dylangs1030

If you want cybersecurity with web application testing (with overlap to mobile application testing), begin with The Web Application Hacker's Handbook. Best single treatise on the subject.

You should look through this entire thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/wiki/start

I also highly recommend the OSCP (Penetration Testing with Kali Linux) course and Cody Brocious' (daeken's) course called Breaker101, at breaker101.com.

Good luck.

https://web.archive.org/web/20141020203759/http://warpolrele...

Whether this is due to pressure or force from some authority or the author simply changing his mind remains to be seen. Like another commenter said, I have a sneaking suspicion that there will not be a long-lived "more to come" section if it's down in the first 4 hours.

Really, they should obfuscate the user-submitted URL entirely instead of blacklisting or whitelisting.

It can be done.

I have an external hard drive with all my documents, projects, music, movies, etc. on it. What's absolutely essential is recopied to my hard drive each time. It's kind of addictive to dive into a new operating system and learn it every so often. That's why there's a term for it - distro hopping.

It's good for some things. It gets you very good at doing rote computer tasks because you do them over and over in slightly different environments each time - install homebrew, update ruby, install rvm, configure common programs, tweak preferences and small aspects of the OS, etc.

As a result, I can wipe my entire hard drive and bring it back up to my workflow speed in less than 3 hours on a linux distro I roll myself via Arch.

All that said, I like OS X, so I'll be sticking with Mavericks for a while now.

http://www.doublerobotics.com/

I had missed this, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

She's pointing this out as an example of systematic discrimination - not in the casual but incorrect sense that most people use the term, involving some villainous type whose primary goal is to disenfranchise others, but as an unfortunate consequence of the laws of supply and demand.

I can see how this makes sense, okay, fair point. In other words, a far more subtle type of discrimination based on the circumstances. I probably missed this because the title seemed a bit more straightforward.

As for everything you said about "hotshots", yeah, I agree.

First, you're having an intellectually legitimate debate that's probably revealing some good counter points and offering valid, alternative perspectives on the broader issue.

Second, you're continuing a cold argument devoid of any (productive) empathy in lieu of passionate, scientific rigor.

This is not what this post needs. Let it go, guys. Neither of you is going to convince anyone meaningfully. The issue is polarizing enough as it is. This is a situation that calls for empathy and support, and the interchange of ideas that won't put other people off of listening to each other in an open way.

I don't mean to be self-righteous, but this is a community somewhat known for entering into page-length tangential debates -- that would be detrimental to the subject at hand.

You wrote this under a throwaway account, so I think you understand my point before I make it, but I'll say it anyway.

A situation like this doesn't call for debates or intellectual analysis. Winning debate points when the subject is sexual assault doesn't move the topic forward, it just makes you look insensitive and begs a flame war to begin.

I wrote a top-level comment stating this point already on this thread, but it's very important this is understood. It's not your place to judge what another human being's tragedy is. I'm not trying to white-knight you, it's just something that really needs to sink in. You cannot minimize another individual's experiences just because some distant collective suffers more according to a standard of utilitarian rigor.

If you want to help, don't debate the point. This subject is too close to heart for that to do anything but alienate people. Empathize and show support instead. Send Justine a kind email if you find that agreeable.

This is just one of those bad things that happens in life that one has to move on from. While I agree in helping others, people need to help themselves. Everything you wrote about the community needs to be done by the individual, too. Also, one must not let their life go entirely off the rails in the face of an adverse event.

I don't know your personal history, but looking back on the most painful experience in your life, would you say this in regards to yourself? No human exists as an island. What you are saying is tantamount to blaming someone for being inert when they're depressed, instead of treating it is something that is out of their control to begin with.

I want to remind the more intellectually-inclined of this community that this does not need to be analyzed and defragmented. Let the story stand on its own and hold its own weight.

Basically, what I am saying is this - if you have a point that would be really good in a debate, but won't win you any points at a party, don't make it here, and don't make it right now. In a situation like this, it's more important for the community to be supportive or not say anything at all, than to descend into a maelstrom of arguments about who's judgement is clouded by bias or who's sexist/insensitive and "doesn't get it."

We don't need to win debates at the cost of empathy right now. We need to show support in positive, affirming ways.

That's a little unfair. The article's title frames the story in reference to the glass ceiling. That the grandparent comment used the word "immediately" does not change the fact that this entire article is about sexism; even if it was only explicitly mentioned at the end, it is the author's point that sexism caused these events. It's not as though she wrote an article detailing these events and then threw in what her coach said because it's thought-provoking -- she actually believes it, factual or not.

Backing out of an accepted job offer is a bit different from 'turning down a job'.

While this sentence is true, it doesn't answer what the grandparent said. You can turn down a job, back out of a job, quit a job - whatever, for whatever reasons you want, and they don't have to remotely involve the glass ceiling.

Nobody forced the candidate to accept the job offer before backing out of it on a rather flimsy pretext. He hadn't even started work yet, so I wonder what basis you think he had for deciding that his then-future boss was 'an asshole.'

Similar to how rejection letters from a company are almost always form letters and not personal details about your interview performance, I don't see why you'd expect anything other than a flimsy excuse from a candidate turning down the job.

