The ad impressions, targeted to my supposed interests, are an interesting read - particularly given that I've never actually seen the ads appearing in the home timeline, not using it. Twitter is selling advertisers something there but not delivering.
I now downloaded my Twitter data which contains more interesting stuff. Apparently, the shows I am interested in are:
La reine des neiges
Milan Fashion Week: Men's Winter 2017
Sessão da tarde
It always amazes me just how little care companies offering a security product put into the security of their services. Look through the whole thread:
Found "my" interests under https://twitter.com/settings/your_twitter_data/twitter_interests. And apparently I'm also interested in dogs. Who would have guessed? Also interested in "Brian Krebs" - listed twice even, probably because I actually follow him.
Now I really want to learn what kind of interests and audience groups Twitter deduced for me. I guess a #GDPR request should do?
I updated my answer on #LastPass security that I originally posted to Security Stack Exchange back in 2016. The new version is well-structured and includes info on all the recent developments here. Got way too long however.
Sean is telling some uncomfortable truth about the bug bounty programs: how companies don't treat everybody the same and won't pay newbies anything if they can get away with it.
Welcome to the front lines of the license wars where using the ideologically correct license is more important than providing a good user experience.
No, ZFS project isn't going to switch licenses of course. Instead, they switch to slower fallback code.
The response is quite remarkable:
"My tolerance for ZFS is pretty non-existant. Sun explicitly did not want their code to work on Linux, so why would we do extra work to get their code to work properly?"
There is no meaningful agreement on what APIs are "internal" enough that accessing them should require you to adopt GPL license. There is however considerable doubt that this bullying actually made anybody adopt GPL.
Apparently, common sense prevailed and non-GPL modules are tolerated as a necessary evil. Instead, technical means have been implemented to prevent non-GPL modules from accessing certain kernel APIs that are considered "internal."
Until today, I've been completely unaware of the drama around the #Linux kernel and non-GPL modules. I knew of course that Linux developers dislike proprietary kernel modules and would prefer everything GPL-licensed and in their tree.