palebluedot

To give some more pushback on this assertion... I've been developing software for 21 years now, and the only positions I had where there was negligible open-source software were in the first couple of years (in the automotive firmware space [OnStar], and a brief stint in some defense contracting). For the last 18-ish years--firmware, systems, enterprise, virtualization, demos, security--everything I've worked on has largely been based on open-source software, or the product was open-source itself. What I've never done professionally: Web app development.

Honestly, I think it would be hard to overstate the prevalence and impact of open-source software in the field of programming (and really, the entire tech field).

All the rest of my IoT stuff is either open-source hardware/software, or at the least local-only with known protocol interfaces. This was the one exception I made for IoT "cloud", giving Google the benefit of the doubt. I regret deeply giving them that benefit now.

But what else can you do, really? Best to put your savings into the most cost effective / tax efficient vehicle that is currently available.

No individual commit should break the build; one reason is to keep git-bisect working well for future users bug-hunting, without getting stopped because someone didn't keep the commits on their dev branch clean prior to merging (N.B., a maintainer should also reject such PRs). And keeping commits clean usually means needing to rebase occasionally to organize the commits.

And each commit should be reviewed individually, in addition to the whole of the branch / PR.

Not to mention that each commit should be logically laid out, with well-defined changes and well-written commit messages. This usually means needing to rebase a branch when developing non-trivial features or bug fixes, to fold in review feedback.

But as mentioned elsewhere, generally on feature / dev branches, the expectation is that the commits are unstable, subject to change, and should not be built upon (without prior coordination, at least).

Master and stable release branches, on the other hand, should never change or be rebased.

No, it's not at all. Buying options is actively betting on both price and time targets, and carries a much different risk profile compared to simply avoiding a specific investment.

That'd be great, but so long as there is some nominal value in cash to some cryptocurrency, wouldn't ransomware just ask for the same amount of underlying money? That is, just increase the number of coins required for ransom? The big benefit in cryptocoins for ransomware isn't the increasing value, but the fact there is no intermediary that can turn off accounts or rollback transactions.

I ran into that issue with some household members, that had problems with certain websites that didn't work. Since I run my own DHCP server (not through pi-hole), what I ended up doing is giving them a different (e.g. 1.1.1.1) DNS resolver for their machine (based on their MAC address), and then installing uBlock Origin for them. That way, they can easily turn ad blocking on/off themselves, while I can still have network-wide adblocking on by default (especially useful for mobile devices).

You should use '&&' instead of ';' on the host side. That way you don't accidentally dump your transfer contents into a wrong directory if the existing host dir doesn't exist.

e.g.: tar cf - stuff | ssh host "(cd /dest/dir && tar xf -)"

For /r/all, there is the ability (on the right sidebar) to filter subreddits. You can add whatever subreddits you wish to exclude when browsing "All".

Anonymity on the internet causes people to act inappropriately, troll, comment offensively, conduct fraud and illegal activities.

Interesting, because I think your example is even more effective as a counter-example to your point. As you noted, Hacker News is pretty anonymous, and without verification. Yet, compare the comments here, with Facebook comments on pretty much any news site. Or maybe any other site with Facebook comments. There is no comparison -- Hacker News, with all its anonymity, is much more civil, collegiate, and productive.

The lack of intelligent, earnest discourse online is much more complex than anonymity or the lack of it.

As matter of fact, that was my whole point: Rather than growing "a lot" they may end up just holding on to their marketshare. Whether that is a mark against them or not is for you to decide, when researching investments.

You are right about some of their resources, however I think it is a mistake to glibly discount the importance of the battery supply and manufacturing (and by extension, the charging infrastructure) -- that is arguably the hardest and most important part of an electric vehicle, and with Tesla's Gigafactories, that could represent an important advantage of Tesla.

I don't mean this to say that you are being inaccurate, just that his current position seems a little different now:

"Again, I'm not arguing that people shouldn't work on extending git to a new (and bigger) hash. I think that's a no-brainer, and we do want to have a path to eventually move towards SHA3-256 or whatever" http://marc.info/?l=git&m=148787457024610&w=2

That sounds like a lot of vodka, especially for a first-time drinker! Depending on the size of the cup, that was likely at least 5 drinks, and likely more (1 drink of spirits is usually less than you think, and almost always less than what you see poured on TV).

Given that it is also easier to drink liquor faster than something like beer, you likely had quite a bit of alcohol in a pretty short time. I'd be sick, too.

A couple of things I wonder: A) maybe is a rolling change, and not yet complete; or B) perhaps the goal is to disrupt it enough to make it not reliable, yet functional enough for plausible deniability.

The end result though, is that I read less of the WSJ. I'm sympathetic to the need for paying subscribers, but I've already subb'ed to the NYT, so if I run into unavoidable paywalls at other sources, the end result is that I'll read less of those sources.

In my experience, a lot of closed source C projects ban goto outright, in (IMO) an overly dogmatic adherence to the idea that all goto use is spaghetti code and therefore bad.

In other words, collaboration may indeed the fastest path if all goes well, but multiple independent efforts may be safer, with a higher probability of success.

Independent approaches also allow for slightly different techniques and technological approaches to the problem, which may have additional unknown benefits later on.