I think one thing that is massively underestimated is that back in those days, there was no 'establishment' open source. In relative terms a big thing could come from anywhere because the proverbial pond was small and not well developed.
The thing is that people from that relatively small pond grew up and started becoming major sources of influence in the industry and cause the formerly small pond to suddenly get real big.
Now a lot of the same stuff happens, but no one takes note of it. The userbase of a 'uselessly niche' linux distro now is so low that we ignore it, but if you compared their userbase against the userbase in the late 90s, that niche distro may cover what would have been the vast majority.
Linux users laughed at those on Windows tied into their app ecosystems saying if it were opensource
Here is where the Linux users were wrong, but it would have been easy to not grasp that since at the time there was no evidence of insurmountable momentum in open source land. Now we have seen the reality, that closed or open source momentum is a huge thing. The power of brandnig is strong and the only times a 'fork' succeed for any remotely prominent project is when some trademark holder with absolutely zero technical skin in the game scares off the entire technical community. There's still plenty of adventures in open source, but there is now an 'establishment' open source, and the people who controlled the dialog in the 90s still largely control it and are now more set in their ways.
The thing is I don't think this is even a little bit of money, in practical terms this recall is free. This isn't a hard choice for them. Now when something costs some money and is not directly associated with a safety related part of the car but arguably could indirectly cause a safety risk, then we can evaluate their response versus other companies.
I think even '$100 a pop' would be insanely high cost to assign a quick check of a seatbeat assembly that can be probably done in a minute in the parking lot. A typical oil change costs under $20 and that actually involves moving a car into the service bay, using up a filter and oil, getting under the car/jacking up the car, the associated liability risk associated with doing all that, and time to get the oil out. Compared to that opening the door and checking out a seatbelt attachment is nothing.
That's also assuming 100% participation rate in the recall. For run of the mill recalls, participation rate generally peaks no higher than 75%. I would expect this one to be even lower since most folks will feel assured with a self-check and not bother.
A 'recall' does not mean 'we are spending money to replace cars' or anything. In this case, it's saying 'bring in your car so we can do a quick check on whether there was a manufacturing mistake. This is probably a minute of a technician's time to check. This is a good thing, but it's nothing to bow down and worship them over either.
Note that a lot of games I revisit are not on the popular list.
I do however wonder if finally getting into the x86 architecture means they will have more x86 sensibility with respect to backwards compatibility moving forward.... On the other hand they may recognize the cash cow for now work that is rereleasing...
I suspect more it's a carry over of the capability from PS3. Not the original hardware capability to play the discs, but the later capability they had to help developers massage PS2 games to work on PS3 through their online store. It wasn't able to flat out run an existing game unmodified, but mitigated the amount of stuff a developer had to do to get it to run on a PS3 by emulating a lot of the stuff that was within reach.
This is precisely why I'm shying away from console games now. It wasn't too bad when the PC would gain emulation for the console titles over time (e.g. I can play nes, snes, n64, gameboy, playstation, playstation 2, gamecube, psp, nintendo ds, and wii titles fine on PC now), but as of PS3/Xbox360, things have gotten to the point where the chances of workable emulation are limited for the forseeable future.
PS2 is easier. Note this is probably like the PS1 emulation in PSP, good enough to work almost all the time, but limited by Sony to make sure a given title works and/or is tweaked to work under the emulator before blessing it.
Also, porting from PS3 might be more in reach for companies than PS2 back catalog, simply because being newer means they are more likely to still have the assets to build the title.
enterprise software... intuitive UI and documented processes
Welcome to the business world. Enterprise software has thus far been almost universally plagued with poor UI and documentation. The people subjected to the software are not the people who make the business decision to use it. Made worse as the companies realized poor UI and documentation actually made for lucrative 'service' business.
Sadly, in the enterprise space there is rarely a competitor that will have both a better product *and* the requisite business connections.
Problem is there's a lot of awkwardness to reconcile. Off the top of my head: -Background execution managed by a notification icon -Things like accelerometer, magnet, gps, and other sensor data inputs -Low level data from the cellular radio
Now for something like an angry birds, the bar is probably pretty low. If you want to claim support for 'everything', well that's a whole world of possible hurt.
However supporting the common pieces that a lot stick to because they are already trying to have consistent experience between Apple and Google may not be too unreasonable, with developer cooperation...
