passwordreset

ocsp.apple.com also has an IPv6 address. Firefox connects to it even with 0.0.0.0 in the hosts file and a flushed cache (you need to also clear firefox's internal cache if you're testing with it), so I'd assume that trustd could connect to the ocsp site as well. I don't think this will work without ensuring there is no IPv6 traffic on your network, or otherwise dumping both IPv4 and v6 packets to ocsp.apple.com.

Disable IPv6: sudo networksetup -setv6off Wi-Fi (where Wi-Fi is the name of the network service)

Spaces, the virtual desktop manager, makes it good. A few years ago, multiple desktops were accessible with a 3-finger swipe left or right. Now, when you make an app full-screen, it creates a new space to contain the app, so multiple full-screen apps are easily accessible.

Linux has a virtual desktop manager, and Windows has some 3rd-party apps that provide multiple desktops. None of those apps seem as tightly integrated and useful as this Mac OS feature.

... and it's even worse than that. It seems there was no reason to suspect that this was the home of a drug dealer, as the police informant never purchased drugs there. The deputy who lied to the court to get the warrant was indicted but acquitted.

From https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-georgia-deputy-acqui...

In 2015: "a federal grand jury indicted the undercover Habersham County deputy who secured the no-knock warrant, Nikki Autry, alleging that she provided false information to gain entry to the home where the Phonesavanhs were staying. The informant who she claimed purchased meth there never did, the indictment states, and Autry never "confirmed" that there was heavy drug traffic at the home, as she also claimed to have done."

Doesn't it? How does the knight jump over other pieces if there is no 3rd spatial dimension in chess?

Why would you send seeds instead of sending 1000 empty envelopes?

TLDR: $6.25M is all it would cost to implement Orwellian censorship across Facebook.

TFA says there are "hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions, of false positives every year." Let us assume there are a million false positives that require human intervention every year. There are 50 work weeks in the year, so to resolve 1,000,000 false positives over 50 weeks requires humans to resolve an average of 20000 per week, or 4000 per day, or 500 per hour, or 125 every 15 minutes.

Therefore, a team of 125 people could theoretically solve this problem by resolving 1 false positive every 15 minutes. At $50,000 US dollar pay scale, Facebook would need to pay out $6.25 million dollars to solve this.

Therefore, given "a user base edging toward 3 billion people is always going to generate hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions, of false positives every year," it would cost FB ~$6.25M to hire a team of 125 people to resolve the issue, per million false positives.

That seems economical for a multi-billion dollar company.

You might want to check out Gitpod, if you haven't already. It sounds like it should be compatible with your workflow. I think it's possible to self-host, too, if that's important to you.

The deepest hole we have ever dug (bbc.com) = Doctor Who, season 12.

(j/k)

Just a FYI, but you don't need to pay the $12.99 or whatever it is to "jump the waitlist". Simply invite someone else, and when that someone else joins, you're automatically off the wait queue and able to view a feed or create subwikis.

Join the subwiki called "Riffing" if you're into MST3K or Rifftrax. :)

We're talking about the speculation that a homicide was committed to look like a suicide. I'm not sure I see what "Suicide is as high as a third of all prison deaths" has to do with anything in this instance.

At best, maybe we could say that both potential instances (suicide and homicide) are extraordinary, since what we would expect to happen in the ordinary circumstance is neither suicide nor homicide; but that wasn't the impression given by the original statement.

It could be equally said, therefore, that the claim Epstein hung himself with dental floss inside a secure facility without being captured on camera is also extraordinary. So, when I asked, I wasn't sure which of these two events was supposed to be "extraordinary", because neither really seemed to rank more extraordinary than the other, and still don't.

My condolences about being stuck in Chicago. I spent a good amount of time downtown around Merchandise Mart. Crazy traffic.

I'm not sure I follow you here. Which claim do you consider to be extraordinary, the claim that Epstein was killed, or the claim the Epstein was a suicide? Neither claim seems "extraordinary".

Just a word of warning on Drive in particular. I received this notice the other day when trying to download one of my files from Drive:

--

Sorry, you can't view or download this file at this time.

Too many users have viewed or downloaded this file recently. Please try accessing the file again later. If the file you are trying to access is particularly large or is shared with many people, it may take up to 24 hours to be able to view or download the file. If you still can't access a file after 24 hours, contact your domain administrator.

--

Note that this was my own file. I was the creator and I was the only downloader.

So, I guess I really didn't own it after all. That's the position that I'm going to have to recommend to anyone using any "cloud" service. If it's in the cloud, you don't own it. If you really care about it, back it up, and test your restores. Your cloud storage can disappear on a whim.

Are you saying that about the FSF? Certainly, Stallman was very important for the FSF, but there was an array of others who worked at various facets at times. Eben Moglen, for example, did a stand-up job and had great success helping the FSF, as did others. So, no, the FSF has not been about "one person".

That said, however, with the circumstances surrounding the removal of RMS, the FSF can longer be trusted. This very different than "depending" on a single person.

No, Americans are certainly not "all pretty much complicit". There is no basis for such an extreme statement, even for moderate values of "pretty much".

Also, isn't this post a copy/paste of one that you just posted? Simply repeating it doesn't make it true, guy.

There are several facts alleged in this case that were provided by the user jedberg.

1: "One guy actually got fired for his password." This is a statement of fact, which we can initially accept as true.

2. He was already being super creepy and making the girl who sat across from him uncomfortable This is a statement of opinion with the appearance of a fact. The phrase "super creepy" is quite vague, to the point of being meaningless without further specification. Also, how jedberg can know that she was feeling uncomfortable should be in question.

