0x4d464d48

Perhaps you can have this done with a POST request in the future and kill two birds with one stone.

Bitcoins are literally just pieces of a digital ledger system. No loans and all units of account are depedant exclusively on the ledger.

Regulating a bank is required because banks take in capital from account owners and take on additional risk by loaning that capital to others which may or may not get paid back. If banks lose money from bad loans to a point they dont have the cash available to service customer accounts the only thing they can tell people trying to make a withdrawel is 'tough titty'.

You don't have that problem with bitcoin. You get many other problems with it, volatile pricing and a complete inability to control money supply, but that's not one of them.

When it came to user security I _never_ fucked around. I have about 6 years of experience now and consider a trivial and catastrophic mistake like this unconscienably reckless. Never mind 20 years and experience working at a FAANG company.

More like "move fast and break yourself."

I agree with the spirit of this article, having a responsive code base with easily replaceable code. But this becomes a problem when you have a code base with sprawling legacy modules with essential functions for core customers that new code must interface with.

I worked for a company that attempted to incorporate agile methodology to add features on to a large legacy system to try and stay responsive to customer feedback. The problen was when new features were added we were only adding on to the "cruft" mentioned in the article. As unintentional as it was new code would start to tightly couple with legacy code. In spite of that we kept continuously adding new features with the predictable results of more tech debt, bugs and on-call catastrophes.

I'm all for responsive code that instantly reflects customer requirements but it requires a lot of discipline and planning.

Ideally, "legacy code" wouldnt exist at all and keeping a low half life should help with that. But in the real world, with people being the irrational, nepotic, lazy and self-deluding creatures we are, thats not going to happen. I'd caution anyone to really know what theyre doing before rationalizing poor design choices by thinking "it's not technical debt if were going to throw the code away anyway!"

I'm sure that's what the original authors were thinking when they wrote that awful legacy monstrosity you're dealing with now.

The security researchers were wrong to make this information publicly available but the fact that Parler actually put their users at risk like this with such a disturbingly glaring security flaw is absolutely infuriating and outrageous. I'm speaking as a believer in civil rights and user protection. Call it growth hacking or try to overlook this as a sympathetic mistake if you wish but this was a disgustingly reckless decision for any competent technical team to make and it deserves profound censure.

What a lot of these conversations boil down to is finding the sweet spot between over/under engineering which is subjective. Are we wasting time solving problems that dont matter or are we shipping with a 'just enough' type of mentality and risk exposing our users to buggy software?

No one likes to work with bad code but if its siloing itself into inconsequential CRUD apps or frivilous games/social media it's just annoying to experience/work with. Its when it creeps into systems or applications where consequences for failure are dire, think Lion Air crash in 2018, that Im worried.

I always wondered about that. Has there been any chatter about someone trying to get a federal court to nullify the law? I have no idea how that can work.

But the commenter is right about it being illegal at the federal level... and as a Schedule I drug on par with Heroine no less but more dangerous than Hydromorphone (HA!).

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

It's ironic that for so many Americans the idea that people should be allowed to make their own choices would be such a tough sell...

I live in Vancouver and weed's been officially legal throughout the Canada for several weeks now. It's still relatively new but nothing noticeable has changed aside from fewer people discussing such a frivilous and previously mishandled issue. It's not perfect but far, far, far better than strict prohibition with draconian sentencing laws.

What bothers me the most about this story is how marijuana is supposedly 'legal' yet some locals seem Hell-bent on treating it like an illegal and necessarily dangerous. Instead of vocferiously refusing shops to open in a municipality you'd think the free market would be enough to determine where there's not enough demand for a product.

I guess if some people prefer being judgemental and pious to actually getting a handle on social issues that's their prerogative. It's a frustrating position to reason against, in fact that almost never enters the equation, but it sure seems to resonate with a lot of people.

