Harkins

Thanks, I'm really glad to hear a non-rubyist liked it. You put your finger on a really hard balancing act: the more Rails and Ruby specific it is, the more I can offer really practical steps for how to improve the Rails apps I spend all day in. But the more I talk about the general stuff, the more anyone can see that there's general principles at work that are useful in understanding and improving the design that are more useful than a list of gems to use.

After I gave the talk, an audience member came and thanked me for giving such a nice Haskell talk. I said "shhhhhh!"

I didn't talk about MVVM in this talk, pretty much all of my examples were about decomposing the M.

That said, I'd love to hear what Fowler thinks of it, too.

Yep. I've also seen a few people using the same strategy I do of user+sitename.com@example.com so they can recognize when email addresses get abused and trivially filter them.

For what it's worth, I have cleaned up enough servers hacked by spammers that I'll never send one. I guess I should mention that.

[author here]

Because I'm also sending a lot more info on things I had to cut from the talk for time (eg. samples of test code). I haven't finished or polished the stuff that I knew early I had to cut, so it's coming out as I can finish it.

Sorry it was unclear, I'll improve the text on that pgae.

Wow. Not in a good way.

Sorry to cut ahead in the story, but Agent Mark Force is under indictment for abusing his position to commit theft and fraud. It is ridiculous to think of a long-term officer talking to the police without a lawyer. The idea that he would talk to a reporter is flatly unbelievable.

All this stuff about him sitting up and taking notice in a briefing or musing on his career or fluffed pillows is straight-up invented. Making up stories is not journalism. Reading this can only mislead people. This is a terrible take on an incredible story.

(blog author here, very surprised to see my old post show up)

Yeah, I think of all of these as value objects, and DDD was also a large part of my inspiration for this series of posts. This code eventually rolled into a RailsConf 2015 talk: http://railsconf.com/program#prop_1132

Justin Searls' recent talk "The Social Coding Contract" has a nice take on why expectations get so out-of-sync: http://blog.testdouble.com/posts/2014-12-02-the-social-codin...

Nobody is "the bad guy", but creators and late adopters have very different understandings of what OSS is for, why it exists, and what to expect.

I won't dispute any of the article's technical points, and I once used attached signatures for similar reasons.

But I will point out that attached signatures are unusable because you get never-ending replies from people asking what the file you attached is, why can't they open it, is it a virus, did it cause this computer problem of theirs, etc. Yes, theoretically there will one day be sufficiently clever email clients, but it's been something like twenty years and there has been nearly zero progress.

With inline signatures I could add a comment that said "If you don't know what this is, it's OK to ignore it".

Technical merits are meaningless if human factors make a security feature too confusing or hard to use. For proof of this, run 'man gpg' and then look at what percent of your inbox is signed/encrypted.

Rich ran the Chicago PHP Users Group for something like a decade, getting a lot of people into web coding or writing better code. He's a generous, kind person who could really use a little generosity himself.

I recently finished a similar project in computationally mutating a familiar text: http://www.wellsortedversion.com

</shamelessplug>

Gmvault + cron makes the second part pretty easy: http://gmvault.org/

This sounds like a reimplementation of virtual machines at the os layer instead of hardware layer.

Huh. I started with the video and closed the site. Didn't realize until I saw your comment that this wasn't a dudebro stalker thing like Girls Around Me.

I don't get it. The rest of the site is trying to be respectable.... which just comes off as really unsettling now after imagining it coming from the barhopping bro.

For the curious: it does not detect who your close friends are, you have to select from a list of your contacts per-service.

View event bindings. I'm often debugging pages I've never seen before and the only way I've found to know what's bound to what is to grep the js for live/bind/click/etc. or replace the event library (usually jQuery) with one where I've inserted logging into the lowest-level event binding functionality. This sucks a lot.

Show me HTML source over time. If I use curl/Tamper Data I see what the server actually sent, if use View Source I see the source after JS has run, if I use Firebug I see the current DOM. I care about all of these. Give me one place to click through them with diffs. Include steps for the JS changes, and a copy of the JS stack at each change so I can see who did it.

"I don't want to get a $100 dedicated server, because in the first month, I might have...zero income."

What is the cost of your time for 2-3 months of development? Is it over $100?

"Zero income" is your big risk, not whether you can code the product. Go find your customers. Get commitments from them that they would pay your price for your app so you know you'll be making money on day 1. Rob Walling's book "Start Small, Stay Small" is a nice guide to this process.

"Sorry?" It is wonderful. People make great things and run their businesses on Excel. It has its faults and people are not programmers, but it makes an incredible percentage of businesses run.

Does anyone have a copy of the CVEs that's not on Google Groups? Something in the js or cookie-handling is broken for me and the page includes no text.

He can be wrong without being a personal failure driven by spite. Your comment is not so nice.

Chargeback. Your credit card company takes a dim view of people who try to bill you for things you haven't ordered.

I think it can't deal with the traffic it's getting. I saw a couple of hits to my server and the page's progress bar moved a little, but it's been stalled for quite a while now.

It seems to me that one of the major drivers of hostility to NICS is the fear that the government having a complete and accurate listing of gun purchases will enable a future fascistic government to neuter resistance by confiscating guns. So one way to reduce political opposition to NICS would be to make it useless as a database of gun ownership. Run it in such a public fashion that everyone can trust it's not keeping track of all guns, or constantly run fake queries against it for all citizens so that gun owners cannot be identified.

I unsure if what I've read about this belief is fringey or common among gun owners, so maybe this is not necessary to gain enough political support to require background checks for all firearm sales.

Does anyone have a copy of the source to theinfo.org or any of this previous versions? I have a complete archive of the mailing lists. I'd like to make sure it doesn't disappear, it and other things Aaron did inspired things I made.

Does anyone have source to theinfo.org or any of its previous versions? I have a full archive of the short-lived mailing lists and would like to ensure this site isn't lost.

For the Quantified Self folks, note that even by paying for Premium you cannot download your minute-by-minute movement data.

Where did you make the argument? I see you making the claim, but there's nothing arguing it, no evidence. There's just the vague thought experiment about extracting signal from noise.

To point it out another way: humans can't be intelligent because they are lacking in six senses that Martians have. It's that even richer experience that enables true intelligence; without these qualia and the vital marrow of the foundation of the core of the heart of really truly scotsmany work, humans can't be intellegent. Can you knock down this claim without knocking down yours as well?

Any suggestions for more info on this? Books, how-to's, longer "this is what I did stories"? I could just start calling rural real estate lawyers and asking nosy questions, but maybe there's a quicker way. :)

I don't need to. What I choose to pay attention to should be private by default.

And it's not about personal embarrassment, it's also about security. If I star code I rely on to watch for updates, I'd be publicly advertising the attack surface for my app. That really sucks.

...how about some privacy controls? I'd really prefer not to advertise which users and projects I'm following or starring. Now I have Facebook trying to own and broadcast my personal life and GitHub trying to own and broadcast my professional one. Ugh.