Once anything as trivial as a type of meeting or process gets hyped to the point of being capitalized as a proper noun, it's screwed.
No matter how well intended and thought out the underlying principle, once it gets 'adopted' it will bear no resemblance to the vision that it was created with.
If something is more concrete, specific, and is in no way able to be 'interpreted', it has a chance, but words like Scrum, Agile, Epics, et al are screwed.
nvidia is pumping out 2.9 TFlop DP on their K80 (on paper). Of course on paper the numbers are as good as imaginary (across the board, Rpeak has been more and more a fantasy over time).
So the product is Intel's not quite released compute accelerator, featuring new micro architecture, memory technology, and using the latest chip fab capabilities.
The most readily available competition with released numbers is an nVidia K80, a year old product using 5 year old memory technology, 5 year old chip fab capabilities, Set to be superseded by their refresh using state of the art fab, memory, and microarchitecture, which would actually compete toe to toe with what Intel announced.
This *should* make for an unambiguous trouncing of the nVidia product by Intel. So let's compare some metrics (not the best mechanism, but without real world numbers, settling for Rpeak and such). Compute stands at 10TFlops SP and 2.9 TFlops DP on the K80, meaning Intel's brand new offering doesn't reach the SP performance of an 'ancient' product and barely edges them out on DP. Memory capacity is actually lower than the K80 as well (16 GB intel v 24GB nvidia).
There is of course chance that even when going toe to toe with Pascal, that the ability to actually extract the promised performance will be better, but given how this doesn't unambiguously trump the K80 on paper, it's quite likely that Pascal will be overwhelming.
I also think the MIC product line will become redundant around Sky Lake dual socket time, when the main processor line starts having the AVX512 goodness.
But content creation.... Part of the charm is for DMs to tell a story, hand wave an environment, etc. They rely heavily upon the players imagination to fill in the gaps. They will handwave if the player goes in an unexpected direction.
Designing a scenario is easier than making a game (character design and level design and such is tedious, and has a learning curve.
When a business achieves overwhelming success in an area and is recognized as the market leader, it is very difficult for that company to adopt a strategy that could be seen as disruptive to the way they know the market has worked to date.
I personally could not imagine being confined to the way iphone/ipad/android work for all my stuff. For occasional travel I could make do, but if I was traveling in a professional or extended trip, I need a desktop/laptop type access. I prefer linux desktop, but Windows or OSX is serviceable.
Of course this is very very bad development for those of us who need PCs. To the extent it is a high volume industry, low margins and therefore low cost become accessible. The more volume decreases, the higher risk of higher margins demanded by all in the chain.
I'm saying that while you take the regrettable, but necessary violent action to stop the threat and try to unravel things at the top, you also acknowledge that declaring 'evil' and brushing every other consideration under the rug exacerbates how many people are helping the 'evil' cause going forward.
Being 100% non-violent would be ineffectual. However, doing *only* the violent response fails to adequately mitigate the risk.
The core of utterly irredeemable evil actors within ISIS could not put fourth the power and authority they do without the efforts of a lot of actors who are not so hard core. Also single minded focus on the violent response without other considerations creates more fresh recruits. A would-be martyr is killed either way with needed violent action, but additional non-violent action is needed to make sure most people have all the data and not consider him a martyr and instead a crazy and/or evil actor putting *everyone* at risk.
Note that 'violence is not the answer' was directed toward ISIS folks, not to our response to ISIS. Note that ISIS is much much larger than the folks that speak and control the rhetoric. The crazy people are empowered in part by our inability and/or unwillingness to make a compelling counter perspective to the folks that get caught up in ISIS nonsense. If there was news that snipers took out a group of people widely believed to be accomplices of ISIS, there would be cheers. That's how ISIS recruits view the executions that ISIS does.
Again, not to say that the way of countering the actions must be non-violent, but we must move forward with an awareness and a strategy that addresses the nuance of the situation and do whatever may help for mitigating their recruitment and even inspiring defection when possible. We cannot afford to avoid a violent response, but we must go further than that in addressing the threat.
The unfortunate thing is that I think his short, misguided message shows signs of a thoughtful nuanced consideration of the circumstances. ISIS does something and it rapidly degenerates into a broad set of racist generalization and apathy toward the innocent near ISIS.
