ossreality

:) I don't come across a lot of ppl that know that one. Googler? Fan/user

Anyway, yeah, I've actually had that thought in the back of my head. I've actually reloaded this laptop 3 times due to the exact situation you mention. (The HDD is too small to leave CrOS on there).

It's been several months since I've let CrOS do it's thing and reflash the firmware... I should give it a shot.

Many moths ago, I was reinstalling CrOS it to try to get it to reflash the adapter so that MST on DP1.2 would work. But it never worked and furthermore, the Dell monitors I have stop working when you enable DP1.2 so all around... it was disappointing.

I wanted my Pixel to be my sole development machine... but when I'm sitting at my desk... I expect dual monitors... So I continue to sync my git repos between 3+ computers at a time. Woohoo.

Whoever wants to make a laptop with 16GB RAM, HiDPI screen (and not the shitty Lenovo panels), and 2x mini-DP out.... boy, I'd sure love to see it. (And the Surface Pro 4 actually falls in that category, but is not Linux friendly)

----

edit: Checked the dingdong history... not seeing too much relevant but I might give it a shot when I have a slow weekend. Thanks again!

So uh, maybe they can explain why the DisplayPort USB-C adapter for the Chromebook Pixel only works in one orientation? Yes, that's right. You heard me. You have to flip it over 50% of the time to get the screen to come on. (This might be Linux specific, I don't have ChromeOS to check)

I had the same memory as you, but after looking it up an hour ago, I'm willing to write that one off as a bit conspiracy-theorist. It seemed like it was in the context of upgrading their systems to track this sort of stuff.

Of course, as I type that out it sounds like a load of baloney.

[on-topic, but somewhat identifying comment removed] I didn't realize I was actually properly unhellbanned. I prefer the echo. :/

This is literally months old and has been completely superceded by an actual release.

OP's article: June 2015.

From the same blog, 4 days ago: Announcement of a alpha-ish release of the thing the OP's post talks about http://blogs.msdn.com/b/powershell/archive/2015/10/19/openss...

Don't you need SecureBoot to start the process of the measured boot?

um, cross origin blocking has been a thing for... like a really really long time now.

I almost want to login to my non-throwaway/hellbanned account just to laugh at this notion.

The times I've been most curious. Most engrossed in a piece of new tech has been when I'm high. Some night, I will go home from a 9-10 hour work day and get high to relax and make dinner and then go to bed... but will wind up reading about the latest and greatest in container tech, or whatever.

The notion that pot makes you distinctly less interested is just laughable in my opinion.

It worse than that, the misunderstanding that is.

I live and breathe Linux. But Powershell is so far ahead of bash for text and object manipulation, it's not really even a close call.

Pressing 'y' on github will cause "master" to be expanded to the current hash so that the link becomes a perma-link to that line of that commit, rather than that line of whatever-is-the-latest commit.

I uh, I do understand what you're saying. My empathy is overflowing, and I've seen friends that have gone from timid to "over confident" in order to find more success in dating... so I can understand that a million thoughts were flying through his head when he decided to go for it.

BUT, the two were strangers, in a topic-oriented setting, and she rebuffed his first attempt. That could have, and should have been the end of the story...

Put another way: if he had hugged her, she said "We just met..." and that was the end of it, we wouldn't be having the conversation at all.

Unfortunately, as you allude, there's not really a definitive way of solving this problem unless we build a way of giving passive signals constantly. Some sort of an indicator or smart phone app "Yes, I am willing to be hit on by you and you, but not you and you". There's a weird idea...

Sorry, I wasn't taking it personally. I was having a meta discussion about how we were talking about it more than anything. I don't think we have a problem with each other. :)

>I claimed that this is far worse than normal behavior that is probably isolated to the "community" of cryptocurrency speculators. [...] You can disagree if you'd like, but I'm not "distracting" or "derailing" the conversation, I'm just... having a conversation?

Fair enough, I think you're right and that we simply disagree on that fundamental pivot point.

Still though, what is the point of making this distinction? Like, I don't think anyone ever /was/ asserting that running cgminer or holding some doges makes you "as legit" or "in the same vein as" someone who works in SV or works for Microsoft or something.

