ak4g

Then use your critical thinking.

I'll repeat the question:

> Why would they lie? What gives you reason to think they (not the DNC!) be that colossally stupid?

Snowden did no hacking.

What's silly is saying oh, since I read some stuff online about how crappy the DNC security is, I should probably chalk it up to some unknown actor for some vauge hand-wavy reasons instead of taking the statements of the the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security at face value.

Why would they lie? What gives you reason to think they (not the DNC!) be that colossally stupid? Why would you do anything other than take allegations of yet another Kremlin attempt to interfere in fair elections as seriously as the people of Europe and Ukraine have learned, the hard way, that they must?

Uh, no. Data loss for your end-users as a default behavior is unforgivable. The impetus is on people who think it's OK to irretrievably lose access to their freaking data when their phone battery explodes to set that up. For myself, and for Joe P. Random, losing my data without my having explicitly (and again) decided to take that risk is what directly precedes a decision to no longer use any Google products, full stop.

> Battle-tested at instacart

If you don't mind me asking, for how long?

I've found using EXECUTE in insert triggers to be very problematic - it consumes a txid, AIUI, and every 200m inserts, a bunch of anti-wraparound autovacuums have to to scan allofthethings. My insert triggers have big blocks of IF/ELSIF branches (although it's straightforward enough to construct those in pl/pgsql, just requires an extra level of indirection when preparing the partitioning).

Our justice system is not infallible, the OP never claimed that. And so, that's why we have pardons. It's pretty straightforward, if you don't misrepresent his argument.

> Treason is the systemic and illegal invasion of the rights hundreds of millions of Americans, corrupt government officials quashing all means of accountability, lying under oath to congress, intentionally misleading congress and the American people, and refusing to enforce any sort of due process of law when it's been discovered that people were doing highly illegal things.

I'm sorry, but really really wanting those things to be treasonous does not make them treason.

Your gut is not the US Code. The US Code has no provisions that cause things to become treason by chaining enough increasingly emphasizing adjectives together.

If you argued this in court, you would lose.

For my part: I don't like that Snowden took incredibly serious (forget illegal) actions that served to cast aspersions on both the one and only meaningful US cybersecurity institution and the legitimacy of the United States government as a whole, and is now being harbored by Putin. Are people not seeing what has happened since? Russia is overtly inserting themselves into our domestic politics, and for the political feasibility of doing so, they should be (and by harboring a fugitive, absolutely are) thanking one Edward Joseph Snowden.

They're leveraging Assange as another mouthpiece, although there they get to hide behind being "Random Joe Public" donating to wikileaks. (And if you provide cover noise by doing so yourself: Stop. You're being played.)

What Snowden's actions predictably precipitated is incredibly ominous. I don't care how much pseudo-"Orwellian" surveillance was going on (that - do people not get this? - was not being abused. There were no mass arrests of people who arranged drug buys on facebook, or via gmail or whatever. Nobody knew it was happening prior to Snowden's actions - which is actually not true at all, anyone paying attention (raises hand) knew since the Room 641a disclosures in, what, 2006? Snowden was merely a far-more willing talking head - but I digress. The point is: if a whistleblower had to tell you they were reading every last email, clearly they weren't exactly doing a lot with that capability!). That does not in any way compare to giving an actual dictator of an an actual authoritarian party and government an unprecedented and dangerous level of leverage and influence and dirt on our democracy. Hell no, go directly to jail, do not collect $200, there doesn't need to be any detente with Moscow until Snowden is extradited.

A pardon? Give me a break. As far as I'm concerned, this petition is an instrument of the Kremlin, meant to further extend their ill intent into our country. No.

That would be their manager's problem. Go home at end-of-business. If they fire people for, um, working during working hours, they'll be going under from the churn in short order anyway. It's not like there's an oversupply of developer capacity - obviously, seeing as how they keep scheduling 60+ hours of work every week!

Okay, granted, but that's not exactly what I'd call egregious. They're, um, capable of causing injury, and the kind of thing I would probably want to ensure was only sent to recipients who had a i-know-what-i'm-doing form on file with my legal dept. Not the kind of thing I expect to be available for free 2-day shipping or whatnot.