In the wake of an ISIS attack that indiscriminately kills innocent civilians a lot of the knee-jerk is to respond in kind, to the point of many loud folks wouldn't mind 'carpet bombing' known places of ISIS gatherings, being completely thoughtless of the collateral damage. Innocents dying on the other side then contributes to escalation, as more people on both sides become more and more desperate to see vengeance carried out.
Now the military activity seems to be currently controlled by folks with cooler heads with a focus on trying to be precise and minimize collateral damage, but the state of public rhetoric is enough to push haste that could cause mistakes, or mis-characterize a precision strike effort as a 'carpet bombing'. which could dangerously rile up candidates for ISIS recruitment. It's worth taking a moment to be very precise about who the enemy is, and how they came to have enough power to carry out the evil stuff that's happening. The answer must acknowledge that not every person that they manipulate to their cause is evil or even particularly aware of the big picture, acting only on their perception of events shaped by ISIS propaganda.
Unfortunately, just because not all of them are evil, that makes them no less dangerous. However if you acknowledge that not all are evil, you may be able to get the big picture narrative far enough to win over a few ISIS aligned folks or at least mitigate risk of others joining. That's not to say to do say in lieu of military action, but if you can get that narrative so pervasive that it touches folks you don't even know are connected to ISIS, there's at least some chance for upside, but not much chance for downside. The problem is that such a nuanced approach doesn't sit well. Acknowledging the peaceful method and doing military action against them at the same time means you are humanizing them and killing them at the same time. This is and has been the reality of war from the beginning of man, but to acknowledge that reality is a huge problem for the way we are wired emotionally.
So for various unfortunate reasons, I've recently had to have Windows on my system. I struggled a long time before settling on my strategy: Install latest git for windows, git bash comes with the right sort of mintty with a shell that behaves sane with respect to Windows conventions while having bash. I go into settings and enable the ctl-shift shortcuts and off I go. No tabs, but otherwise makes me not miss the Linux terminals as badly.
Things I tried but did not like: PuTTY: Obviously, no local capability, but even for remote hopping about the CLI is more convenient than the Putty connect dialog. I keep it around for serial connectivity in a pinch. MobaXterm: Handy for the canned X server, but the filesystem perspective it presents is totally alien to the 'real' windows filesystem, and it insists on useless toolbars and such that are just a waste of my screen space. A *lot* of terminals insist on toolbars, don't want them. I keep around when there's the rare need to do X forwarding but I have not set up Xpra on the target ConEmu: Falls short in the VT emulation, there's a lot it can't render. That said it's pretty good for powershell and such.
Note I also install alt-drag as a matter of course.
The logic being that the deaths are *caused* by resistance to constructing newer, so power plants have had to do their best to extend the serviceable life of less safe reactors. It'd be one thing if the result were *shutting down* the reactors and not building new ones, but here we have the worst of both worlds, no newer reactors with safer designs, but still running older ones that are actually the problem. Newer designs engineer to address some of the most dangerous aspects.
Now I'm not sure I buy into the logic. A nuclear power plant being constructed, refit, or even being decommissioned is a huge expense. I suspect if the power companies really wanted the ability to spend their money building new reactors, they would have been able to. It seems likely the 'anti-nuke' sentiment is a convenient excuse for not spending money. For evidence, they have not been forced to shut down their current reactors, which would have happened if anti-nuke sentiment were really that potent.
Distributions that have made strict use of SELinux to tightly lock things down may be 'decent' to security folks, but terrible to use, causing people to just turn it off.
Distributions that have piled tons of permissive policies to make some moderately useful environment get derided by security folks as being too lax, though they at least get to enforce the restrictions they designed.
It's impossible to make both people trying to get their work done and hard core security guys happy...
That's the real key take away, and the point people like to talk past. It's like a full harness versus a seat belt. A full harness would be objectively safer if used, but fewer people are going to go to the hassle of connecting up a full harness every time they drive and so the seatbelt from a practical standpoint is the better choice to offer to customers of the automotive industry.
The problem is that invoking the word 'security' by itself can be speaking to reasonable application of good practices to pretty insane stuff.
This is a problem that continues to plague the industry, where you have 'developers' who are forgiven for not understanding security practices and try to work around that by adding a 'security' team who do not understand the actual functional goals or a lot of reality of how things are used. Both sides are at fault, but the developers producing the actual requested functionality get benefit of the doubt in perception in wider area.
Slashdot Mirror
I think one thing that is massively underestimated is that back in those days, there was no 'establishment' open source. In relative terms a big thing could come from anywhere because the proverbial pond was small and not well developed.
