> Berulis found that on March 3 one of the DOGE accounts created an opaque, virtual environment known as a “container,” which can be used to build and run programs or scripts without revealing its activities to the rest of the world. Berulis said the container caught his attention because he polled his colleagues and found none of them had ever used containers within the NLRB network.
Not at all: it says DOGE appears to have created a container in a place where containers were never created by NLRB. Tell THAT to someone who doesn't know what Docker is, and it is less informative.
I think it sounds a bit off in the same way as "Linux, a computer program commonly used by hackers, was found on the suspect's machine" does, though not to that extent.
It's not saying anything technically untrue, and emphasising the aspects it does arguably makes sense within the context of what the concept is being brought up for, but it comes across as an odd framing for people familiar with the concept in general (using containers for standardization/scaling/etc.)
If you installed linux in a network that didn't typically have linux machines, and then had no accountability to what was running on said machine... yes, that would be suspicious and of note.
My point isn't that it couldn't be of note, but rather that - even when relevant - the phrasing makes for a strange-sounding definition to people already familiar with containers/Linux in a general context (and people who weren't familiar with containers/Linux might come away with that lopsided impression of them, even while having an accurate impression of how they were relevant to the article).
I think it could potentially be improved with a more general/typical definition first ("Containers are self-contained environments that bundle all dependencies a piece of software needs to run and are commonly used to streamline deployment across different machines, but can also ...")
And this guys how you get $200 per hour consultant say "I'm on my 15th sprint, still trying to figure out how to transform a CSV using powershell. Maybe next week it will be done."
It's only odd for people in the middle segment of "just smart enough to understand why you want containers, not experienced enough to understand how they work"
We use them for standardization and scaling exactly because they are opaque. I personally believe the explanation shows a deep understanding of the technology, but also a good grasp of what matters politically.
From the email shown in the photo, it seems like DOGE was trying to build and run a docker container using Integuru (YC W24) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41983409 to scrape the system
I was wondering when Y Combinator affiliated companies were going to show up to help DOGE dismantle democracy, and it looks like we've found the first instance.
It's just docker containers. As a technical person I was confused reading that at least 3 times until I made the mental connection that it's docker containers. So yes you are right it's made to sound more opaque and nefarious than one would normally assume in our field. If they have a policy that says we can't run docker containers in network A or zone B then just say so but don't lie to make it sound like Russia Hackers. That's the kind of shit that makes fence sitters and reasonable people across the isle not trust your motives.
Anywho, this whole "opaque" or "untrusted" code running in a VM is the same lingo that big corporates use to gatekeep newer technologies that bypass traditional processes. E.g. "oh sorry you can't test locally because you need to use our officially licensed and expensive Oracle DB instance. Oh and BTW, you can't use the free container image that Oracle provides free of charge. It's running 'untrusted' code in our network." and endless variations of that.
This is a smoking gun. I'm a little shocked at how little MSM coverage
this is getting and the moral gymnastics some commentators are
performing to lend a veneer of innocence to this. It's an incident on
par with 1950s Cambridge ring [0] and I cannot understand why an
investigation team from the Pentagon are not all over this kicking-in
doors and taking names?
There will be coverage, but it has little point. The information network in America is Centre, left and centre right orgs, and then there is the Hermetically sealed Fox and related ecosystem.
So even if 2/3rds of America decide this is too much, they aren’t sufficient to shift what is covered in the idea economy and the political economy.
I just found out there’s even a book that did the ground work to make this case, in 2018. (Network propaganda.)
This is the prime reason I recommend all democracies look beyond their current leaders and grapple with the structural issues caused by capture of the media ecosystem.
Do note - this isn’t an issue of bias. There’s a protectionist economy on the right, where reality is whatever storyline they need to share.
At this point I wonder if it's fear. They were able to cover the Clinton story because they knew no harm would come to them - the government wouldn't prosecute the press. But these stories, under this government, is the sort of thing where it could end up on the wrong side of an unchecked tyrant who is increasingly vocal about their desire to ignore due process.
The media companies ate so well and grew so fat covering the rise of fascism they didn't think what would happen when it finally gained power.
It's not about your union stopping them from pulling you out of bed, it's about what happens after that. Rumeysa Ozturk, the student who was abducted in Massachusetts was a member of a union and her union immediately sprang into action. Part of the reason this was national news so quickly was because her union took to the streets.
I think a part of it is simply that the space is absolutely flooded and the public becomes almost numb to it: This administration is so absolutely rampant with criminality, constitution shredding, and just rank incompetence that reports of more of the same just doesn't trend. I mean, it's similar to the fact that Trump lies about everything constantly -- even the most meaningless facts like his height and weight -- and soon it just isn't noteworthy that he continues lying about everything constantly. When Trump is caught in an obvious lie, which is basically a daily occurrence, he doesn't apologize, he doubles down, and this is his super power, at least among his incredibly stupid fans and base.
"But her emails" was when Hillary using a private server was actually so exceptional it was like the singular thing. Trump's crew of misfits and clowns and self-dealing grifters have turned the government into a circus. They're all insider trading, launching shitcoins, turning the WH lawn into a pathetic infomercial while your commerce secretary -- Howard "Used Car Salesman" Lutnick -- is pushing stocks.
This feels funny to read, for some reasons.