Buge

Do you have a source for your claim that code examples with Alice and Bob with she/he pronouns are not accepted on Stack Exchange? I haven't seen any claim like that before.

Monica wanted to write in a way such that she would never use the words "he", "she", or singular "they". Stack Exchange said it's not OK to write in a restricted way like that, the words must be used.

1 was fired. 73 then left in support of her.

On a mod and employee chat group, they were discussing a new future code of conduct. One element said "You must use people's preferred pronouns if given". A mod (volunteer) (Monica) said "Is it OK if I never use any 3rd person singular pronouns?" She got no answer for a while and was then fired as a mod on Friday at 6pm less than 1 hour before before Shabbat and Rosh Hashana (she is Jewish and a mod of the Jewish Stack Exchange). Stack exchange published a note saying she broke the code of conduct. 73 other mods then either resigned or went inactive.

On the other hand, he gave $37 million to various schools, which those schools might be using for scholarships for a number of students not standing on a multi-billion dollar pie.

Your interpretation is likely right. But it's interesting to consider the other. Maybe they can get metadata from the ciphertext, such as size. Or maybe they are just interested in other metadata such as time. Or maybe they have some cryptographic attacks, maybe involving extracting a shared key from the peer's phone, or key injection via sim spoofing.

> “There are many franchises and temples of products and services that we offer,” said Matthew Hutchison, a Forbes spokesperson. “It is one of many in our constellation.”

Those are some interesting word choices. I wonder what "temples" means in this context.

So it has 1 second of startup cost? I have a hard time believing uBlock would add that much time to every request. Ideally this would make a more realistic measurement that doesn't include startup cost.

Or maybe it's just random variation.

What if you use a firewall provided by AWS or GCP?

They were organizing on 4chan, and posting the troll messages on Twitter.

They didn't put in code to block Tay from promoting cryptocurrency ponzi schemes, does that mean the developers support cryptocurrency ponzi schemes?

If "otherwise take care" means block every form of bad thing, they aren't otherwise taking care.

Just because a developer doesn't intentionally put in code to block racism doesn't mean the developer is biased.

>> “Garbage in, garbage out,” software engineers say. Likewise, racism in, racism out. Biased developers produce biased code.

Every sentence individually is true. And Tay was a case of garbage in garbage out. But the Tay case didn't involve biased developers. The garbage in came from Twitter trolls, not from the code or developers.

Yeah, it is somewhat strange. But the previous 2 posts (3 days ago and 7 days ago) don't have any comments.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21004053

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20963807

It sounds like early on the US government said it was inconclusive in order to not offend South Africa and Israel. But more recently, people have been saying it was a nuclear test.

> A December 2016 report by William Burr and Avner Cohen of George Washington University's National Security Archive and Nuclear Proliferation International History Project noted that the debate over the South Atlantic flash has shifted over the last few years, on the side of a man-made weapon test.[1] The National Security Archive briefing concluded:

>> A Central Intelligence Agency-sponsored panel of well-respected scientists concluded that a mysterious flash detected by a U.S. Vela satellite over the South Atlantic on the night of 22 September 1979 was likely a nuclear test.

> The newly released research and subsequent report was largely based upon recently declassified documents in files at the National Archives of Gerard C. Smith, a former Ambassador and special envoy on nuclear nonproliferation during Jimmy Carter's presidency.[1][60][5] Smith had once said: "I was never able to break free from the thought that the event was a joint operation between Israel and South Africa." The documents cited a June 1980 U.S. State Department report where Defense Intelligence Agency Vice Director Jack Varona had said the ensuing U.S. investigation was a "white wash, due to political considerations" based on "flimsy evidence". He added that the "weight of the evidence pointed towards a nuclear event" and cited hydroacoustic data analyzed by the Naval Research Laboratory. The data, he suggested, involved "signals ... unique to nuclear shots in a maritime environment" and emanating from the area of "shallow waters between Prince Edward and Marion Islands, south-east of South Africa".[1][5][60]

> In 2018, a new study made the case for the double flash being a nuclear test.[6][7][61][62]

Vulnerabilities can be used to cause crashes.

In fact, generally a memory safety vulnerability will initially manifest itself as a crash before a more advanced targeted exploit can be used against it.

>a search engine that doesn't exist yet

If you want to stop something, it's easiest to stop it before it exists. Otherwise you have to overcome the status quo, which is hard.

Sounds very similar to Robert Kennedy Jr.'s intense political anti-vax campaign. He's widely criticized in the media for it (same as Arthur Conan Doyle) but believes he's doing the right thing and will be proved right in the end, just like Doyle.

Doyle:

>"It is time which will prove our cause," he wrote. "Time will also prove to those who have misrepresented us that they are playing with fire. They are not judging the Unseen. The Unseen is judging them."

Kennedy:

> “One thing that keeps me buoyant about this, because otherwise, I’d be depressed,” he said. “I know I’m gonna win this one. I have the ability to push this over the finish line. I know I do. The truth will prevail.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/robert-ken...

I still don't understand why you would prefer if Brave was based on Firefox instead of Chrome. One of your comments sounds like you're worried about Brave inserting tracking. Brave could do that regardless of what it's based on.

They worked on Ted Cruz's campaign and he lost.

Is Google saying "everyone should just.."? It sounds like jgunsch's comment is about "what should we (Google) do?". That is, should Google bid on the JEDI military contract, should Google make a censored search product in China.

>An organization(in this case, a for-profit company) created to deliver products and services to consumers and advertisers playing politics on the world stage is laughable at best, and downright irresponsible at worst.

Most large companies have lobbyists. That's much more "playing politics" than simply deciding not to bid on a military contract.

Hmm, I think part of that has already been implemented by certificate transparency. But the reason it didn't block this attack is that CT is only enforced against public CAs, not custom installed CAs. The reason it's not enforced against custom CAs is that for people who do development and need to debug their own traffic, it's not feasible to have them submit to CT logs.

It sounds like you want all domains to be divided into 2 categories: testing/internal domains, and real domains. Where in real domains only public CAs with valid CT entries would be trusted, but in testing domains custom CAs are allowed. Maybe we could go even a step further in the division and disallow public CAs from testing domains. There's of course the question of how to distinguish a real donation from a testing domain; maybe this could be done by saying all testing domains must be in a special TLD such as .local or .testing .

This might work, but it it's still restricting developers, because if they need to debug some problem they have less options on how to do it. There might be a problem with cookies on the real domain that won't reproduce on the testing domain. And they need to maintain 2 server configs instead of 1, 1 for each domain.

Don't comment about downvotes.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

What do you mean by "broadly supported"? Do you want browsers to make it impossible to install custom CAs?

From the language standpoint, the inline specifier doesn't force the compiler to inline the function. But I guess some compilers could provide guarantees that go beyond what the spec says.

While specifying inline alone is useless for optimization, the inline specifier is important for another type of optimization: putting a function in a header file. If you put a function in a header file and don't mark it inline, that tends to be undefined behavior because it tends to violate the One Definition Rule, (both C and C++).

>Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

>for a target percentage of time—say, 99.9 percent—the network can handle all data traffic, so there is no need to keep any links idle. During that 0.01 percent of time, the model also keeps the data dropped as low as possible.

99.9 + 0.01 != 100

The fact that it injected something wasn't hidden. The fact that it injected a unique ID wasn't documented, thus could be considered hidden.