Can you give me any pointers on where I can find out more about this?

(Also curious about the banned product lines if anyone can summarize/link to what's going on there.)

Now you've forced me to make at at least two more decisions: to open up addons.mozilla to find a cookie-management extension, and to open up addons.mozilla to find a javascript-permissions-management extension.

At each of these interactions, I would be confronted with the worst possible next-actionable-step: a large, seemingly unbounded number of options. Picking any of them then requires an additional interaction to confirm, possibly whilst (realistically speaking) disregarding scary-looking security warnings about what the extension will be able to do with my first-born child.

Of course, IRL, users respond as you'd expect when given such immediate negative feedback. They will make it through at most one forced-decision interaction. By the time they hit #2, the user's goal will become "install Chrome", not "figure out which extension to install next".

It's really important to recognize here that the extension search/installation/configuration user flow is more-or-less indistinguishable from actively punishing the user for using firefox. Oh, so you want to use firefox, and actually do something? Kindly direct this barrage of STOP NO DONT feedback to your decision-making apparatus until it comes around to it's senses and installs something, anything else.

No, because the WHOIS details on the domain can change without ownership actually having changed, in the not-uncommon case where a domain starts out registered by a founder or early employee and is later transferred to the company proper.

Given the prevalence bogus WHOIS data, the inverse is also possible: if the 2nd owner uses the same registrar and "privacy-protection" feature as the original owner, the WHOIS data could appear to have not changed, except for the start date of the registration, which would look identical to a single owner who re-registered their domain after allowing it to lapse.

> By default KeyBox will overwrite all values in the specified authorized_keys file for a system.

This honestly seems like a terrible default. I want an explicit something when I'm about to lock myself out of my systems.

OTOH, the prerequisites are substantial enough that you're hardly likely to install it by accident. I suppose it's a better fit for brand-new hosts on both fronts. (But then, as I see it, all the hard parts around key management are around getting it reliably deployed across the entire system, which means also on old, long-running boxes. If we could all wipe our prod infra and start again from read-only media ((which we should probably do more often, to the extent that circumstances permit)) it wouldn't nearly as hard of a problem.)

Yes, but it would hardly be unexpected, and though this gets into iffy and boring questions around definitions, I don't think it's a side-effect either.

When is the story about Google storing the emails of all Gmail users coming out?

I've heard rumors they don't even just collect the metadata - they store the entire email! Indefinitely. Even if the sender wasn't using gmail, but included a single Gmail or Gapps user among the recipients, they're said to record the entire email, as well as the addresses of the sender and all the other recipients, who never consented to Google's privacy policy to begin with.

I mean, the scale of the violations, it boggles the mind.

This is completely fucking ridiculous.

Of course Google's privacy policy says they can store that information. That's why I can go to google.com/voice and get a comprehensive, time-ordered, millisecond-precision (if you poke around the network tab a bit - I forgot that epoch values started "12" back then!) list of

> your phone number, calling-party number, forwarding numbers, time and date of calls, duration of calls, SMS routing information and types of calls.

that I have made over the past 6 years, 10 months, and 20-something days.

This is a service they provided, that I'm using, if the data were not there, I would have gotten rid of my gvoice number, found a service that preserved my data like any self-respecting service provider (I'm really at a loss here - is this not available on iOS?) and complained loudly that Google Caused Data Loss For Users and should probably get hit with a lawsuit for damages.

I cannot believe how one-sided the discussion here is.

The claim that GOOG is capturing all this data on all calls and texts on all android devices is -completely- unsubstantiated. There's one link to a german-language blog, whose (admittedly, Google-) translated claim seems to be that they tested - a - phone. One. With phone calls. Did they test SMS too? Was there a network connection to google's servers? The omission could just be the translation, but right now I think this is actually a story with 181 comments about, at most, a phone that also has hangouts, that pings the server to tell google to mark their user as being in a call.

