I feel this was an ‘of it’s time’ thing, but I am so glad we have moved on from this. I wouldn’t enjoy working in a workplace where this was acceptable.
How about ascii art of a male penis every time you opened your IDE?
The point isn’t what you (MyPasswordSucks) would find objectionable, the point is what the median would find objectionable in a professional setting. Luckily we’ve gotten away from the locker room behavior being the median and now the median is approaching good-manners behavior. This is one of the situations where the Overton window shifting makes us better as a species instead of worse.
IMHO it's made the world worse. We're not sterile robots. To deny us mischievous ASCII art is to deny the very things that make us human. Bring on the IDE penis. Make it widescreen if you like. It's not nearly as offensive as having a censoring big brother overlord telling us what is and isn't acceptable for the workers' enjoyment.
As a gay dude, I'd have no problems at all with this out of a garage game developer.
And any reasonably well adjusted straight male would probably get a good laugh out of the art, same as I would.
We now live in a world where female colleagues can speak in whispers about how a male colleague is hot/attractive, but male colleagues cannot engage in the same behaviour.
Trust me, I know. Because of media stereotypes about gays most female colleagues don't have any problem engaging in "girl talk" once they know I'm gay. Like damn I don't care, I'm just a dude.
> How about ascii art of a male penis every time you opened your IDE?
Once again: So what?
> The point isn’t what you (MyPasswordSucks) would find objectionable, the point is what the median would find objectionable in a professional setting.
I'm part of this "median" you seem to hold in such high regard. If you try to silence all data points outside your preconceived notion of what the "median" view is, then what you have there isn't a median, but just a few vocal people who happen to be on your side.
Why would you assume other men want to see that shit either? It's weird, creepy, unprofessional, and weird and creepy. Mostly weird and creepy though. Like are you so lonely and horny that you need to plaster your shit with half-naked women?
Even if you restrict yourself to talking about men, asexual and gay men exist. And honestly, I suspect that such people are more common among developers than among the base population.
Funny that I and my coworkers have figured out how to make the office not an "unpleasant sterile place" without doing so in a way that alienates so many classes of people.
Oh yeah it's so unpleasant not having to see creepy and gross shit in the work place because some horny dork never grew up. Gosh won't someone please think of the incels?!
Interesting. How is that comment homophobic? Might be factually incorrect, but not homophobic. Quite the contrary, it implies that women prefer looking at women too.
It's teenager-ish, and the kind of thing that would make people uncomfortable if they saw it at our own workplaces. We can argue about whether companies 'should' punish people for stuff like this, but I can say for sure that I don't feel like I'm missing out on much here.
Another entertaining piece by the Lego Island guy!
My takeaway is that you should choose a passion project as your hobby and put in the time to learn and do whatever is necessary to achieve your goal on your own or together with similarly motivated people rather than relying on anyone external you have to pay - things go downhill fairly often and quickly it seems. Is any business a scam to some degree nowadays?
I'm not surprised by the data recovery company story, it feels like I only hear bad things about that industry. I remember something similar happened with LinusTechTips.
I once wrote a DAM that wrote to LTO tapes just using tar. The tape was operated with forward/rewind commands from mt. Nobody needed access to the tapes until after I was no longer at the company. Apparently, they spent weeks trying to install various backup software to read the tapes, but none could. They eventually contacted me, but due to how much software they had tried to use the original computer it was attached to was no longer the OS. At that point, they asked 3rd party companies for help and eventually found someone with a drive attached to a Linux system. I was then able to walk them through how to read and extract data.
Tape storage can be an absolute nightmare. Most will do the writes, some will say they verify with a read, but few actually test with a full restore. Just because the software says it can read the tape to show you the listings does not mean it can read the files themselves. This was alluded to in TFA(TFV??) but been there done that on trying to read from a bum tape/bad write. It gets worse if you write in one tape drive and read from another also mentioned in TFV. Now I feel old just thinking about it all
It is named and shamed in the comments of that video somewhere.
Data recovery companies ought to have the integrity to just say no to a job, if they cannot do it risk free. Trying and failing with the risk of damaging the original data could be very costly to the customer, even if they don't charge money - the customer's lost data could be priceless.
> Makes you wonder how easy or difficult it will be in 30 years to 'recover' data from today.
The challenges will be different. Flash loses its charge in 30 years, most disks are encrypted, and on-site physical backups are mostly a thing of the past. The source might survive in a cloud repo, but it'll either be tied up for legal reasons or deleted when the customer stops paying the bill. But storage is cheap and getting cheaper!
