Your comment reminded me of this:
DEF CON 18 - Zoz - Pwned By The Owner: What Happens When You Steal A Hacker's Computer: https://youtu.be/Jwpg-AwJ0Jc
552 karma · joined February 16, 2015
Kismet: ad05fa81ecb1852190e9251027c7456b876451720fc465c1790e1f3e63220fac
DEF CON 18 - Zoz - Pwned By The Owner: What Happens When You Steal A Hacker's Computer: https://youtu.be/Jwpg-AwJ0Jc
I still use it as my main browser at home, but with the extensions that used to set Firefox apart gone and forced to reset my workflow and expectations to the minimum common functionality, I find myself using Safari more and more at work simply because the battery usage is better and has out of the box support for SPNEGO. As an added bonus, I can watch HD videos smoothly without killing my processor and draining my battery.
I have a motorbike and wear my helmet about two hours every day, longer if I take a trip on it. It has never been painful.
It's snug and it can feel a bit weird the first few times (specially around the ears), but if you use a helmet and it hurts, I'd definitely get another helmet (hint: different brands have slightly different shells, so maybe try a few different makes).
I also have a GearVR and it took ages fiddling with the straps to get a comfortable fit. I can't use it for long, but it has nothing to do with pain: The phone I use gets very hot and it's so close to the eyes that gets uncomfortable. Also, the lenses fog up.
Wikipedia[0] has a short paragraph on the history and I'd say that any project involving so many different countries and governments (and bureaucracies!) is a red-tape hell.
Just choosing the location was a long and difficult process[1]. Canada proposed a location but later pulled out, Japan put a lot of pressure to get it built there. Even within Europe it caused a political "war" between France and Spain, both proposing different sites. First the EU decided to back France and it was finally agreed upon as the final location.
From what I remember, many people complained about the decision. Japan felt left out and was offered 20% of the research personnel. The infrastructures in France had to be built from the ground up even before the actual work to build the plant could start, the area didn't even have big enough roads to bring all the materials, which in turn delayed the works and increased the costs (something that wouldn't have happened in Spain or Japan, no idea about Canada).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER#Organization_history [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER#Location
In the meantime I have a OpenVPN server at home just so I can log into my internal network from everywhere and use it when on public wifi... For the moment it's more than enough for me.
During that time both the employee and/or the company can terminate the contract giving a small notice - one week in every country I've worked, but it might be different in other places. In most companies you don't even have access to some (or all) benefits - pension, healthcare, shares... - until you pass that period.
I don't know about your experience, but from where I come from it's almost a fact of life and one of the things you have to weight when looking to move to a new position.
Javascript was called Javascript and was used, mostly, for form validation. Dynamic menus, animations... - all of which you couldn't do with CSS alone - were called DHTML. You could even use Javascript in the server.
> [...] before that, it was ActiveX and nobody used it.
Plenty of people used ActiveX and it was useful, sometimes, although it limited you to IE. But you are forgetting two of the most widely used technologies of the time: Applets and Flash. Fortunately both are out of modern web development.
> You did create modern sites with CSS, without JS.
You did create sites with CSS, "modern" sites included JS and DHTML.
Then, as now, I found that most people complaining about Javascript were really complaining about bad coders and bad implementations; The browser's DOM back then and the mess that is NPM today. The language itself has bad decisions (weak dynamic types) and good features (functional capabilities), exactly like every other language out there.
ComScore/Rentrak is the first place that comes to mind that has almost complete box office info, but there are others.
You seem like a decent person trying to minimize the disruption your toddler is causing the other travellers, but in my experience you are definitely in the minority. I can honestly say that I've never met anyone that did what you say you'd do.
The far more common example is parents that pay no attention to their kids, regardless of their little angels kicking the seat in front of them, running and tackling the crew, throwing food or liquids around or just screaming at the top of their lungs. The only moment the parents seem to react is when other travellers ask them to control the beasts, at which point they'll start screaming about strangers telling them how to educate their kids.
Again, you might not be like that (you are probably nothing like that) and we all accept that, even if your toddler is causing discomfort in others, you have no other option. Maybe accept that some of that people travelling with pets might not have any other option either.
I find them useful for to-do lists, but little else. Even if you can connect two separate nodes, the tool doesn't use that new information to change the organization of the nodes (something like a force-directed graph could be interesting).
def showNotification(notification: Notification): String = {
notification match {
case Email(email, title, _) =>
s"You got an email from $email with title: $title"
case SMS(number, message) =>
s"You got an SMS from $number! Message: $message"
case VoiceRecording(name, link) =>
s"you received a Voice Recording from $name! Click the link to hear it: $link"
}
}Maybe a bit off-topic, I wholeheartedly agree with your teacher, but even if a historical event has several causes, it's very common for there to be a single trigger that starts the whole thing. Everybody "knows" that the first world war started with the assasination of the archduke Ferdinand, but the causes were many (the alliance between France and Russia, between Germany and Austro-Hungary, the problems in the Balkans between Russia, the Ottoman empire and Austro-Hungary...)