Completely ridiculous.

My only affiliation with Google is as a user.

Oh, and let's not forget here, that if Google were trying to subtly reinterpret "your use of our services" as "we capture everything from all Android devices", why on earth would they do a time-synchronized, easily-reproducible log when the call starts? (And how would they already have the call duration, blah blah blah at that time?) I can assure you, they're quite familiar with queuing data on the device to be sent later.

The most irritating comment thread I've read in a long time. None of what is being claimed is even remotely cogent, on the face of it, and the reaction is just an endless woe-is-me of "what did you expect, we all saw this coming, what can ya do, the companies these days, they're just not like they used to be" I mean, is this a brexit hangover or what?

Just sprinkle on a little "the NSA does exactly thing tho omg" and "metadata===murder" (yup, I think of you as js fanboys, that's how bad it is) just and... yeah, the expletive is necessary. Completely fucking ridiculous.

The reality is that a contributor license agreement is of near-zero help to an open-source project; it's only present here because Nike's lawyers required it. But the surface area of 'contributions that infringe on patents held by the contributor' is infinitesimally smaller than 'contributions that infringe on any patent held by anyone else'.

Non-trivial, inclusion-worthy patches don't just fall from the sky; certainly, if it ever were to happen, you can be sure that other developers will be doing a search for patents issued to that author. If anything were found, the patch author would be advised that the contribution could not be accepted, due to the patent.

If and when a project's developers become aware that a technique used is patented, or even just potentially infringing pending some legal outcome, whatever would have to be ripped out is ripped out. But the patent, and the potential infringement, will not be discussed publicly. Open-source projects can't work any other way - the liability is on the users, not the developers, and it's not in their interest to expose their uses to "willful infringement" liability. Even public discussion of actual or potential infringement in is toxic - you would be asked to stop (privately).

It is what it is. It's also not too problematic, in my limited experience. But that may well simply be because nobody tries to find infringement, for obvious reasons.

If you don't mind me asking, what DB is this?

Do people not already do this? I don't really make an effort to use a different keypair for every service, but I ran into the the max-attempts thing very soon after I started using ssh-agent, and so I do have to keep my .ssh/config up-to-date. I assumed the benefit for ssh-agent was in not having to retype the passphrase for each connection, not for it to try every keypair for every login.

The amount of time you can spend preparing the training data is unbounded. The number of times you can do the training with data that ends up not actually looking like what you see in-the-wild a week later is unbounded. When all is said and done, the yak-shaving alone will be tens of thousands.

Just to pile on... are your home and office windowless?

It's not necessary, it's a waste of development time and easily the biggest big-picture collective failure of our software engineering profession of the last decade. It easily beats out anything from the $foo.js world and the ongoing low-level security nightmare of web application development, because git, and more importantly, unnecessarily complex and error-prone git workflows have seen adoption across all kinds of software. There are probably a dozen projects in the world (the kernel admittedly being one of them) that are justifiably a good fit for the complex git-native workflows that have become standard practice across the industry today.

But if you're doing it the old-fashioned way, you might as well use Subversion. Or mercurial, if you want all the local history, with the added bonus that unlike git it sensibly keeps the least-surprise semantics of 'commit', 'revert', and other commands that merely have a 30-year history of expectations that held true prior to git. But Mercurial was not authored by Linus, nor does it have the impenetrable, otherworldly data model that a first-time version-control-system author would unavoidably end up concocting in scratching their itch without consulting the existing, completely satisfactory, solutions that served us well for decades, which greatly reduces the number of interesting topics you can blog about for Mercurial.

And so, git sees the adoption, github gets the $2bil valuation, and even bitbucket ends up switching to git as it's default. It won.

Software engineering, collectively, has a lot of maturing to do.

I hear, from people that would know, that it has a lot of bugs that were fixed internally but never made it into an open-source release.

> physicians that get this money are now publicly monitored for it.

> Again, these have grown increasingly rare since these are now public numbers subject to scrutiny.

Where can I access this information?

