IBM defines "Data Breach" as:

any security incident in which unauthorized parties gain access to sensitive data or confidential information, including personal data (Social Security numbers, bank account numbers, healthcare data) or corporate data (customer data records, intellectual property, financial information).

Despite the fact the attackers used real passwords to log in they are still an 'unauthorized party' because they are not the intended party.

It's also legally the case that using a password to access data you know you are not supposed to access still counts as 'hacking'

23 and Me are technically correct in that it's customer behaviour that caused the issue. People reused passwords and didn't use MFA.

They can claim the moral high ground if they like and shift the blame, but the truth is that regardless of WHY the breach happened, it was still a breach and it still happened!

As a software engineer, I believe there's a real argument to be made here that 23 and Me were negligent in their approach. Given the personal nature of data stored they should have enforced MFA from the start, but they did not. They made an explicit decision to choose customer convenience above customer security.

The argument that customers should have made better security decisions is evasive bullshit.

As a software engineer you cannot trust customers to take correct decisions about security. And customers should not be expected to either - they are not the experts! It's the job of IT professionals to ensure that data has an appropriate level of protection so that it is safeguarded even against naive user behaviour.

In matching pairs there is "shlick" also, which mirrors "fap" as a similarly onomatopoetic term.

What have you done

Which is of course exactly what they do think.

There are those in society who enjoy that others are poor. They enjoy it because it means by contrast they are rich and successful, even if they are nothing compared to the 1%

The idea that people working in 'mundane' jobs could afford to live and enjoy themselves is an affront to their dignity.

There's a social ladder. Everyone above is God to be worshipped, and everyone below them is trash who deserves to get pushed down.

This sort of thing is fascinating to me, including the anecdote in the article where Wofenstein players complained one team had a stronger gun, where the truth was both teams had identical-damage guns and one just sounded stronger.

Just shows that the perceived experience really is the important thing, and game designers can use all sorts of psychological tricks to tweak that subjective experience without changing the actual game mechanics at all.

They played us for absolute fools