5 ms·

Around two months ago I stopped by the building and saw through a window that the interior seemed mostly untouched. So, out of concern for the condition of any

Around two months ago I stopped by the building and saw through a window that the interior seemed mostly untouched. So, out of concern for the condition of any items that may still be inside, I snooped around the perimeter looking for a way in until a very loud intercom told me to get off the property. Probably not the reason for this announcement but I can’t help but feel partially responsible. The RE-PC vintage computing warehouse nearby also has a small museum with equipment going back to the 60s, you can’t touch anything but other sections of the warehouse have plenty of 90s and 2000s desktops set up that you can play with. It’s a good place to look for ancient cables, obscure controllers (I saw two SideWinders there last time), and older displays, I’m planning to go back to pick up the Apple Studio CRT https://everymac.com/monitors/apple/studio_cinema/specs/apple_studio_display_17_cl.html https://everymac.com/monitors/apple/studio_cinema/specs/appl...

lilyball 2y ago
> So, out of concern for the condition of any items that may still be inside, I snooped around the perimeter looking for a way in How does concern for the items inside lead you to looking for a way to break in?
- kragen 2y ago
  if the building is unguarded and full of valuable items, someone will loot it. if you're the one that loots it, you get to decide what happens to them. if you don't, someone else will
  - filoleg 2y ago
    Eeeeh, I think there is a more good-faith take on the events. My personal take is that they were just trying to do the meatspace equivalent of a bug bounty, without even attempting to touch or take any items. Kinda like how, typically, you would be incliner to file user bugs and report any vulnerabilities you find in a product you care about. Despite having zero monetary incentive to do so (more often than not).
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - squigz 2y ago
    I love HN morality takes.
  - lobsterthief 2y ago
    I’m sorry but that’s a terrible take > Someone else might loot it, and they could do who knows what with it, so I’ll loot it instead
    - kragen 2y ago
      it's obviously self-serving and can be used to justify just about any act
      - unethical_ban 2y ago
        Bad take, unsolicited pentesting can be a net positive without being exploitative.
        kragen 2y ago
        it can be used to justify good acts too, not just bad ones
  - sandwitches 2y ago
    Shhh, you said the quiet part out loud!
  - xeonmc 2y ago
    National Treasure 3: Relics of the Silicon Valley
    - kragen 2y ago
      in this case it's a relic of boston tho
- Aeolun 2y ago
  Question to see if they’re not being neglected? It wouldn’t be the first financially failed museum that thinks just letting the building fall into disrepair is a cheap way of getting rid of their collection.
- sparky_z 2y ago
  They didn't say they intended to break in, they said they looked to see if there was a way to break in. If they could see a way, then so could anyone else, which would suggest that they aren't being protected. No actual ingress needed to come to that conclusion. That's my maximally charitable take, at any rate.

lilyball 2y ago

> So, out of concern for the condition of any items that may still be inside, I snooped around the perimeter looking for a way in How does concern for the items inside lead you to looking for a way to break in?

kragen 2y ago
if the building is unguarded and full of valuable items, someone will loot it. if you're the one that loots it, you get to decide what happens to them. if you don't, someone else will
- filoleg 2y ago
  Eeeeh, I think there is a more good-faith take on the events. My personal take is that they were just trying to do the meatspace equivalent of a bug bounty, without even attempting to touch or take any items. Kinda like how, typically, you would be incliner to file user bugs and report any vulnerabilities you find in a product you care about. Despite having zero monetary incentive to do so (more often than not).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- squigz 2y ago
  I love HN morality takes.
- lobsterthief 2y ago
  I’m sorry but that’s a terrible take > Someone else might loot it, and they could do who knows what with it, so I’ll loot it instead
  - kragen 2y ago
    it's obviously self-serving and can be used to justify just about any act
    - unethical_ban 2y ago
      Bad take, unsolicited pentesting can be a net positive without being exploitative.
      - kragen 2y ago
        it can be used to justify good acts too, not just bad ones
- sandwitches 2y ago
  Shhh, you said the quiet part out loud!
- xeonmc 2y ago
  National Treasure 3: Relics of the Silicon Valley
  - kragen 2y ago
    in this case it's a relic of boston tho
Aeolun 2y ago
Question to see if they’re not being neglected? It wouldn’t be the first financially failed museum that thinks just letting the building fall into disrepair is a cheap way of getting rid of their collection.
sparky_z 2y ago
They didn't say they intended to break in, they said they looked to see if there was a way to break in. If they could see a way, then so could anyone else, which would suggest that they aren't being protected. No actual ingress needed to come to that conclusion. That's my maximally charitable take, at any rate.