fallacy on the internet.

Well we can't know. Ultimately it's speculation, but speculation informed by what little information we does become public. Via leaks, congressional hearings, info-sec researchers, etc.

Edward Snowden and other's have made statements alluding to deficiencies in the NSA's capacity to make the most of the data that's already in front of them.

Bottom line, given the size and scope of the U.S. intelligence gathering machine, why have we not thwarted any large terror attacks?
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheintercept.com%2F2015%2F...

It could easily be the case that U.S. intelligence agencies are too incompetent to catch these terrorist affiliated social media accounts.

U.S. intelligence agencies haven't exactly demonstrated a capacity to really make effective use of the big data they collect.

Yes, they are quite good at intercepting and collecting data, but there are many indications that the NSA in particular doesn't really have the data intelligence necessary to effectively sift through what they capture.

In the 'proud' tradition of the TSA, our intelligence agency's anti-terror data collection operations may be more security theater than actual security.

That said I'm not sure a bunch of anons are likely to do much better.

Your counter argument depends on a false analogy. Wearing a short skirt is not at all like attempting to commit adultery.

To pretend that someone caught cheating is similarly a victim is a really offensive position to take. People are entitled to wear anything they want without threat of sexual assault. People are not entitled to commit adultery without risk of being discovered.

One must go out of their way to have an affair, whereas sexual assault can happen to anyone without provocation.

Fortunately Slashdot readers are pretty savvy, I doubt too many people will be fooled by your false equivocation.

Near as I can tell you aren't providing any reasons or evidence for why legacy support is so imperative.

Also that seatbelt example is laughable, seat belts are in no way analogous to limiting legacy support.

Thing is if your look at browser market shares, much of the time it's not cost effective to spend the time writing legacy support. Unless your target demographic is enterprise, or 3rd world nations, it's a pretty safe bet to drop IE6 & IE7.

I think there is a monetary argument to be made for skipping legacy support. The amount of time that dev's must spend on supporting old IE browsers can be astounding depending on the site.

At least for some business in the long run it's not just preaching standards, it's a cost saving measure.

Notably the Australian retailer Kogan, instituted an [IE7 tax](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18440979) back in 2012. This surcharge I think was a brilliant way to offset the expense of supporting antiquated browsers.

No doubt it comes down to your customer demographics, and if you can afford to ignore that share of your potential market. These days I think IE8+ is a pretty safe bet for retail (maybe IE7 for B2B).

They won't hit 0 hits a month until we stop supporting them. Don't be an enabler. Be brave, make your CTO talk some sense into management at large. IE6 still has market share only because we let it have market share.

This is tricky. It's tempting to support legacy browsers, but if you do too good a job of supporting them, you don't incentivize your users to ever get their sh*t sorted, and upgrade their browsers. It's a vicious cycle I am eager to avoid.

In my experience if your target market is the general public legacy support isn't thaaat important, people tend to upgrade their personal browsers out of necessity, so just create that necessity and the people will follow.

It's really only when you are catering to large enterprise businesses that only upgrade their workstations once in a while that you really have to sweat that sort of thorough backwards compatibility.

I saw a very insightful & funny talk on this subject last year. The very clever Josh Broton lays out exactly why jQuery has become an excuse not to do it right the first time. Basically it comes down to this:

A few facts about latency and user behavior: "...250 milliseconds can be the difference between a return customer and an abandoned checkout cart." "...every 100 milliseconds of latency resulted in a 1% loss of sales." "...lose 20% of their traffic for each additional 100 milliseconds it takes a page to load."

The average overhead jQuery adds to a website: "... add roughly 150ms to 1 full second of load time..."

He goes into many other good reasons too, it's well worth a read.

Slide here: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fjoshbroton%2F...

That's a good point, at this point it's unclear how like (or unlike) the reported bugs were.

None the less I think it wiser to reward the good intent rather than punish on a technicality.

So the bottom line for you is about the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law?

If the 30 other bugs are forfeit because of a procedural mistake that only applied to one of the bugs, the next infosec researcher won't report 30 bugs. They will report them one at a time in an effort to maximize their rewards. The vulnerabilities will stay in the wild longer, the effectiveness of whole effort behind posting bounties is reduced.

Hunting for bugs sometimes requires consulting with others in the infosec community. From what I understand it was a fairly minor and well intentioned slip. A technicality.

If good intentions are met with pedantics & technicalities, I wonder how long those intentions will remain good.