Hacker Read

admax88q · 2013-11-06 16:30:49

Why does everyone keep talking about removing it.

If the report is written from scratch every time, there's no need to remove the canary statement. You just don't include it in the next copy of the report.

The old statement is not changed or withdrawn, the new report just doesn't include the text.

reply

rmdashrfstar | karma 101 | avg karma 0.55 · | 2021-07-03 14:52:19

Has the canary been removed?

duxup | karma 38842 | avg karma 3.68 · | 2024-03-20 17:52:32

I suppose this IS the canary ... the removal of it ?

NotSammyHagar | karma 3011 | avg karma 1.59 · | 2020-04-22 20:30:21+00:00

you'll have to explain for that to mean anything. The associated web page doesn't give any information. Also what do you mean by removing statements.

mycall | karma 1372 | avg karma 1.04 · | 2017-09-08 02:52:35+00:00

> then be removed from Alice's report.

That's a long process (5+ years sometimes).

reply

djaykay | karma 25 | avg karma 2.78 · | 2024-03-20 17:48:03

That doesn’t seem functionally different than removing the canary.

idm | karma 1081 | avg karma 3.04 · | 2017-01-06 22:59:41

I hope it will be un-removed. This report is important.

orf | karma 17093 | avg karma 4.05 · | 2019-11-05 07:31:38

I think every developer has written the famous words: “at some point we will remove this”. The accuracy of that statement often seems to be pretty dubious.

nextaccountic | karma 4934 | avg karma 2.25 · | 2024-05-17 02:51:28

Why remove it?

jamestimmins | karma 4071 | avg karma 4.82 · | 2020-11-24 16:17:42+00:00

Why does it need to be removed?

I understand not wanting to set a precedent, but I wish more organizations adopted a mindset that the original can stay, but no others are allowed. That leaves space for a little bit of whimsy.

reply

phkahler | karma 20899 | avg karma 2.69 · | 2019-05-10 01:34:36+00:00

That whole section should just be deleted as IANAL speculation. If they're not sure about it then it's just noise. If they were sure about it, the project would be redundant.

rsync | karma 22894 | avg karma 4.62 · | 2023-01-08 01:47:58

"2. Take the canary down."

No. The canary either stays up and is freshened every week or it stays up and doesn't get freshened.

Removing it is not part of the procedure at any point.

reply

zerkten | karma 1227 | avg karma 1.81 · | 2023-07-12 09:21:25

This is probably boosting metrics so removing it would put them in the sights of management whether it's intentional, or not.

nynx | karma 2474 | avg karma 3.75 · | 2021-03-03 23:26:20

This seems accurate to me. Not sure why they'd be forced to remove it.

ceejayoz | karma 74610 | avg karma 3.33 · | 2013-03-01 10:28:08

Why do they need to remove it? It's a simple alias.

MichaelGG | karma 17386 | avg karma 2.49 · | 2015-07-13 13:58:05

Why remove it though? What harm is being caused?

flybayer | karma 249 | avg karma 2.15 · | 2021-07-19 13:20:54

Yeah we'll remove it at some point. Initially we feel it best communicates what we are building

andrewchilds | karma 197 | avg karma 4.28 · | 2016-02-17 15:25:10+00:00

Good point, we've removed that line. Thanks for your feedback!

onion2k | karma 46633 | avg karma 4.72 · | 2021-01-07 16:16:23+00:00

The suggested summary removes the 'for at least 2 weeks' bit. That's quite important.

icrbow | karma | avg karma · | 2021-11-18 09:37:06

ListT removal isn't bold. It was known for a long time that it needs to go and you should use one of the explicit alternatives instead.