As for your question, it probably has happened a few times (avian flu a few years ago?), but medicine is much better now and, on average, the population is healthier. Just these two facts alone make it much more difficult (but not impossible) for something like that from happening again.
Another off-topic, but I find it weird that it's called the Spanish flu when, apparently, it started in France. Spain was not part of WWI and didn't have wartime censorship at the time, so it was the first place that started reporting cases of it, but it didn't originate there.
Here's a scenario that I've seen repeated quite often in conferences: You have two talks you are interested in with some free time in the middle, so you pick some other talk to go, if only to fill in the time, and end up discovering an aspect that you didn't even knew would be useful.
However, on every build the unit, integration and acceptance tests should run and should alert if something is not right[0]. Automated testing can't cover all the use cases, but there's no reason they couldn't catch most of the issues we've seen with OSX lately (a good example of a system with plenty of interconnected components). On top of that, the good QA people I know always run some random manual tests not related with the story itself on every feature release just to make sure everything is still as expected.
The time is there if it is, along with the expectations, managed correctly. Only in smaller chunks instead of a big, single block of time at the end.
Even though, there's always the chance that there's a completely unforeseen side effect (a test can prove that there's an error, but can't prove that there are no errors), all of this is to try and minimize that chance. In general, I think that these issues appear more often related to specific systems (lots of interconnected components) or environments (lack of proper testing), rather than with specific methodologies (back in the non-agile methodologies days, programs still had bugs).
[0] Like, for example, an edge case of a method being fixed. That can have knock-on effects if other parts of the system were relying on that method failing.
Years ago I started seeing companies combining QA and product teams[1]. It required product people with a bit of technical background but, when done right, worked incredibly well. Nowadays not only I've stopped seeing that trend, but most product teams I see are completely ignorant of technical matters. QA teams seem to be more or less missing or seriously understaffed.
---
[0] Not to speak of the need to be "agile" without changing a single thing in the process. I can't count the number of times I've seen teams using what is, essentially, a waterfall process (including long development cycles with no contact with the customer at all) self-describing themselves as agile.
[1] So the same team defining the new features also creates the tests, both automated and manual, and checked the results.
Or put in a different way, if the browser changes in 2007 are "ancient", how would you describe the ones that happened 10 years before that? Prehistoric? Jurassic?
Sure, they are. By the recording companies.
The argument we, nerds, made at the time is that with that model of content creation and distribution artists were still getting most of their income from concerts, so ideally they could move to a self-publishing model or even give their music for free and still retain most of their income.
I don't know how familiar you are with the music industry, but the amount of money a musician gets (or used to get, I've been decades away from that business) is usually cents per album sold. You get 100K sales? Congratulations, that's a massive achievement, here's your $5K. To share among all the band members. Off you go.
Don't take my word for it, either, read a few interviews with Trent Reznor in the early 00's, for example, when he left the music label he was with and moved to self-publishing (which he was almost doing anyway), here's one where he talks about this head on:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/q-a-with-trent-rez...
It turns out that the internet is a great tool for new musicians to advertise themselves, you have plenty of places that allow you to upload your stuff for free and selling your music is easier now than ever. Of course it requires a set of new skills (a bit of marketing, sales, technical know-how) but on the whole, you have more control and less strings attached than with a record label. Very few people buy physical media any more, so most of the advantages of signing with a company (production, sales, distribution, logistics...) are gone anyway.
And that's the beauty of this: Recording labels are still a viable businesses, they can still offer services the musicians and fans need, all we said is that the balance of power had to shift from the power ties in the offices earning millions to the musicians actually making the stuff.
The owners of the rights to the recording can only exercise rights over their recording, not on the song itself.
Sorry to nitpick, but if we are going to talk about legal issues let's, at least, be precise.
There was some discussion on HN about this VM before (about performance with TruffleRuby, an implementation of Ruby on the JVM): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13652541
Do you mind if I ask what country was this in? It might be because I'm specially sensitive, but any system that allows that to happen to terminal patients and their families is definitely broken.
Let's see if I can explain myself: I was diagnosed with leukaemia three years ago and now I'm on the last weeks of the treatment, for the moment (and waiting for the last bone marrow tests), it looks like the treatment has worked (although there's a decent chance of cancer coming back in the next few years).