The thing is that people from that relatively small pond grew up and started becoming major sources of influence in the industry and cause the formerly small pond to suddenly get real big.
Now a lot of the same stuff happens, but no one takes note of it. The userbase of a 'uselessly niche' linux distro now is so low that we ignore it, but if you compared their userbase against the userbase in the late 90s, that niche distro may cover what would have been the vast majority.
Linux users laughed at those on Windows tied into their app ecosystems saying if it were opensource
Here is where the Linux users were wrong, but it would have been easy to not grasp that since at the time there was no evidence of insurmountable momentum in open source land. Now we have seen the reality, that closed or open source momentum is a huge thing. The power of brandnig is strong and the only times a 'fork' succeed for any remotely prominent project is when some trademark holder with absolutely zero technical skin in the game scares off the entire technical community. There's still plenty of adventures in open source, but there is now an 'establishment' open source, and the people who controlled the dialog in the 90s still largely control it and are now more set in their ways.
The thing is I don't think this is even a little bit of money, in practical terms this recall is free. This isn't a hard choice for them. Now when something costs some money and is not directly associated with a safety related part of the car but arguably could indirectly cause a safety risk, then we can evaluate their response versus other companies.
I think even '$100 a pop' would be insanely high cost to assign a quick check of a seatbeat assembly that can be probably done in a minute in the parking lot. A typical oil change costs under $20 and that actually involves moving a car into the service bay, using up a filter and oil, getting under the car/jacking up the car, the associated liability risk associated with doing all that, and time to get the oil out. Compared to that opening the door and checking out a seatbelt attachment is nothing.
That's also assuming 100% participation rate in the recall. For run of the mill recalls, participation rate generally peaks no higher than 75%. I would expect this one to be even lower since most folks will feel assured with a self-check and not bother.
A 'recall' does not mean 'we are spending money to replace cars' or anything. In this case, it's saying 'bring in your car so we can do a quick check on whether there was a manufacturing mistake. This is probably a minute of a technician's time to check. This is a good thing, but it's nothing to bow down and worship them over either.
Note that a lot of games I revisit are not on the popular list.
I do however wonder if finally getting into the x86 architecture means they will have more x86 sensibility with respect to backwards compatibility moving forward.... On the other hand they may recognize the cash cow for now work that is rereleasing...
I suspect more it's a carry over of the capability from PS3. Not the original hardware capability to play the discs, but the later capability they had to help developers massage PS2 games to work on PS3 through their online store. It wasn't able to flat out run an existing game unmodified, but mitigated the amount of stuff a developer had to do to get it to run on a PS3 by emulating a lot of the stuff that was within reach.
This is precisely why I'm shying away from console games now. It wasn't too bad when the PC would gain emulation for the console titles over time (e.g. I can play nes, snes, n64, gameboy, playstation, playstation 2, gamecube, psp, nintendo ds, and wii titles fine on PC now), but as of PS3/Xbox360, things have gotten to the point where the chances of workable emulation are limited for the forseeable future.
PS2 is easier. Note this is probably like the PS1 emulation in PSP, good enough to work almost all the time, but limited by Sony to make sure a given title works and/or is tweaked to work under the emulator before blessing it.
Also, porting from PS3 might be more in reach for companies than PS2 back catalog, simply because being newer means they are more likely to still have the assets to build the title.
enterprise software ... intuitive UI and documented processes
Welcome to the business world. Enterprise software has thus far been almost universally plagued with poor UI and documentation. The people subjected to the software are not the people who make the business decision to use it. Made worse as the companies realized poor UI and documentation actually made for lucrative 'service' business.
Sadly, in the enterprise space there is rarely a competitor that will have both a better product *and* the requisite business connections.
Problem is there's a lot of awkwardness to reconcile. Off the top of my head:
-Background execution managed by a notification icon
-Things like accelerometer, magnet, gps, and other sensor data inputs
-Low level data from the cellular radio
Now for something like an angry birds, the bar is probably pretty low. If you want to claim support for 'everything', well that's a whole world of possible hurt.
However supporting the common pieces that a lot stick to because they are already trying to have consistent experience between Apple and Google may not be too unreasonable, with developer cooperation...
To be fair, a company like MS will 'delay' a project a lot before admitting publicly that it's a lost cause...
