Pedestrian crosswalk buttons in Palo Alto and Mountain View have been reportedly hacked to play altered audio clips that sound like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg. The voices, triggered by pressing the buttons, deliver phrases related to their respective companies, like promoting Tesla vehicles or discussing the metaverse. While the source of the prank is unknown, city officials have confirmed the incidents and are working to restore the standard crossing signals.
Distro, a Y Combinator (S24) startup building tools to streamline software distribution and updates, is seeking a Marketing Lead in Palo Alto. This role will own and execute Distro's marketing strategy, focusing on content creation, community building, and demand generation to reach software developers. The ideal candidate has a proven track record in developer-focused marketing, strong communication skills, and a passion for developer tools. Experience with PLG (Product-Led Growth) and the software distribution landscape is a plus.
Several commenters on Hacker News express skepticism about the Distro marketing lead role, questioning the requested experience level for a Series A startup and the emphasis on traditional marketing tactics like billboards and radio ads. Some find the high salary ($170k-$250k) surprising for a marketing position, while others debate the effectiveness of older advertising channels versus digital strategies. A few commenters suggest the role might be better suited to someone with experience in growth marketing rather than brand marketing, given the company's stage and the nature of the product. The relatively high cost of living in Palo Alto is also mentioned as a factor influencing the salary range.
Summary of Comments ( 127 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43669151
Hacker News commenters were largely skeptical of the veracity of the article, pointing to the lack of any evidence besides hearsay and the implausibility of hacking so many crosswalk buttons undetected. Some suggested it was an April Fool's joke, despite being published on April 12th. Others speculated on how such a hack might be technically possible, focusing on the possibility of exploiting vulnerable wireless communication protocols if the buttons were indeed networked, though this was considered unlikely. Several users criticized the article's writing quality and lack of journalistic rigor, particularly its reliance on anonymous sources. The overall sentiment was one of amusement tinged with disbelief, with many expressing disappointment at the lack of concrete proof.
The Hacker News post discussing the article about hacked crosswalk buttons in Palo Alto has generated a moderate number of comments, primarily focusing on the humorous and prankster-esque nature of the incident. No one seems particularly upset or concerned about the hacking.
Several commenters express amusement at the absurdity of the situation. One commenter jokingly speculates about whether this is an early sign of an AI uprising, playing on the stereotypical tech industry anxieties around artificial intelligence. This theme of lighthearted exaggeration of the potential consequences appears in other comments as well.
A common thread among commenters is the recognition that these crosswalk buttons are often placebo buttons, meaning they don't actually affect the traffic signals. This leads to discussion about the prevalence of placebo buttons and people's experiences with them. Some share anecdotes of encountering such buttons in various locations. This reinforces the idea that the hacking is relatively harmless, as it's manipulating a system that already has a limited functional impact.
Several commenters question the veracity of the story, suggesting it might be an April Fool's joke, given the timing of the original article's publication (April 12th, close to April 1st). However, others note that the article itself mentions the timing and claims the incident is genuine.
The technical aspects of the hack are also discussed. Commenters speculate on how the buttons were likely compromised, with some suggesting access to the internal electronics, while others posit the possibility of wireless manipulation. The relative ease of such a hack is mentioned, highlighting the vulnerability of simple electronic systems.
Finally, there's a brief discussion about the legal and ethical implications. One commenter raises the question of whether this constitutes vandalism or a more serious offense, while others downplay the severity, characterizing it as harmless fun. No one expresses strong condemnation of the act.