fivea

> I've been seeing a suspicious amount of mentions of Hetzner on HN lately. (Just an observation.)

I never get tired of praising Hetzner. Their prices are remarkably a fraction of AWS's equivalent products,and their pricing model is completely rational.

> How would you know?

How do you know someone hired to drive a remote vehicle is being exploited?

> But she wasn't charged with anything? I don't understand why the feds have to destroy her business and take all the family funds.

Wasn't the "business" a shell company used to launder money from flip scams, and aren't those "family funds" the millions in ill-gotten gains from those scams?

See backstory in:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30388129

I love how someone caught in a corruption scandal scamming his employer out of a few millions spins this with an emotional tale led with a GoFundMe link.

> No, he means the raw unedited videos, like the ones on channel he linked.

Is it though? Things don't magically disappear from raw footage. Either you edit it out or not show inconvenient footage.

I mean, all this gaslighting requires you in the very least to accuse other footage from the same events and involving the same people of being fabricated.

> It's like saying the least toxic venom on the planet is the pinnacle of non-toxicity... I mean it's still venom.

If all you see is toxicity, wherever you look around, then perhaps that warrants some introspection and a review of your personal definition of toxicity. Odds are you're picking way too many false positives.

> If anything, the GP feels unpleasant for trying to present its parent comment in the worst possible light, in an overly snarky tone.

Pointing factually and patently wrong assertions is not a personal attack nor being toxic.

A comment or article does not have first-move advantage for making false claims free from negative opinions or corrections. If you make a blatantly false claim and you're called on it then that's the Hallmark of a healthy community having healthy discussions.

> The main thing I've noticed on HN is that having a contrarian mindset is rewarded, even in situations where it doesn't add to the conversation.

Is it really being contrarian, or supporting multiple views in intellectually stimulating discussions?

A few days ago there was a discussion on CORS where some people defended the thesis it made sites less secure, and others stepped in and defended that CORS in fact improved security. Both sides posted their rationales. Arguably neither position was right or wrong. It just depends on perspective.

A glass can be half full and half empty at the same time.

Is anyone being contrarian to point out either interpretation?

> Well first, you took a well-meaning article discussing how HN can be toxic.

You can look at the article as an attack on a forum's reputation, and consequently on their users, by fabricating baseless blanket accusations of being a toxic community, when in truth at most it just shows people disagreeing or pointing out misconceptions and factual errors.

Would we be toxic if a random troll started insisting that the sky was green and the community posted that the troll was wrong and the sky was in fact blue?

> Although, you have to give him credit for a few well-justified bans from figures sometimes seen here on HN...

That's like praising someone who threw out the baby with the bathwater to give him credit on an outstanding work filtering water of any residue.

> I challenge you to find one nazi flag there.

You mean in the videos extensively edited and cherry-picked to hide any reference to Nazi flags or any hate symbol?

> It's a person nonchalantly talking about killing homeless people as a viable solution to homelessness.

Do you have a link or not? You're running in circles about he-said-she-said, but the only concrete info you shown so far boils down to your own personal extraordinary words you're trying to pin on some random person.

I mean, how can anyone tell whether you're making everything up or not?

Don't you have a single link to show for?

There's a far more charitable interpretation (and explanation) of this: broadness.

People who know too little don't know how to get to the happy path, let alone stay in there.

People who know too much know extensively where the happy path lies, it's neighborhood, how to go off-road out of the happy path and the dangers that lie therein.

People in the middle know how to get to the happy path and remain there, and know that steering away from the happy path leads to trouble and ambiguity. As they mastered the happy path then they feel unlimited confidence and arrogance.

> Literal example. They weren't saying "we should kill homeless people", but (...)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and given that it only took a reply to water down the initial bombastic claim, unless you support your claims with concrete proof I'll have to write off your claim as hyperbolic misrepresentations.

> Metafilter isn’t toxic at all unless you have the wrong opinions.

