imajes

'course it's not just him, but it's him and _everyone else_. i'm not sure what their overall intent here was, but it's been a shit show from start to finish, and they gotta at the very least start thinking hard about pausing the rollout till they can get their ducks in a row.

Hey- what's the best way to get in touch? :) thanks.

looks awesome- i'm assuming there's no secret funnel for HN with preferential pricing? :)

  - All teams will henceforth expose their data and functionality through service interfaces.
  - Teams must communicate with each other through these interfaces.
  - There will be no other form of inter-process communication allowed: no direct linking, no direct reads of another team’s data store, no shared-memory model, no back-doors whatsoever. The only communication allowed is via service interface calls over the network.
  - It doesn’t matter what technology they use.
  - All service interfaces, without exception, must be designed from the ground up to be externalizable. That is to say, the team must plan and design to be able to expose the interface to developers in the outside world. No exceptions.
  - Anyone who doesn’t do this will be fired.  Thank you; have a nice day!

still kinda works.

What is the value proposition of tieing an ingester, parser, transactional service (e.g. all written with go), and then tieing together your api, client app, mobile app (all in js), just because they share a common language?

arguably they aren't close to each other in tiers of the stack, and don't really overlap. The sorts of libraries you might choose to use to do something could differ, (e.g. json processing - in the front end, you'd pick usability and security over a lower level more optimized transcoder for the api).

That said, I agree with your core premise- not understanding, and chasing a nail with a hammer, but geekily named repos per language just sounds like someone who doesn't understand how something git works...

It's also worth noting that this article is 5 years old. Perhaps the tone is reflective of that..

Yeah, i had a client using it who found that being able to get the data into a reporting scenario so they could file was hard. Mostly it surrounded reconciliation and an ability to gain confidence that the numbers reflected actual transaction volume (it is a perishable good, so there was a reasonable quantity of discounts and refunds as delivery vendors missed targets...)

I'd also say I have a bias, as I've also used avalara a couple times before and found it to be quite a bit superior in making it seem quite a bit more effortless -- taxation is so byzantine I don't have any expectation that I could understand it, so I want to trust that the provider i use is very confident they do.

not sure if that helps a lot, but it was also a few months ago ;)

FWIW, I can tell you that taxjar is pretty light on the "I've collected taxes, now what?" side. Avalara might be a BigCo but they have their stuff together, and it works at scale for transactions (especially when dealing with refunds or discounts that need to reflect Sales Tax differentially.... oy)

https://api.pwnedpasswords.com/pwnedpassword/correct%20horse... == 2.

Depending on how you feel about such things, a "build a wall" campaign could be pretty ingenious with your product. :)

Except that'd probably fall into the CFPB remit, which has just been significantly reduced in scope and veracity due to the current administration... :(

in the NTSB investigation, it appeared that there was literally only about 30 seconds at the outset to evaluate returning, and even then, with immediate returns, pilots were only able to return 7 out of 13 tests. Textbook and theory doesn't always supercede knowledge of the area and novel thinking.

The delta between a good school and whatever you get assigned seems to make this worth it.

hey, curious why your variables in the go version are so terse? makes following along a little tough!

Is it important that I know middleout for this?

Technically, it's not. It's being sued by a sister company, both owned by the shared parent 'Alphabet'. Whether there is collusion or not, they are theoretically separate entities.

Curious: anyone else using twc since spectrum in nyc noticed that the ultimate/extreme speed increases are no longer available for sale/upgrade?

Seems spectrum maxes out at 120mbps, whereas they used to sell 300mbps. (or is that just me?)

whereabouts geographically? that's pretty horrible.

lets just take his first step- what kind of term limits? he could propose a term limit of 50 years, have achieved what he said he'd do, but make no meaningful change.

