They said they were busy, which may well be true.
You started the discussion in a meandering and unprofessional manner which could be perceived as time wasting. Also who says their brain was broke? Very strange behaviour in a work setting.
Many people in a professional setting want things ‘to the point’ especially when they are busy.
Saying they didn’t read your emails may have been to save face for you if they considered the content embarrassing or unprofessional conduct.
If you can’t comprehend how site impersonation and search result manipulation aren’t relevant to the actual software vendor getting popped then you have zero comprehension of an actual kill chain.
But sure a package manager is totally safer because you made up an irrelevant scenario!
Nice you went back and checked with how little you cared lol
If you don’t see calling someone ignorant as an insult then I wish you well in a pub talking to a stranger.
I had a chuckle when I saw NPM yet again because it was one of the examples I used that you failed to address despite totally winning that discussion.
Hopefully manufacturing irrelevant scenarios works out for you in your career.
I absolutely believe you forgot your what, 5 or 6 comments arguing about this, goldfish much?
To be fair you didn’t say package managers were perfect but you also failed to provide any evidence for your claims that a package manager was more trustworthy than a known software publishers website as a distribution method.
You were given plenty of opportunities to explain yourself and you doubled down with insults and shifting goalposts.
Going by your logic this breach is evidence that package managers should all be avoided.
Those package managers sure are perfect! Hah
Gonna name one of these worms CJ.
Social transactions aren’t the same as monetary transactions. I don’t know what you expected.
Studies on altruism are very interesting but almost no relationships are based purely on altruism from what I understand.
From a biological or evolutionary perspective, altruism is a behaviour that decreases the fitness or genetic contribution of one individual while increasing the fitness of another.
I knew someone would bring up children to try and debunk that all relationships are transactional but this is actually extremely simple.
A child’s role is to grow, develop and learn from their parents and society. Very easy on their part as it’s basically all automatic for them.
A parent’s role is to protect, provide, nurture and support their child. All easy stuff to understand.
If a parent fails they will be judged extremely harshly by society and end up with a child that has behavioural problems.
Historically the driving desire to have lots of children was so that some would survive and be able to provide for you in your old age. Still somewhat relevant but far less so than historically.
Turns out pre-modern agriculture the work required to survive was hard on the body and basically doomed the elderly who didn’t have a younger generation to provide for them. So not a problem resulting from capitalism as it was different but present under feudal and tribal societies.
We’ve seen what happens when parents fail, such as a child having an extremely abusive and controlling mother is a strong predictor of psychopathy. Basically all the worst serial killers you’ve ever heard about had abusive mothers.
The only way for children to fail on their end of the transaction really is to die or be severely disabled. When they’re closer to being adults that dynamic changes and some people, both child and parent, have great difficulty ‘renegotiating’ the relationship.
Having children with severe disabilities is devastating and I won’t go into that right now as it’s a massive topic by itself.
Oh and I had a pretty good childhood and am on good terms with my parents but thanks for taking a pity swipe at me lol
The first step is to understand that all relationships are transactional. Not a single human relationship is unconditional.
You start by making yourself useful, pleasant and interesting to be around and people who understand and accept the “deal” will reciprocate and most of them will be reliable.
There are no guarantees so it’s also a little bit of a numbers game. More is better to a point… usually about a dozen close relationships is optimal.
It’s just a closer and more intimate version of the broader social contract. Break it and suffer. Maintain it, nurture it, and benefit.
Learn what you can, and are expected, to bring to a relationship (be it romantic or otherwise) and work on improving what you offer.
All human relationships and communities since the beginning of time have relied on this transactional nature of relationships.
Anyone who says otherwise is blindly naive or misunderstanding what any given individual can bring to a relationship.
Can confirm, I’m in Korea right now and some people definitely believe it. Mostly older folk.
My understanding is that the myth originated from propaganda to reduce power usage in the postwar period.