1.4M views · Jul 31, 2010 · 4:23 · 0 HN recommenders · 4 mentions · discussed 2020–2023
The Doomsday Machine scene from Stanley Kubrick's 1964 film Dr. Strangelove, in which the Soviet doomsday device is explained.
Why Hacker News points people here: HN mostly uses it as a joke about secrecy or as an illustration of mutually assured destruction.
“The essence of MAD is that a strike is never "the" nuclear missile.”
Doomsday machine scene illustrating mutually assured destruction.
The essence of MAD is that a strike is never "the" nuclear missile. It will consist of many missiles, more warheads, and yet more decoys. this video
“ze whole point of ze secret hack is lost if you don't keep it a secret.”
How does somebody exfiltrate 34 TERABYTES from a secure facility without getting noticed? To misquote Dr. Strangelove, "ze whole point of ze secret hack is lost if you don't keep it a secret." this video Oh, maybe they have a firewall built on a RaspberryPi somebody ordered online. Seriously, WTF? This is as insecure as having contract sysadmins with root privilege spread all over the globe. And when will these state actors with unlimited funding figure out that NOBODY can keep secrets forever, not even them?
“Bonus clip”
If I understand correctly, one reason there seem to be so many results for zero-sum games is that they have defined solutions, whereas in other situations, a mathematically valid strategy is to be a jerk ("blow up the island") and attempt to take the lion's share[1] of the surplus for oneself. One of the early game theory papers considers two people with radios, parachuted onto a grid, who must rendezvous. It derives a theoretical strategy: broadcast one's location, then destroy one's radio, forcing the other player to do all the walking. Bonus clip: this video @ 3:42 whew, still there: link all OK, Boomers! @ 3:55 unlike the House of Windsor during '14-'18, Kongo-Müller didn't bother to change his name: link (esp. 53:40-56:15) Those who prefer their skulls virtual are advised to avoid 30:10-33:30 and instead regard link [1] link
“Couldn't not read that in Peter Sellers' voice”
> ... where this is not only possible, but the common case. Couldn't not read that in Peter Sellers' voice this video > ... to find a 630 lines long test "case" with 22 nondescript assertions along the way. This is where tech team managers are abrogating their responsibility and job. It's the job of the organization to set policy standards to outlaw things like this. It's the job of the developer to cut as many corners of those policies as possible to ship code ASAP. And it's the job of a tech team manager to set up a detailed but efficient process (code review sign offs!) that paper over the gap between the two in a sane way. ... none of which helps immediately with a legacy codebase that's @$&@'d, though.