Echo chambers have that effect on people.

> Do you agree that the question “who cares what X says?”

Perhaps I've become desensitized, but "toxic" is not a synonym for "not supportive". Being dismissive of something or someone, or not agreeing with someone for that matter, does not mean a community or person is toxic. It just means you don't agree or support someone or something, and instead you have different opinions and support different positions.

> If you have a lock with no keys, it is secure, since it can't be opened. As soon as you have one key, the lock is less secure, because now the lock can be opened.

No, not really. Your simplistic example fails to acknowledge that your same-site "lock with no keys" model rendered same-origin-policy completely unusable in projects that fall beyond the scope of a personal hobby project, which left the whole world with no alternative to turn it off. CORS recognizes the absurdity of implicitly assuming that the same origin is the only possible and conceivable safe origin, or even that a site has a single origin.

Therefore, your comparison would actually be between an old lock which was no longer usable and thus forced everyone to go around with no locks, or a lock designed around one of the world's most basic requirements and thus made it possible for the old lock concept to be applicable.

> Again, CORS does not protect, the SOP does :-)

This is simply false. You are somehow wrongly assuming that only same-origin requests exist or are needed. This scenario never existed in the real world beyond the scope of small personal projects.

> CORS does not protect anything from anyone. The same-origin policy stops code from one site reading resources from another site. CORS selectively removes that protection – it decreases security.

This comment comes off as either disingenuous or needlessly contrarian, and in the process tries to make points that fall somewhere between completely wrong and miopic.

Your personal assertion that CORS somehow decreases security is based on the patently false assertion that at any point in time requests only came from the same origin. Not only was this never the case, this ignores the fact that with the popularity of REST and SPAs and microservices and API-as-a-service, the norm was since switched to having browsers make requests to anything other than the same origin.

So, without CORS, you have a all-or-nothing security model, where the needle would always pend to the "nothing" side. With CORS, that needle can point "all that matters", which is pretty close to the optimal same-site solution. What CORS does is allow developers to abstract away the definition of "same origin" to mean "the origins that I explicitly allow".

You simply cannot claim that allowing only requests to the origins you explicitly allow is an erosion of a security model. That makes no sense. It made no sense when implicitly that list was only comprised of your own domain, it makes no sense now when that list includes reputable APIs that you pay to use.

> Python core library development is filled with asshats who like to deprecate naming conventions in later versions rather than just improving the existing libraries and keeping the method names the same.

I think this is a gross misrepresentation of both technologies, to the point that it goes well beyond a normal apples-to-oranges comparison.

A shell script runs well on any standard-compliant implementation, just like python3.4 scripts will run exactly like they always did when running on a python3.4 interpreter.

Python's libraries break when asshats "deprecate naming conventions" only when you somehow assume that, say, your python3.10 script would run on python2.7, or just like your shell script breaks when the program it calls happens to break it's cli.

Also, is versioning still a problem given the pervasiveness of package managers with support for version pinning?

> (...) I don't think he's against renewables but (...)

It really makes no difference what's the youtuber's opinion on renewables. The point is that the arguments made by the YouTuber are completely pointless and meaningless, and completely miss the whole point -- and radical improvements -- made over the total dependency on fossil fuels in general and oil in particular.

This video is a classical case of something that's "not even wrong".

If anyone has any interest in the subject, they'd be better served by reading/watching anything else.

> HTTP/2 came out in 2014, and since then I still haven't seen it used in production in the jobs I worked at.

I'd already be happy if I could use IPv6.

> Probably easier to stick to bash rather than the overhead of learning new set of commands that I need to learn from scratch.

That's all fine and dandy until your shell script grows beyond a dozen lines of code or so. The moment that happens, shell scripts become barely readable and terribly hard to maintain, unlike alternatives such as python.