Speaking for myself, one of the things that frustrates me is the reluctance from doctors to give a straight answer. I had to ask several times to get a decent idea of the worst case scenario[0]. For me, having a clear vision helped me frame all the other possible scenarios, from the best possible "cancer is gone forever" to the more probable "treatment will work but in 10-15 years I'll develop another cancer" as well as lining up the available treatments[1].
I don't consider myself specially brave, but I prefer to know the truth, no matter how painful it is. Most of the cancer patients I know think along the same lines (some really brave people there). I accept that some people might not handle the situation well[2], but based on my limited observations, there may be less than you seem to think.
To finish this, I don't know about your father's situation (I'm sorry for your loss, btw) and I might be completely wrong on this (and I apologize if this offends you, it's definitely not my intention), but I'd consider the idea that your father knew and that at least part of his talk about going fishing was his way of trying to cheer you up and protecting you. I know I've done that with my own family.
---
[0] The question was "Assuming the treatment doesn't work, what can I expect?". The most direct answer I got (after all the evasives) was "It will be painless", which is code for "We will pump you full of morphine".
[1] If the leukaemia is not completely gone or it returns I still have the option of a bone marrow transplant (although it will probably destroy my liver and will need a liver transplant too), I could also go for immunotherapy, which has shown very good results with my type of leukaemia but, as far as I know, only one hospital in Europe has the equipment necessary to do it. Worst case... well, we'll see, but even then I have 2-3 options that don't involve being a husk full of morphine until the lack of oxygen in blood kills me.
[2] And that's why there's a team of psychologists with specific oncology training in my hospital, as well as religious support for the people that want it.
Both were updated at the same time. I keep my work laptop (another rMBP) on Sierra and I might just skip updating that one altogether.
What it's being discussed here is not if the addon is interesting or not, it's the fact that Mozilla, a supposedly freedom and privacy advocate has installed something in all of our computers, without our knowledge or permission as a publicity stunt for a different company and, when found out, the best explanation we've received is "Oops! You guys shouldn't have seen that".
I've done a quick search for environments in case there's something I missed, and found nothing, so maybe it's a translation issue?
If you DO mean containers, then yes, it's a wonderful idea and I use them extensively[0], but has nothing to do with Tab Groups. If you boil it down, Tab Groups was just an UI extension, all it gave us was another view of all the opened tabs and, if you ask me, that idea matches perfectly with containers; just make each group a container.
My only issue with containers are that you can't move one tab from one container to another. I understand why and the complexities (and maybe even dangers) of doing so, but strictly from an user perspective it feels... wrong. It feels like an arbitrary limitation. Of course, you can copy the url, open a new tab in the container and paste it there, but then you lose all the history (and might need to log in again).
[0] With Tree Tabs I've made every root tab a different container and every time I open a new tab from that root, I made it from the same container.
Should that mean that the only available food is baby food?
When I'm working on a specific problem I tend to open a lot of tabs, so my workflow was to create a new group, open all the tabs I needed while I worked (sometimes I'd open the same link in several tabs because it was easier than trying to find where it was) and, at the end, move whatever tabs I wanted to keep (for reference or future use) and closed the whole group.
That and good names for groups made easy to find anything even with hundreds of tabs. If something else came up and I had to drop everything I could open the groups view, select the appropriate group and have an almost-instant context switch. Then I could go right back to whatever I was doing and pick it up with the same ease.
With Tree Tabs but without Groups I can do something similar by using the root of each subtree as a group. However, it's not as nice:
- You can't change the title of the tab, all you can do is use a website whose title describes as best as possible the contents of the subtree, which makes groups like 'email' and 'Hacker news' easy to recognize, but complex tasks almost impossible (not to speak of two similar but separate tasks)
- Even if I close all the subtrees and only leave open the one I'm working on, the titles are still there, always visible. I find that it makes it more difficult for me to concentrate (and increases the chances of procrastination)
I miss Tab Groups.
Not entirely true. Kafka, out of the box (and as far as I know, I'm no expert) will keep the records for 7 days and delete them afterwards.
Most people I know (including myself) use Kafka to keep records for longer and a good option is to use what the article describes, which is to compact the logs. In that case the log, after a configured period of time (or when it reaches determined size) gets compacted and only the latest message with an id gets saved, all previous messages with the same id get deleted (that's why the process needs a message with a null velue to perform the "delete").
Only in the case when you want to keep the data forever and can't use compaction (compaction assumes that your messages always contain the full state of an entity, so the last message will always contain the current state and the previous can be deleted with no side effects), then there's no way to delete a specific message. I'd have to read the exceptions for backups included in GDPR, but you could make the case that, in this case, the Kafka log is maintained only as a backup of the data, to be able to replay it again in case something downstream gets broken.