I guess if you think it's specific to cryptocommunities then you would advocate for crypto-currency-specific gender training/education materials maybe?

It's very amusing and ironic to me that you are completely projecting the air of "generalization". I didn't see the author anywhere saying "All bitcoin users are like this" and in fact, you'll find me chiding someone else, here, for saying that.

You just want to reduce this to something that you can dismiss and ignore, because it's complicated and you can't hold your own when it comes to the details. And, in this case, you're just putting words in the author's mouth in order to invent a way to demean and dismiss her. Classy.

>Did she do something about it? Of course she didn't.

I don't even know what "Of course" is supposed to mean there, but I'm pretty sure it says something not-so-great about your default position and open-mindedness on this issue.

edit: Can't keep up with your edits (it's okay, I do it too)

>Kind of funny she made the post and claimed to "have a thick skin".

And again, you'll note that this is very much a recount of what happened. In fact, she explicitly said she doesn't think she was violated (and I disagree with her, but that's her prerogative).

I find basically none of your assumptions to be accurate, or more importantly, I don't understand how it is useful to assert as a broad generalization. Certainly here in this thread.

It's just frustrating, I'm clearly outspoken against groping and misogyny, but then I get lazily lumped in with them because I also am a fledgling bitcoin fan? Stereotypes are just a good way to reduce a conversation to a nearly useless set of tropes and blur away the details of reality.

In this case, it's a distraction. The problem is the groping and the mentality that led to that guy touching her without her consent. Unless the crypto communities are fostering that, or something about the tech makes that prevalent, it just seems like a distraction. Right? Instead, now we're talking about Bitcoin... instead of a problem that spans ALL of tech, not just Bitcoin.

(I was intentionally generalizing to make a point, nothing more, I don't want to speak for any groups of people in general!)

edit: To those that apparently don't grok, I explicitly wrote "Of course not" in the post, pointing out that I wasn't actually asserting a hard connection between bitcoin and libertarianism.

>I imagine the average Bitcoin user as more a fedora-toting internet troll than a crypto-enthusiast.

Well, at least you disclosed that you're just projecting that image onto strangers you don't know.

I can make up reasonable sounding things too! Bitcoin supporters are more likely to be libertarians and thus are more likely to respect individuality, boundaries and privacy. Thus, I'm shocked to hear of a bitcoin supporter creeping on a female. (Of course, I'm not, but it has nothing to do with Bitcoin itself)

What does encryption, proof of work algorithms or anything else have to do with one's likelihood of being gross towards women? It's such a weird thing to even allege. Seems like another cheap "lol bitcoin fans are dumb neckbeards" remark to me.

As I'm reading, all I can think "Are you even remotely serious? We now can't have a discussion about gender without rfnslyr derailing the conversation, this time because he wants to harken back to early pioneer days?"

Your trollish derailment of gender threads on HN is rather telling. Or do you have any point related to how this woman was groped without her consent, repeatedly?

Easier said than done. I've been "out" for years and despite being opinionated and a "proud" person, I still find it extremely hard to put my neck out there and call others out (and interesting, it's much easier for me to stand up for female friends than it is to stand up for myself or other LGBT-specifically related issues).

It's hard enough to do, at all, to confront someone. But it's another thing when you've just been thrown completely off-kilter by having a stranger inappropriately groping you in public (Plus, you think he's going to have a positive reaction to her chiding him? Somehow I doubt it.). I'll give her a pass on not reprimanding him. (Plus, your post has the distinct scent of victim blaming)

Where do people get off thinking they have the right to touch others, especially repeatedly, unreciprocated? So many of these tech, gender, sex issues would be pre-empted so many times if people simply respected some basic boundaries, were less presumptive and thought about their actions.

I'd love to know what that groper would've done if I'd walked in, as a guy, and immediately started hitting on him and touching him. Even more bonus points if he knew I was gay when I walked in. Except that I'm disgusted with myself even imagining doing that to make a point. Just think people. Have a tiny ounce of empathy.

Nothing, but there are more paranoid and more easily implemented systems that you could use instead if you want easy, but air-gapped backups.

So:

- make backups

- encrypt data

- use a password manager

The holy trifecta of things that people hear about and refuse to do. And then come and preach to others when they realize that "Doh, should have listened to that troll on HN".