Once anything as trivial as a type of meeting or process gets hyped to the point of being capitalized as a proper noun, it's screwed.
No matter how well intended and thought out the underlying principle, once it gets 'adopted' it will bear no resemblance to the vision that it was created with.
If something is more concrete, specific, and is in no way able to be 'interpreted', it has a chance, but words like Scrum, Agile, Epics, et al are screwed.
nvidia is pumping out 2.9 TFlop DP on their K80 (on paper). Of course on paper the numbers are as good as imaginary (across the board, Rpeak has been more and more a fantasy over time).
So the product is Intel's not quite released compute accelerator, featuring new micro architecture, memory technology, and using the latest chip fab capabilities.
The most readily available competition with released numbers is an nVidia K80, a year old product using 5 year old memory technology, 5 year old chip fab capabilities, Set to be superseded by their refresh using state of the art fab, memory, and microarchitecture, which would actually compete toe to toe with what Intel announced.
This *should* make for an unambiguous trouncing of the nVidia product by Intel. So let's compare some metrics (not the best mechanism, but without real world numbers, settling for Rpeak and such).
Compute stands at 10TFlops SP and 2.9 TFlops DP on the K80, meaning Intel's brand new offering doesn't reach the SP performance of an 'ancient' product and barely edges them out on DP.
Memory capacity is actually lower than the K80 as well (16 GB intel v 24GB nvidia).
There is of course chance that even when going toe to toe with Pascal, that the ability to actually extract the promised performance will be better, but given how this doesn't unambiguously trump the K80 on paper, it's quite likely that Pascal will be overwhelming.
I also think the MIC product line will become redundant around Sky Lake dual socket time, when the main processor line starts having the AVX512 goodness.
But content creation.... Part of the charm is for DMs to tell a story, hand wave an environment, etc. They rely heavily upon the players imagination to fill in the gaps. They will handwave if the player goes in an unexpected direction.
Designing a scenario is easier than making a game (character design and level design and such is tedious, and has a learning curve.
When a business achieves overwhelming success in an area and is recognized as the market leader, it is very difficult for that company to adopt a strategy that could be seen as disruptive to the way they know the market has worked to date.
I personally could not imagine being confined to the way iphone/ipad/android work for all my stuff. For occasional travel I could make do, but if I was traveling in a professional or extended trip, I need a desktop/laptop type access. I prefer linux desktop, but Windows or OSX is serviceable.
Of course this is very very bad development for those of us who need PCs. To the extent it is a high volume industry, low margins and therefore low cost become accessible. The more volume decreases, the higher risk of higher margins demanded by all in the chain.
I'm saying that while you take the regrettable, but necessary violent action to stop the threat and try to unravel things at the top, you also acknowledge that declaring 'evil' and brushing every other consideration under the rug exacerbates how many people are helping the 'evil' cause going forward.
Being 100% non-violent would be ineffectual. However, doing *only* the violent response fails to adequately mitigate the risk.
The core of utterly irredeemable evil actors within ISIS could not put fourth the power and authority they do without the efforts of a lot of actors who are not so hard core. Also single minded focus on the violent response without other considerations creates more fresh recruits. A would-be martyr is killed either way with needed violent action, but additional non-violent action is needed to make sure most people have all the data and not consider him a martyr and instead a crazy and/or evil actor putting *everyone* at risk.
Note that 'violence is not the answer' was directed toward ISIS folks, not to our response to ISIS. Note that ISIS is much much larger than the folks that speak and control the rhetoric. The crazy people are empowered in part by our inability and/or unwillingness to make a compelling counter perspective to the folks that get caught up in ISIS nonsense. If there was news that snipers took out a group of people widely believed to be accomplices of ISIS, there would be cheers. That's how ISIS recruits view the executions that ISIS does.
Again, not to say that the way of countering the actions must be non-violent, but we must move forward with an awareness and a strategy that addresses the nuance of the situation and do whatever may help for mitigating their recruitment and even inspiring defection when possible. We cannot afford to avoid a violent response, but we must go further than that in addressing the threat.
The unfortunate thing is that I think his short, misguided message shows signs of a thoughtful nuanced consideration of the circumstances. ISIS does something and it rapidly degenerates into a broad set of racist generalization and apathy toward the innocent near ISIS.