And the grandparent wasn't saying the author is an asshole, just that it is an equally plausible explanation to her being a woman, young, gay, a dominatrix, diseased, whatever.

I get what you're saying, anigbrowl, but I have to disagree. I fully believe sexism exists in tech, and most of the stories on HN about it are probably the real deal. But this doesn't have enough evidence to give me that impression. If anything, I'd say it's more that he didn't want to be the subordinate of an unassertive young person (ageism), not a female.

I was expecting this "rock star" to exhibit sexism by promptly joining after he was told he'd be reporting under a make. But...no. He joined after significant alterations to the deal, including a bump in position and salary.

It might be gratifying for the author, but it's kind of irresponsible for her coach (whatever that is...) to claim something without any evidence at all.

We can't just publicize articles claiming we're victims of emotionally loaded, cultural taboos without any hard evidence whatsoever. Consider that if she hadn't explicitly put it in the title or the story itself, this story would not have signalled sexism to readers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

That said, I largely agree.

I won't try to find it since I'm on mobile, but it's just as good.

My significant other will be graduating college soon in exactly that predicament, she wants to work on Broadway.

She has a dual major in business and arts, and wants to work on Broadway doing marketing or production work. I find it sickening, and it saddens me the way interns are considered a completely free, fungible, and exploitable resource just so they can get phony career advancement "at some point."

What you say here is true. But it also lacks context - Hacker News is not intended to be a pure democracy. Combative discussion fostered by an incendiary comment shouldn't be acceptable just because it features factually accurate content upvoted en masse by the community.

If that were the case, Hacker News would not have guidelines or moderators. You could allow Hacker News to operate like a pure free-market economy, excusing this as long as it's democratically supported - but that is detrimental to the community's purpose in the long term. Online communities require involved government because the participants (demonstrably) cannot govern themselves when in a group. At worst, discussion devolves to chaos; at best, it becomes inefficient and bothersome. Like anything else, there are pros and cons to combative discussion, and the negatives outweigh the positives.

Examples like the Touch ID discussion and the Nest alarm discussion are particularly informative in this regard, because combative, rehashed meta-discussion took up an entire page in each instance.

I'm sure you're harboring legitimate resentment, but your rant against armchair philanthropists seems equally self-righteous, as though poverty is a badge of honor. I don't say that to be mean or white-knight you, it's just how it comes across. It makes it worse that you challenge people to down vote you.

Giving people advice like "focus", and "don't put up with egocentric personalities and downers" is just rephrasing the problem with a shiny veneer. It's not wisdom, it's just stupid and unproductive.

If you want advice, look for information that isn't vague and easily codifiable. It you're building a startup in the health insurance industry, read about actual problems in that domain, and actual solutions.

It's $INGROUP bias, and sectionalism. On the one hand it's self-affirming ("I go to conferences, I keep current on Hacker News, these are things good developers do, I'm a good developer"), and on the other hand it's trendy and convenient ("I'm going to post my job ad on Hacker News because that's the trendy place to be for good developers").

I think it's ultimately an echo chamber effect. I'm guilty of associating Hacker News with talented developers, but I'm aware of this bias and it's because I pay attention and follow the posts of people who have more or less proven themselves.

I think it would be very difficult to validate these assumptions.

Elsewise, the pattern will continue like entropy, until the majority of comments are like that.

1. I was repeatedly made to feel welcome, comfortable and calm as I possibly could be by everyone I met.

2. I was given technical questions that were appropriate and highly correlated with what I would be doing on a daily basis.

3. I spoke directly with two founders who, despite having my resume, opted for talking to me about my background, my goals, and offered answers to any questions I could possibly think of.

4. I was interviewed by four people total, and only one at a time.

It was honestly the most enjoyable interview I've ever had, despite the fact that I was initially nervous and didn't know what to expect, and it took the better part of a day. It was literally fun - if nothing else, this experience has given me a model for how I would interview candidates in the future if I am ever a hiring manager.

I wish every company operated this way - on some level, I think a lot of people who interview candidates don't know what they should look for, so they fall back on the "legendary battery" style of asking a suite of questions that only a recent 4.0 MIT CS graduate could answer confidently (and who could totally fizz out when asked to do something that isn't in Intro to Algorithms).

Parents are getting more and more involved (read: obsessive) about their childrens' education, sometimes to the detriment of the school process. Very often they'll blame teachers when their kids don't do well in class (not necessarily incorrect). My mother works in the inner city - parents there tend to be ambivalent about their childrens' progress unless they are relatively affluent, from what I've seen.

On the other hand, my father works in a suburban private school, and the parents there push back much more often, especially when they aren't right.

I can't say whether or not it's good or bad, but the climate of education in America has shifted from one of parents surrendering their kids and trusting the teachers to one of parents questioning the teachers when kids don't do well. Very curious.

"You have 60 minutes to code a security patch for a vulnerable payment processing app."

"Congratulations, you shipped to a million people and saved the company from hackers."

I laughed pretty hard at that, and the "aggressive integration bit"...I'd probably leave if a company decided to ship something I coded in an hour in an interview.