Whilst the concision is nice, it's pretty hand-wavy and without definition.

also, https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/ort...

source: https://github.com/cambecc/earth

the number of networks i see living in a densely populated city (NYC) is pretty intense. Most modernish routers indiscriminately broadcast on both the 5GHZ + 2.4GHZ band, plus create an automatic (or, at least, one-click) guest network. So in a given building there maybe something like 2+ SSIDs per apartment.

that alone creates plenty of noise to wade through...

No. However, Google have a plan for this. Apparently right now HTTPS is considered a 'strong signal' in google rankings, which normally gets the message to most site owners/product people.

You mean like ATS on iOS 9+ ?

Why are you going to lose Advertiser money? That's bogus.

Why does Google profit from HTTPS over HTTP?

Amazon.com (HTTP) redirects to (HTTPS), via a 301 - that's Permanent Redirection.

This also isn't Mozilla, but Chrome.

And honestly i don't even know where to begin, but you should look into HSTS, and the vulnerabilities that exist transitioning between the two modes[1],

as well as looking at the issues (data bleed, etc) that happen with a http+https web and mixed content.

Finally the bigger issue to ad rev is likely to be cross origin content rather than https.

and, er, semantically there's a gulf of difference between "Not Secure" and "Insecure".

Also, arguably, the shift to a https first web is what's helping us shine light into bad CAs and deeper audits that are finding the esoteric bugs -- so it's only a good thing, in the long term.

[1]: http://michael-coates.blogspot.com/2009/02/compromising-http...

as broad as that yes, but if you enhance the work during transmission (e.g. by including meta data about the work) you may be able to argue derivation. i think it's an area where clearly technology and the ability to reproduce like-for-like fails the reading of law as it stands today.

Yeah. you're absolutely right, that clause will be the point of argument. This is where my lack of legal education fails me though, since it is not clear what it means when saying _material contributed by the author_ and what _preexisting material_ means.

Also, this appears to be down to a getty user called 'buyenlarge', who is listing all kinds of work they don't own.

For example:

This photo-

http://www.gettyimages.com/license/515020819

is actually this photo:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2178341487

which was taken by a now dead photographer called Russell Lee, and owned by the Farm Security Administration.

PS: this same person appears to have about 500k listings for prints etc on amazon.com..... why aren't they a co-defendant?

just to clarify because i think you sort of said you were wrong but i'm not entirely sure...

if i read 17 U.S. Code § 201 (d) clearly, it suggests you can transfer ownership of copyright in any normal legal way of executing a contract.

I think your confusion is around the idea of works falling into the public domain via expiry of copyright, and/or works that do not have an explicit declaration of rights ownership.

In this case it seems she was pretty clear about her transfer of ownership. I don't believe you can rescind that just as you prefer, at any time.

see https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/201

You say that but that's not the reading I make of this contract. "I hereby dedicate to the public all rights, including copyrights,... that i posses in this collection".

that seems pretty clear cut to me. Conditions for reproduction only seem to express the general ways the content should be available for users of the library. Nothing limiting availability, in fact it's promoting methods of being available.

So that leaves the question of a: whether or not getty et al were able to sell works in the public domain. My quick read of it seems that if they can come up with some kind of argument that they are selling derivative work (including perhaps some kind of unique identification layer, or meta data perhaps ... ?), OR that they are selling a reproduction. tenuous, but that may be their justification.

as for requesting a license fee, well that's on LCS and Alamy (who I don't think have had an issue in the past 3 years of this stuff, so the multiplier doesn't apply here)

NB: Alamy being a uk company, so they can hide behind a corporate shield if their assets are mostly offshore...

this is the settle page, from the first exhibit: https://settle.lcs.global/103173853953 -- that's what she got sent. It doesn't appear that they argue they are the exclusive license holder, and especially if they argue they are holding a license to derivative work -- well. that's a whole ball of wax.

Thinking further, since she no longer holds the copyright to these images, and the United States is not listed as a co-plaintiff, I'm not even sure she has standing to bring this case at all -- but, on that, IANAL. :P