In the wake of an ISIS attack that indiscriminately kills innocent civilians a lot of the knee-jerk is to respond in kind, to the point of many loud folks wouldn't mind 'carpet bombing' known places of ISIS gatherings, being completely thoughtless of the collateral damage. Innocents dying on the other side then contributes to escalation, as more people on both sides become more and more desperate to see vengeance carried out.
Now the military activity seems to be currently controlled by folks with cooler heads with a focus on trying to be precise and minimize collateral damage, but the state of public rhetoric is enough to push haste that could cause mistakes, or mis-characterize a precision strike effort as a 'carpet bombing'. which could dangerously rile up candidates for ISIS recruitment. It's worth taking a moment to be very precise about who the enemy is, and how they came to have enough power to carry out the evil stuff that's happening. The answer must acknowledge that not every person that they manipulate to their cause is evil or even particularly aware of the big picture, acting only on their perception of events shaped by ISIS propaganda.
Unfortunately, just because not all of them are evil, that makes them no less dangerous. However if you acknowledge that not all are evil, you may be able to get the big picture narrative far enough to win over a few ISIS aligned folks or at least mitigate risk of others joining. That's not to say to do say in lieu of military action, but if you can get that narrative so pervasive that it touches folks you don't even know are connected to ISIS, there's at least some chance for upside, but not much chance for downside. The problem is that such a nuanced approach doesn't sit well. Acknowledging the peaceful method and doing military action against them at the same time means you are humanizing them and killing them at the same time. This is and has been the reality of war from the beginning of man, but to acknowledge that reality is a huge problem for the way we are wired emotionally.
So for various unfortunate reasons, I've recently had to have Windows on my system. I struggled a long time before settling on my strategy:
Install latest git for windows, git bash comes with the right sort of mintty with a shell that behaves sane with respect to Windows conventions while having bash. I go into settings and enable the ctl-shift shortcuts and off I go. No tabs, but otherwise makes me not miss the Linux terminals as badly.
Things I tried but did not like:
PuTTY: Obviously, no local capability, but even for remote hopping about the CLI is more convenient than the Putty connect dialog. I keep it around for serial connectivity in a pinch.
MobaXterm: Handy for the canned X server, but the filesystem perspective it presents is totally alien to the 'real' windows filesystem, and it insists on useless toolbars and such that are just a waste of my screen space. A *lot* of terminals insist on toolbars, don't want them. I keep around when there's the rare need to do X forwarding but I have not set up Xpra on the target
ConEmu: Falls short in the VT emulation, there's a lot it can't render. That said it's pretty good for powershell and such.
Note I also install alt-drag as a matter of course.
The logic being that the deaths are *caused* by resistance to constructing newer, so power plants have had to do their best to extend the serviceable life of less safe reactors. It'd be one thing if the result were *shutting down* the reactors and not building new ones, but here we have the worst of both worlds, no newer reactors with safer designs, but still running older ones that are actually the problem. Newer designs engineer to address some of the most dangerous aspects.
Now I'm not sure I buy into the logic. A nuclear power plant being constructed, refit, or even being decommissioned is a huge expense. I suspect if the power companies really wanted the ability to spend their money building new reactors, they would have been able to. It seems likely the 'anti-nuke' sentiment is a convenient excuse for not spending money. For evidence, they have not been forced to shut down their current reactors, which would have happened if anti-nuke sentiment were really that potent.
Depends on your definition of 'decent'.
Distributions that have made strict use of SELinux to tightly lock things down may be 'decent' to security folks, but terrible to use, causing people to just turn it off.
Distributions that have piled tons of permissive policies to make some moderately useful environment get derided by security folks as being too lax, though they at least get to enforce the restrictions they designed.
It's impossible to make both people trying to get their work done and hard core security guys happy...
that doesn't inconvenience the user.
That's the real key take away, and the point people like to talk past. It's like a full harness versus a seat belt. A full harness would be objectively safer if used, but fewer people are going to go to the hassle of connecting up a full harness every time they drive and so the seatbelt from a practical standpoint is the better choice to offer to customers of the automotive industry.
The problem is that invoking the word 'security' by itself can be speaking to reasonable application of good practices to pretty insane stuff.
This is a problem that continues to plague the industry, where you have 'developers' who are forgiven for not understanding security practices and try to work around that by adding a 'security' team who do not understand the actual functional goals or a lot of reality of how things are used. Both sides are at fault, but the developers producing the actual requested functionality get benefit of the doubt in perception in wider area.