hamax

I'll just leave this here:

"I think I’ve fixed the notch issue in landscape #iphoneX"

https://twitter.com/vojtastavik/status/907911237983449088

> seem strictly worse in every way than wired.

The same as wifi, right? Strictly worse in every way. Except for the not needing wires way.

Sure it would be. Mostly because I use Github every day. The first time I tried to create a pull request it probably took me almost as much time to figure out how Github works.

But compared how much time is saved for reviewers by having a better tool, I think 1 hour for each new contributor is reasonable.

It's true that Gerrit's workflow is a bit unusual, but even though I had no experience with it, I managed to setup the environment and create a review request for Golang in under an hour. When it comes to contributing to a programming language, I think this is pretty friction-less.

CLA was very painless too.

If you want something very simple, we've written our own wrapper around aws kms - for go and python.

https://github.com/Zemanta/go-secretcrypt

I think this would (or should) be called N+1.

Edit: but you're right, this might be what they mean.

N+2 usually means one redundancy for normal operations (deploys, maintenance) and one for disruptions. If the disruption happens while there is an ongoing maintenance, you'll be resilient for one event only.

> Other videos are only ~6 minutes long and play an unskippable ad every 45 seconds.

Can you please give an example. I've never seen anything even close to this.

This will sound like a strange suggestion, but think about collecting people's emails and sending out an email every quoter or so with a list of conferences. Of all the newsletters I wouldn't mind this one at all.

Usual advice, as far as I know, is to lose max 1% of body weight per week. Please ask your doctor if 3kg/week is fine.

If someone enjoys torturing animals for fun do you feel fine legalizing it?

Dog fights used to be very popular, but for some reason most people find it unacceptable even though those dogs probably had/have better lives than most farm animals.

I don't understand how secrets being committed to the same repository implies anything you've written. They don't have to be compiled in.

For parallel environments we simply have multiple configs in repository. One per env (env.toml.prod, env.toml.jenkins, env.toml.dev-docker, ...). If you want to test a specific env you can copy and modify it. Just like you'd do it if they were on s3. I'd even argue that it's easier to debug issues if you know what code ran with what env.

Yes, you have to create a new build for each config change, but in reality code changes are much more frequent than env changes so we didn't find this being an issue at all.

Can you expand on this?

We're doing encrypted secrets in config that get decrypt by aws kms on application startup and it's been working quite well for us.

The comment is implying things that aren't true. This is why it's low quality and downvoted. The fact that you don't know who Soros is doesn't change that.

The comment is probably downvoted because it's a popular conspiracy theory that Google blocks bad suggestions about specific people the "liberal establishment" supports. In reality Google hides all bad suggestions about people. You can see the same difference in recommendations for "donald trump is a".

Statistics in this article are so misleading it's hard to see it as anything other then deliberate.

From the raw data, 4.95% of democrats are on welfare compared to 3.48% of republicans (Total number of people on welfare in the poll is 54, so the margin of error is large).

You get the 65% number only if you don't account for the fact that there are more democrats in the poll (almost twice as many). The same goes for the 22% republican number in appendix.

This is propaganda.

It includes both fake and biased news (and a couple of other categories).

Neither Breitbart or Drudge Report are marked as fake in the dataset.

Is variable assignment in c/java/... unreliable? It behaves very similar to what C* does. Concurrent access and modification will produce undefined behaviour if you don't explicitly protect it.

No, it's a users choice to use a DB that has this tradeoff.

Like it was said a couple of time already, all of your complaints about C* would work just as well for locking mechanisms in most popular languages.

The only way for C* to know that it should raise an error is if it would implicitly protect all writes with LWT and this is not what most users want.

Following the parent's example, if you don't protect memory access with a lock, you can't know that somebody else locked it.

No. You have to enable location reporting for Google to track your location.

> So rather than introspection and analyzing why they lost working class voters (black, white, etc.), for example we saw party reg changes in the primaries favor Repubs, why are so many people mesmerized on this one theme?

This is very dishonest. Evey article analysing the election results is talking about the working class, Hillary's arrogance, the DNC and so on. The fact that people are also talking about the explosion of fake news around the elections doesn't mean people aren't also talking about other issues.

Apparently our interpretations of the article are very different.

Most of the paragraphs are criticising obama and democrats that supported his efforts.

Did anyone here even read the article? It's saying exactly what existing comments here are complaining about.

I'm not against stricter libel laws. I think speech should have limitations. And not just in cases of libel.

But I also don't think that liberals and "SJW" are controlling what we say.

I was just trying to point out the double standard in the post I was addressing.

> You see how it is basically saying: You are are a sexist, misogynist, racist?

Oh cry me a river. It's starting to look like your only debating tactic is "stop oppressing me".

You said it yourself that you voted for quoting "a racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobe" because "One side is for freedom of speech, the other side is for controlling what you can say."

How is floodyberrys post not a fair representation of your views?

> One side is for freedom of speech, the other side is for controlling what you can say.

There was just one candidate in this election that wants to control what you can say. And it wasn't Hillary.

“We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace, or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.”

> This was non-sensical to me, and was bullying.

I agree that it was bullying and that it shouldn't happen. But again, one side wants to fight against online bullying and the other side thrives on it. Just check the Trump's twitter account if you want to see what bullying looks like.

On one side you're saying you're all for free speech, on the other hand you're against the people exercising the right. Especially people you don't agree with (like Black Lives Matter). This all just sounds like a front to silence people who are pushing society in direction you don't want it to go (social justice things like fighting racism, sexism, homophobia, ...).

But he did say that about immigrants. Or maybe illegal immigrants if you want to specially charitable. If he would said that about mexican gangs people would be less angry about it.

If she would call nazis super predators no one would imply she's bigoted against whites.

To be fair. I agree she could and should have used better phrasing. I can also understand people like Sanders for criticise her. Maybe she even was bigoted 20 years age when she said that, or maybe she still is. But you have to interpret her words extremely uncharitably to infer that.

Here we are trying to figure out if here comments about gangs could be problematic while comparing her to Trump, who said this about mexican immigrants, not just mexican gangs: "They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people!".

It's a bit tricky, I agree. Like with most of his positions.

During the campaign he said that he's against the supreme court ruling since it should be decided by the state. He also said in an interview that he is for "traditional marriage".

It could be worse, except that he has a VP who is a huge opponent of LGBT rights.