> A deeper dive: they aren't renewable, they're at best rebuildable

I find your YouTube video neither insightful nor informative. It reads as a string of desperate attempts at gotchas, only possible by repeatedly moving goalposts and misrepresenting positions, which are at best immaterial to the discussion.

I mean, the main point the YouTuber made against renewables is that different energy generation and distribution methods have different properties. Who exactly is expected to take seriously this blend of simplistic fatecious line of reasoning?

> they are siloing to comply with Chinese laws.

No, not really. Companies operating in China silo their services because Chinese laws demand access to servers, and by siloing the company ensures that the Chinese regime does keep it's hands off stuff they have no business accessing.

Siloing services in China has zero to do with CCP's demands and everything to do with a company's self-interest.

> Math, big-O, and proofs are programming concepts. If you want a shallow understanding of whatever (...) take a coding bootcamp. But know that after a few years your skills will be out of date and you will have a hard time keeping up with the field.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but your personal belief on the virtues of ivory tower feats doesn't hold any water in the real world. At all.

The most important competency, by far, is being able to onboard. Whether it is onto projects, frameworks, programming languages, architectures... Being able to jump in and get up to speed and fix things and implement features is what matters.

No one cares at all if you know an algorithm by heart. Plenty of critical services are built upon crude O(n²) brute force implementations that are good enough, and no one bothers to waste 5mins to even switch the underlying container.

You're talking about a field where premature optimization is recognized as one of the worst and most fertile sources of problems. And who exactly is behind this problem? Precisely these short-sighted theorists, who believe big O musings has critical importance when it has close to none beyond superficial analysis of "should I use an array, a linked list, or a hash set"?

I know people with a boot camp and experience with a framework who landed jobs in FANGs, and I know PhDs in computer science that can recite inconceivable algorithms who can't get a job in the industry. How do you explain that, if waxing lirically about computer science is supposedly so critical?

> Do you honestly think that's true?

Think? I know for a fact it's true. In fact, do you know a single company operating in China that doesn't silo away their China operations?

> 1. Siloing off the EU facebook, with no contact with the US

That's already business as usual with China, but companies like Facebook have absolutely no problem with that silo as it protects them and benefits their bottom line.

But somehow, use cases that protect users, those suddenly pose major blockers.

> According to standard economic theory, shortages only happen when pricing mechanisms fail.

No, not it isn't. That assertion is fundamentally wrong at many levels. It seems you're confusing the intro to economics definition of equilibrium between supply and demand with your own definition of shortage. However, in the process you're making the mistake of believing somehow that pricing out demand from the market and being unable to scale up production to meet demand does not involve any shortages of any kind.

Think about it for a second: I'd suddenly food prices skyrocketed to the point a single 1kg bag of rice sold for over €100, and most of the world was thus unable to buy food for being priced out of the market, would that represent a shortage even if some people could still afford it?

> Finally! The free market at work! Cryptocurrency has liberated us from the evils of government controlling money!

Isn't this more of a kin to a 21 century's take on piracy and privateering?

> LinkedIn probably has a net benefit for your career by keeping up to date and checking the messages once a week, but I cannot get over the awkwardness of seeing total BS stories and thousands of replies saying "YES! AMEN!".

There are two ways of looking at linkedin:

* a) linkedin, the job listing service used by headhunters to fill positions,

* b) linkedin, the makeshift pseudo-facebook/myspace/instagram alternative used and abused by career-oriented attention-seekers.

This blog post focuses exclusively on b) while completely ignoring a).

I know people who landed jobs in FANGs just because they kept their linkedin profile up-to-date, even though they didn't even posted a single message and barely had any "like"-type interaction with any type of content. Personally, I've landed my past two or three tech jobs through linkedin, and I barely use it.

I also tried other like-minded services like Glassdoor or stackoverflow jobs, but at least to me those are a dumpster fire when compared with linkedin. Specially Glassdoor.

You get cringe content if you're using it to produce and consume cringe content. Others like me are quite happy with the benefit we take from it.