Continuation of the thoughts from the first paragraph and repetition, because either I forgot what I had and had not written, but also because the flow of the thought naturally brings me back to the main thesis, as if solving a mathematical problem and then going backwards to the original problem statement with a different technique for verification. Deranged poorly formatted comment that only barely connects to the topic at hand, which I only read the first part of anyways.

We used to use it back then because it was a pretty open system, you could famously do analysis on Hashtags, it was even a fad in the scientific community to do sentiment analysis on some topics, twitter was like the Drosophila Melanogaster. The tech stack was very public as well and it had that startup vibe to it. Even presidents were registering on the platform due to its neutrality, which made sense back then.

Nowadays the company was acquired, and acquired not by a nameless penny pinching fund, but by a personalist company who might have bought it for personal, not economic reasons. They were involved in the executive power and did a similar kind of personnel cut and regime change. The presidents now use it, but now people use Twitter because presidents are on it, rather than the other way around.

It still has some professionals in it, and it's relaxed and addictive nature allows me to interact with professionals I wouldn't have a chance to on uptight Linkedin. But meh, it's not like sharing a shitpost with a CEO of a cool startup is going to be my ticket to stardom anyway, if anything it's a bad signal "Hey, remember me? I responded to your tweet about AI with a cool factoid while you wiped your ass on the toilet!" who gives a shit.

Hopefully I too will leave twitter some day, some day.

usually it's the context around the book what people write about, where it was written, who wrote it, what was going on in their life. But if it's older perhaps not much is known, so the older it is increasingly it becomes at when it was read, where it was conserved, what it means to those who read it. If it's sufficiently old, there's several phases of 'rediscoveries' of the book, and the actual contents itself start losing importance as the book becomes more about past readers and how they influenced subsequent writing.

It would never occur to you to decide whether to read Luca Pacioli's accounting treatise based on some passages describing how you should keep your daily book, or whether to read Deuteronomy based on the headcount of some obscure tribe from old middle east, like there's no banger it's more about inmersion, and there isn't one way to absorb and interpret the content, because we are so far away from its writing, that the connection between the writer and reader is very faint.

So this feels normal to me, and the comparision felt funny, so I once again I found myself writing a hacker news comment

When there's a topic that is very niche our expectation for quality should go down, but it's not necessarily something to stomach, but something to appreciate, it allows us to see through the media and into the author a little bit, the way you would if you see a friend doing a low budget but profoundly intimate short.

You can setup your security any way you like, but nothing beats an air gap in terms of security and simplicity.

My interpretation is that 135k instances are vulnerable, but of those there's more conditions that need to be met, specifically:

These need to be multi-user systems where there are users with 'basic pairing' privileges. Which I don't think is very common, most instances are single-user.

So way less than the 135k number. I think a more accurate title would have been "If you're running OpenClaw, you are probably vulnerable" but not "you probably got hacked", that's just outright false and there's no evidence that the exposed users were ALL hacked.