I'd been on it since high school in 2005 and treated it like the new version of MSN Messenger (oh 2002...). After a while it just got stale and it felt like I was pouring way too much of my personal data on to the platform. I think the turning point came after a friend of mine had committed suicide and his profile continued to live on the platform for at least a year. People kept posting to it and it just didn't sit well with me at all and I didn't like the idea of having an FB profile tombstone for myself either.

So, I nuked it. Haven't missed it for a second.

This year I learned:

- Vue.js (amazing JS framework) - F# - React/Redux - Jest - Vim (well... I should say became way more proficient) - Visual Studio which I try to avoid like the plague (I find it bulky, slow and frustrating). Thankfully a lot of their tools can be loaded through bat scripts and exe files which are independent of the IDE. That includes an excellent C# repl I can use to immediately run code as well as run C# scripts on the fly including legacy code that won't run in .NET Core. Found an ok debugger that works from outside VS but not as good as the one VS provides to be honest. - .NET core (a lot of nice things to say about this) - Azure and with a lot of mixed feelings about it.

If you're hoping to reduce use amongst the general population, legalization seems to be a better course of action than prohibition.

I don't think either of us are going to argue that no matter the legal status of marijuana there's always going to be a demand for it and a market. If you're primary objective is to mitigate harm to the public writ large, and not just scorning consumers, I can't think of anything more conducive than allowing for people to be open about their consumption habits without fear of legal reprisal so that healthy social norms and boundaries can be established.

Further, if that market is always going to exist I'd imagine you'd rather see the proceeds be cycled into legitimate enterprises that actually support society as a whole and contribute taxes rather than the black economy, which is where it's inevitably forced.

The pros far outweigh the cons here.

Same. I used to take strong exception to the idea that philosophy was worth any amount of time to study... but then I realized any argument to reject it or degrade its utility is necessarily philosophical and changed my tune.

Most people on this site are aware that objectivity and not caving to their own bias isn't easy and, more or less, requires constant effort and that is the same kind of effort that should be promoted amongst the public at large. As almost anybody here could tell you, just because something feels true certainly does not make it true but we seem to relish a culture that seems to believe that person's emotions should never be challenged and doing so is merely cruel rather than, at times, necessary.

Just because confronting bias is hard to do, and may hurt someone's feelings, doesn't mean that that bias should be ignored, or worse promoted. I'm not talking about whether or not conservatives, liberals, libertarians or whoever else is right but instead challenging the notion that what we need to promote more civic engagement is to tell people what is going on in the country and the world in a manner they want to hear it. What we should be doing is telling people what is going in the world and country in a manner that actually is and at the same time the public needs to be calling out demagogues for what they are and understanding why they are dangerous.

Disparaging others with the intention of trying to show your own value and grandstanding with no intention of actually refuting someone else's argument, isn't debate either.

Examples:

"Goddamned priveleged white males will never understand oppression like us."

or

"Liberalism is a mental disease amongst emotionally unstable snowflakes who can't think clearly like conservatives."

I know many people are above talking like that but it's not uncommon. If someone is willing to talk like that to you because you disagree with them do you really think they're going to take any interest in what you have to say that would contradict their views?

Emotion is the root of all action and social interaction. It's also why I or anyone else chooses to pursue anything intellectual. But that doesn't justify manipulating the emotions for destructive and self-serving purposes. I consider deliberately flattering people and dealing in overly simplistic platitudes to foresake intellectual honesty and reinforce their bias because they consider it comfortable to qualify as destructive and self-serving.

I like the sound of that but at the same time it gets tricky when you have a legal system that stands up for the rights of everyone, including people that you, they or I don't like. Look at the civil rights movement in the 1950's and 1960's, the current LGBT rights movements or the debates about civil rights as they pertain to Muslims. There's a plurality of citizens that would gladly chastise these groups or violate their rights in other ways such as putting them under constant surveillance or restrictions due to their religion, race or sexuality but that is incongruous with a society that holds all individuals are to be treated the same and only held to account when their actions violate a law, not before.