Because with USING, you're precluded from using the full table.column identifier in your JOIN condition. Without that, a future ALTER TABLE that adds another "bar" column to an existing table in the FROM-list will cause a previously-working query to break.

https://gist.github.com/AdamG/1128b86fdafca1e53a4bd5253a6882...

Much like SELECT * or JOIN foo USING(bar), it's the kind of thing that greatly speeds up interactive queries, but shouldn't ever end up in source control.

"Brown dwarf" also doesn't command the same je ne sais quoi of "ultracool".

I did make the Python meetup and several since; it's not like the waitlist was thousands long. It was just longer than what I gauged as the no-show rate.

The Python meetup was striking to me because it was closer to the scale of a PyCon than any meetup I'd seen. The actual meetup I attend more often is SFPUG, the local PostgreSQL group, which is more in the neighborhood of 20-40 attendees, once or twice a month. In NYC, if there is an active group around the particular corner of tech you inhabit, you're lucky to get decent meetup a quarter.

And quality is what pushed me to move here, despite my expectations, in the first place. Simply put, all of the very best developers I knew from my hometown (in Charlotte, before my stint in New York) had moved here. There were two in particular I'll always owe for having opened my eyes to how little I knew; I work maybe eight blocks away from one of them, the other I ran into out-of-the-blue at the aforementioned Python meetup, three days after I landed at SFO.

I've been working with people who make me very aware that I'm not the smartest person in the room (by their expertise, not their attitudes) for 30 months now. I do hate to say this, but it is why I didn't stick around in the end - in NYC, I really, really missed that.

I lived in NYC and frequented it's tech scene for about a year, ending mid-2013. Unless it's more-or-less quintupled in the last three years, there's no comparison.

The first python meetup I went to in SF (back in 2013) had 300 spots and a waitlist that I doubt got cleared. The NYC meetups I went to managed maybe 80 RSVPs and a couple dozen who actually showed up.

Once you get to anything more specialized than a programming language meetup, it's basically non-existent anywhere else in the country, but the bay area will still manage an active user group.

I really wish this weren't the case, and I really resisted moving here. I had every expectation I'd hate it and the city has more than lived down to expectations (easily higher rent and worse crime than NYC - or least the tech enclaves of NYC where I spent my time - by healthy margins). It is absurd and frankly unjustifiable how densely tech is concentrated here. But that it is so isn't really debatable.

What's the reference point here? To my mind a lot of the advantages in Postgres are around it's mature tooling for backups and replication; autovacuum is more than sufficient for fairly complex workloads when it comes to data file maintenance, and really the only somewhat-sore point is horizontal scaling - but even there, a lot of the pain comes from there being multiple viable solutions in-the-wild, with none having decisive buy-in across the userbase, and as such no out-of-the-box solution in the standard DB (which is, happily, recognized by the developers and very much a focus of current development work).

But, I'm comparing with mostly MySQL(/it's myriad descendants) and the whole NoSQL ecosystem; for all I know the tools available for PG are hopelessly primitive for people coming from of Oracle/IBM/SQL Server/Ingres/Teradata(/others? I pretty regularly learn of new DBMS engines with shockingly large companies and engineering orgs behind that that I've just never heard of; I'm sure there's plenty more.)

As a project, I don't think PostgreSQL wants (or should want) anybody running a DB from the source tarball that's (eventually) stamped as 9.6 - it's existence is a mere artifact of the actual packaging work that goes on during a release. In all cases you should be installing packages via your OS's installation mechanism, and those packages will be authenticated (or not, as the case may be, but it's not in-scope for Postgres-the-project, and it shouldn't be different for installing PG vs. any other piece of software on the system). A production-ready setup needs an OS user, logging/logfile rotation, some tooling for managing DB clusters, and a half-dozen other things I've never even thought about. If you just want to check out the source, clone the repo.

But in a production environment, you always want to use a package provided by your OS vendor. Postgres has excellent packagers for both Debian and RHEL-flavored distros (and I imagine more) and you really want to have the system-level considerations thought through by someone by someone who knows what needs to be thought about.