awhitty

> At which point, most men will metaphorically go back to affectionately punching you in the arm like you are one of the guys...

I found this a little troubling. I wish women didn't have to feel like they're "one of the guys" in an online community.

You have a weird definition of cute.

I guess I'm going to have to spin down my EC2 instances...

They were aware of the vulnerability for months. They chose not to adequately address it. A bug bounty wouldn't solve that problem.

Shoot, as someone who made the same mistake of leaving my AWS keys in an open source project, I think I narrowly dodged a bullet. I didn't realize this risk was so high. Thanks for this post!

As someone trying to sit down and learn PostgreSQL right now, I am so happy this exists.

I think this site works as a marketing tool. It has strong branding, and it automatically makes me feel more interested in the product even though I don't have any personal use for it.

I don't think it works as a news brief. I had to read the whole page to figure out what the thing does. Of course, it looks like they're selling it as a black box that makes the Internet happen, so maybe the technical details aren't such a big deal.

I am honestly surprised this link is on the front page of HN right now. It reminds me of what the newest tab on r/bitcoin looked like two weeks ago: http://imgur.com/C2fncy2

I agree with your assessment that this isn't really "building" a computer/etc., but I think your tone is unwarranted here.

This looks like a high-quality RPi starter kit, for which there is still a niche. Their "build" fluff is just for marketing to parents of aspiring hardware hackers, and if it means more kids get to start hacking around on a Raspberry Pi, I'm totally okay with it.

How feasible would it be to "guess" the private keys to a wallet? Could the computing power people dedicate to hashing be directed toward this?

I'm sure this question makes it pretty obvious I'm not a cryptographer, but I'm still curious.

Hey guys, I'd like to clarify what I mean since I think you're missing the point of what I'm getting at (though I'm sure only a handful of people will make it this far down on a dying thread -- congrats if you did?).

This is the quote I'm referring to:

> "Your web site may be marked as malicious, so anyone trying to post a link to your tool will not be able to do so on Facebook."

As one of the largest websites on the Internet where unfathomably massive amounts of communication takes place, Facebook is in a really unique position. Its user base spans continents, countries, governments, etc., and it's been said before that sites like Google and Facebook have more power than any single government because they have the ability to shape how their users think (no dislike button, for example -- a very blatant design decision), and they are, ultimately, the arbiters of what is said on their network. So when I read that quote, it scared me a bit because the thought of Facebook deeming a link "malicious" because it doesn't like it makes me consider how Facebook could wield this.

Social Fixer clearly isn't a malicious piece of code. Has anyone gotten a virus from it? Did it do something blatantly against the will or desires of its users? Did it mean to do harm? I can't imagine so. So when Facebook calls the tool "malicious," Facebook is really stretching that classification here. Isn't that a little concerning?

This illustrates how blindly we trust Facebook to get these things right. We assume they're being honest about what's malicious and it's typically a positive experience for us users: "Oh! That link was going to give me a virus? Thanks so much for protecting me Facebook!" And we'd never give the link a second thought. It's as good as gone for a big population of the Internet.

So here we are, trusting a publicly traded company (who sells a chance to touch our impressionable brains to anyone who'll pay a dollar) to get censorship right -- to have our same values and ideals and to be responsible with its unique position as a communication gateway.

And I'm not saying I don't trust Facebook -- I bet they're probably doing a good job about censorship. But this is really something we should spend more time talking about. I mean, the US government gets in a pickle about censorship probably every day, and it's run by people we elect! Who knows what's going on with a private entity like Facebook.

I hope this clears things up because I really think this is an issue you guys should take seriously, even if it might sound a little trite at this point.

It scares me that Facebook can completely block a link to something they don't like by calling it "malicious".

Nothing about this article convinced me that "Mavericks is a move against the open web". Instead, I'm pretty convinced the title is just as sensationalist as the article linked at the bottom of the page: "Why did Apple name its operating system after a lethal surf spot?"

That said, a Web-based Apple maps would be lovely. I'd like to point out two things that make this whole article seem a little premature:

1. Google Earth (a desktop app) preceded Google Maps

2. Apple already had a lot of the code in place for a native maps app. I can imagine porting the iOS app to the desktop is a pretty trivial task compared to developing an entirely new Web-based solution.

> Personally, I feel tapping through hierarchical menus on a mobile device is just the wrong way to go about organizing/using the system.

I totally agree. I love the edge swiping introduced in iOS 7.

I'm all about progressing into the future, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around a UI without icons.

After spending the summer working on a project using Firebase, Angular, and D3, I definitely would have appreciated more articles on using D3 with dynamic data. Thanks for writing this up! I hope it helps some more people down the road.

Maybe moot just needs to be reminded himself?

For some reason, wrapping my mind around this is like trying to fathom the Grand Canyon or the scale of the universe.

This is an awesome example of the kinds of things Docker is making possible. It seems like these PaaS solutions are just sprouting up left and right now, and it's exciting! It wasn't so long ago that "deploying" meant dragging folders into an FTP window and hoping things worked just fine.

I took this class in person back in the winter. I was under the impression that this class would help me hone my web dev skills a bit, but it really turned out to be very focused on business dev.

That said, Balaji provided some excellent advice, and the course itself is great for anyone interested in the startup process. Just don't expect to come out of the class as some web dev master.

This sounds like an awesome afternoon project!

Exactly! Why not make it a mini CPV farm?

I've been working on a project with AngularFire for the last few weeks, and you just outlined every single issue I've had with the library so far. Associations were presenting a lot of complications especially. Thanks for sharing!

I totally agree with this. I used to be pretty picky about how the term HTML5 is applied to new products, snippets, etc., but I've realized that it refers to a very specific context. It's much more efficient and descriptive to associate something with all the modern technologies we're using on client-side by tagging it HTML5. If we call something "modern", it is doomed to be slightly ambiguous and always shifting -- people called some technologies modern back in the '50s; are they modern now?

Even though calling something HTML5 may not be semantically appropriate, it's a nice form of metonymy and it instantly orients the audience with the frame of mind the author intended.

edit: missed a word

This article doesn't consider an aggregate like "nsa + national security agency." Plotting the two terms combined shows the Snowden story isn't clouding out the NSA searches.

For people who might suggest plotting "edward snowden + snowden," the graph doesn't change at all, for obvious reasons.

Isn't there a difference between text and language? I see a lot of these comments getting them confused.