I'm a bigger believer that the problem is cultural when, especially in American society, we started to hold that feelings mattered far more than thought. Debate began to get watered down and the winner was not the person who could show their position reflected what was objectively true and morally correct but instead who could virtue signal the loudest and express their grievance in the most emotional manner possible. It's always 'dream this', 'dream that', 'as an American it is your God-given right to' or 'America is the best nation in the world and there's nothing we can't do' but almost never 'here are the facts about issues the Americans are facing and here are some reasonable ideas about what we can do about it. Let's discuss what you think about it'.

Politicians are very in-tuned with what people want to hear and they do tell them what they want to hear. Even worse, pundits know what people want to hear and actually have an influence on the opinions of their listeners and they'll be damned if they'll let facts and honesty get in the way of their ratings, wealth and access.

America needs to start fostering a culture where they stop equating feelings and sense of self-worth with reality before we can really start discussing how giving primers on good policy will make a difference. Until that happens it's just a waste of oxygen, ink or electricity.

When you have that mind set and start dealing with a codebase as monstrous as Google's it sounds like a recipe for some serious technical debt.

I noticed that too but my parents weren't talented in an intellectual sense. In fact, they were fairly ordinary and one was a high school drop out. I was brought up believing that science is for eggheads and worse people who spent too much time studying were socially inept and justly shunned.

Fast forward a few years. I went to university in my mid twenties and study computer science and take as many hard, ball-busting science classes I could. I noticed that a lot of the people there had already had patents who had careers in science, particularly physicians and engineers. I'd say that's very important to grow up with mentors and resources to teach you how to learn in the first place (my life has improved by orders of magnitude since I learned how to grok). Almost everyone I know who performed well in these classes put in more time studying and they struggled just as much as anyone else.

Genetics plays a role in success in science and math but socialization also plays a profound role. Maybe I just have an axe to grind but the myth of science and math being reserved for rarified genius over the curious and dedicated does a lot more harm then good.

- When the term 'sandwich' is used in reference to a bagel being used for the 'bread' there is a presumption that the bagel is sliced along a transverse equatorial plane with the hole of the bagel being orthogonal to the ground. This photo clearly defies that convention.

- A sandwich by most conventions is kept between two or more slices of bread in layers. If there are more than two layers between bread in a sandwich they are stacked vertically and separated by individual slices of bread. The subject under discussion has two layers, which is conventionally acceptable for a sandwich to have, but they are not stacked vertically. Some scholars have argued that this means that it is incorrect to call this a 'sandwich' in the singular sense but it is acceptable to call the entity a composition of 'sandwiches'.

This is just a taste of the great bagel debate currently raging across very small niches of geeks but hopefully it gives you a flavour of why no definitive answer has been accepted by the community. And this has not even touched on the bagel-complete problems such as the topological properties of the mobius bagel http://images.tastespotting.com/uploads/thumbnail/125155.jpg.

I know N=1... but when you're debating with your friends whether or not this (http://imgur.com/m52Wo4a) can be classified as a sandwich or if it warrants a new nomenclature entirely and realizing that these are the people you are associating with it's difficult to not look for answers.

I haven't read the book in this piece and not to knock on journalists but there are things about mental illness you just won't learn without exposure to it and actually working to help people recover. There is a massive problem with over prescription and this idea that mental illness can be 'cured' with medications and medications alone which is absolute flummery (but if you look at what medications bring in the most revenue, the fact this persists shouldn't surprise you).

Biggest take away is that you shouldn't view drugs as necessarily bad as this piece implies. They aren't. When you have a patient who is so depressed they can't get out of bed or another whose auditory hallucinations intensify to the point of violence the drugs are necessary but they aren't a cure. Getting over mental illness requires social support but it does at times also require psychotropic meds.

And don't get me started on the bullshit pushed by pharma a few years ago that people in pain can't get addicted to opiates. I loose it almost every time.