Data not continuously copied is lost. Ironically the most future proof media is becoming increasingly rare. Those gold layer dvds may last well into the future but the readers will not be available.
A major plot of my fictional book is going to be the resurrection of data from a DVD recovered from an archaeological site in from the ancient North American period (from the pov of the characters). It is a significant challenge fraught with perils, including the professor responsible being threatened with failure after failure in the field, budget cuts, and political barriers. But success will be the first glimpse after thousands of years into the unknown dark age that so little is known about.
Flash seems to lose its charge a lot faster than that, -- I found ordinary SSDs left in a closet for two years to be full of errors while matched sibling drives left in running systems were fine.
Shor's algorithm is primarily relevant to asymmetric cryptography, and disk encryption is pretty much universally symmetric. Quantum computers do nothing to break modern disk encryption.
Regardless of the parent's statement, just normal compute in 30 years, plus general vulnerabilities and weaknesses discovered, will ensure that anything encrypted today is easily readable in the future.
I can't think of anything from 30 years ago that isn't just a joke today. The same will likely be true by 2050, quantum computing or not. I wonder how many people realise this?
Even if one disagrees with my certainty, I think people should still plan for the concept that there's a strong probability it will be so. Encryption is really not about preventing data exposure, but about delaying it.
Any other view regarding encryption means disappointment.
> I can't think of anything from 30 years ago that isn't just a joke today.
AES is only 3 years shy of 30.
If you used MD5 as a keystream generator I believe that would still be secure and that's 33 years old.
3DES is still pretty secure, isn't it? That's 44 years old.
As for today's data, there's always risk into the future but we've gotten better as making secure algorithms over time and avoiding quantum attacks seems to mostly be a matter of doubling key length. I'd worry more about plain old leaks.
30 years ago we had a good idea. Anything considered good 30 years ago - 3DES- still is. Anything not considered good has turned out not to be. We don't know what the future will hold so it is always possible someone will find a major flaw in AES, but as I write this nobody has indicated they are even close.
You are underestimating the exponential possibilities of keys.
>plus general vulnerabilities and weaknesses discovered, will ensure that anything encrypted today is easily readable in the future.
You can't just assume that there is always going to be new vulnerabilities that cause it to be broken. It ignores that people have improved at designing secure cryptography over time.
> I can't think of anything from 30 years ago that isn't just a joke today
The gold standard 30 years ago was PGP. RSA 1024 or 2048 for key exchange. IDEA symmetric cipher.
This combination is, as far as I am aware, still practically cryptographically secure. Though maybe not in another 10 or 20 years. (RSA 1024 is not that far from brute forcing with classical machines.)
In summary, it estimates the cost at $3.5 billion using commodity hardware, and I'd expect a purpose-built system could bring that cost down by an order of magnitude.
The reality is, as soon as humanity figures out how to distinguish between two values (magnetic flux, voltage, pits/lands, etc) we use it to store more data, or move it faster.
Don't forget that flash drives are not accessed linearly. Your data might look linear to you, but without that sector addressing table, you're looking at noise.
On top of that static wear leveling can move all your data around when your disk is idle, and TRIM will effectively zero your unused areas when you are not looking.
Hard, but it depends on backup / duplication strategies; this is why e.g. the internet archive is so important, and I hope there are multiple parties doing the same thing for redundancy.
Hard. I am slowly writing a book set in the future where we are a “digital dark age” where little to nothing is known about our time tentatively called Professor Bitrot.
This seemed to be a point of confusion in the original story and the video wasn't super clear but:
Pretty much all tape backup software writes headers as it is streaming the file to tape. Just more bytes in the buffer.
For normal restores it consults its local database because that is way faster. If you don't have the local database you do a "Catalog Tape" operation that scans the file headers on the tape to reconstruct the database. For whatever reason ARCServe couldn't complete the catalog with that specific kind of tape. Whether that was the specific version he found or was a general problem with support for those tape drives I don't know.
AFAICT the way most 'recovery' places work is that they'll recover data if there are no issues and any ordinarily skilled IT tech could also recover it. And then otherwise they'll claim it's unrecoverable. Sometimes, it seems, they'll even just claim its unrecoverable because they didn't happen to have or find a compatible drive when that's all that was needed.
I've recovered data from media a number of times a recovery company said it was unrecoverable with no particular difficulty.
I enjoyed skimming through this: https://github.com/HighwayFrogs/frogger2-vss/blob/main/teamS...