Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26987392

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

It also doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny - even if the initial packing of the vehicle holds everything in place, what happens once a few packages are removed?

The biggest risk from space garbage is that the small stuff is not trackable, so at any point it could slam into satellites or, god forbid, people or space stations. It's going fast enough that despite being small this would have dreadful consequences.

Larger items can be tracked, and therefore can be avoided, so they don't pose a risk any more than non-junk large items like other satellites and so on. There's quite a lot of room so if you know where things are it's not hard to avoid them.

Some amount of garbage is sadly unavoidable at this point in our development of space travel. For example many rockets are multi stage and jettison those stages, farings to protect satellites are jettisoned, and so on. That all falls into the "large and trackable" category so it's not a terrible problem, at least not yet. So the main current strategy for avoiding creating problems is to avoid creating small garbage, and people work very hard at that - being careful not to lose tools or even a single nut or bolt.

And yes, before you mention it, "lots of room" is a relative statement and this is not an infinitely sustainable strategy. But people are working on methods to capture and clean up garbage, and as those get more feasible we'll be able to go and clean up all this large garbage that we are tracking. So even with a long-term perspective, the large stuff is less of a problem.

I believe the point is that any software asking for admin could fiddle with your certificate stores, so there's no sense in asking for a higher standard of integrity from software that tells you it will do so.

It's a tradeoff between usability and security, and each site should make their own decision about what is right for them.

It obviously makes attacks like the one in the article easier, but there are other ways to mitigate that.

An example often given for when revealing an email is registered would definitely be bad is dating website and pornography websites - where identifying someone is a member alone could be embarrassing or compromising.

Outside of such scenarios, websites may decide the increased conversion from a more streamlined registration process and lower numbers of support requests for login issues outweigh the marginal security gains from hiding that information.

The official authenticator also displays a backup code which it tells you to keep a copy of somewhere safe...

This is also the behaviour of the App Store preferences in version 10.13.1

Well, HSBC's didn't: https://threatpost.com/banking-apps-found-vulnerable-to-mitm...

There's a number of places in that chain of events that something could go nastily wrong, despite them owning every part of that chain.

I'm curious, in reference to the post, how you would have no problem working with a "Bob"? Is there really no behaviour there that would bother you in a coworker?

Not trolling: What reputation?

Among non-techies, their reputation is one of creepy and spying.

Among techies, it's that company that keeps killing loved products.

Among developers, it's one of terrible support and awful job interviews.

Common to everyone is they are impossible to get hold of, a faceless and heartless machine that makes decisions you can't argue with.

None of this matters because they have the best products on the market in a few key areas and everyone keeps using those regardless of their reputation.

So what reputation do they have to lose? Their reputation is already bad, and it doesn't matter anyway, and they presumably know this as well as everyone else does.

- Why they are doing this - What the potential passenger benefits are - And bonus, it includes lots of cool infographics on passenger journeys