3. "but she never told anyone." This unsubstantiates claim #2. If she never told anyone, then there was no way to determine the truth of the claim that he was "making the girl across from him uncomfortable." Note that even this statement may be false, as she could have told many people already without informing jedberg, and if so, would help to substantiate the previous claim.

4. Then we cracked his password, which was a very naughty phrase about the girl who sat across from him. Note that "we cracked his password" is a statement of fact, mixed with opinion that the phrase was "very naughty". Whether the password was "naughty" or not, I don't think anyone is disputing that the password was cracked.

5. I reported it to HR This is a factual claim.

6. who asked the girl This is a factual claim, and most probably true, with the exception that it could be hearsay if jedberg wasn't in the room at the time when it happened, which has not been specified.

7. who then said he was creepy This is a statement of fact. Assuming that jedberg heard this directly from her, we can call this statement true. The important bit, however, is the word "then". She only said that he was creepy _after_ approached by HR. If HR's question was "Don't you think that guy across from you is creepy?", then that would be considered leading and deceptive. If HR's question was "what do you think about the guy across from you", then that question would be leading. If HR's question was "what do you think about your fellow employees", then that question would be neutral and acceptable. Since the manner in which the question was asked was not specified, there is no way to know how this question affected her response. It is not reasonable to assume the question was leading or not leading without further confirmations, and this unfortunately makes the claim moot.

8. so they acted swiftly on the reports and got him out of there. This statement appears to be a reiteration of claim #1, I don't see anything additional here that affects the previous claim.

Later, jedberg said this:

9. he got fired for sexual harassment. This is a statement of fact; however, this appear to directly contradict the first statement that jedberg made, which was that he "got fired for his password." So, if we can accept that he got fired for sexual harassment, then he didn't get fired for his password, and the original claim is untrue.

In summary, 1) a guy got fired for sexual harassment. 2) The accused also had a password that may have mentioned something "naughty". 3) That password was noticed by an IT group and may or may not have had some impact on the termination. 4) The interviewing of the alleged victim may or may not have influenced her testimony.

Those are the specific facts that we're dealing with in this case. Dismissing this with the idea that "there are no facts in this case" is incorrect. The fairness or unfairness of the case is framed around these facts, with opinions given on both sides throughout this thread.

I didn't know this fact until you exposed this article to me: that the person who posted their opinion about RMS threatened to "burn it [MIT] to the ground."

RMS uttered some awful opinion, and this person threatened to burn MIT to the ground as a result. If true, this person, who is identified as "Salem, Robotics student who started Remove Stallman campaign" needs to be removed from MIT immediately for making this threat. Is that something that we can all agree on?

Shouldn't we be making phone calls to the Robotics department at MIT about this threat? Why has this received no media attention? "MIT student threatens to burn MIT to the ground" is certainly a headline that would capture attention.

I have interacted with RMS. He stayed at a friend's house, and I went to one of his lectures. Though I'm not a friend of the man, I know that what you're saying was not true, at least during the time that me and my friends met with him.

This type of rumor mongering is hurtful and should be opposed.

How do you make money? I didn't think farming spiders would pay that well, unless they're really rare spiders.

Whiteboard interviews would be great if they tested the kind of things that we would do on a whiteboard, namely design and _maybe_ pseudocode. If someone is interviewing for an algorithm job, I'd expect they could write text in boxes that might describe how the algorithm works. If someone is interviewing for a front end position, I'd expect that they could draw some boxes describing the UI, and depending on the underlying technology maybe add the info on the containers and subwindows, or describing the MVC model, or high level actions drawn with arrows that show what gets affected if some button or UI item is pressed or selected. If someone is being hired for a networking job, then I might expect to draw up some boxes that show a topology for some scenario and identify where the security structures might need to be. For a straight-up programming job, maybe I could see drawing flow charts or sequence diagrams or something that might actually be useful to draw out. I would certainly not expect to write code on a whiteboard. That's not what whiteboards are for.

My father just died, my mother is depressed. That's a natural, normal, healthy reaction to a traumatic externality.

Being depressed as a result of meeting people that you don't want to meet seems perfectly normal to me. Talking to someone when you don't want to talk to them seems like it would only get you more depressed.

IMO, bad advice, please rethink.

Again, if you have an argument with Wikipedia, maybe you should tell _them_ instead of going onto HN and spouting incorrect and inflammatory material.

"Learn to read", "disingenuous jackoffs", "can't fucking read", "fucking privileged pussy" -- these are all your words. I call them inflammatory. You seem to disagree, but the consensus will line up with me on this one. Please realize that. Your initial post was modded down by others for a reason.

You appear hypersensitive to people who disagree with you. Dude, this is the sign of emotional problems. You need to calm down and realize there's something wrong in your head or in your life, and when you can begin to write like an emotionally secure adult, you'll be taken seriously.

I implore you, please, to analyze your life, find the things that are harming you, and rectify them. I believe, given this interaction with you, that you would benefit from this kind of introspection.

As an example of your extreme sensitivity, when you say "the maximum sentence he would have spent 35 years in jail", on this issue we are in agreement. Somehow, you turn this into an opposition. You seem to be looking for a fight, and you're trying to do it on the Internet. I will not fight you on the Internet, my friend. That would be counter-productive.

"Swartz accessed a system he did not have permission to access. He did so by entering a restricted area he did not have permission to access."

These two sentences appear incorrect. I can simply refer you to Wikipedia, where it states that he accessed "JSTOR using a guest user account issued to him by MIT."

If Wikipedia is wrong, please correct them. Certainly, if you know facts about this case that Wikipedia is getting wrong, then the whole world would benefit by the modification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

"Swartz was never going to get anywhere remotely near 35 years and people need to stop spouting this nonsense as it makes them look completely ignorant of every single fact in the case."

Incorrect and inflammatory; again, a simple check of Wikipedia suggests that you don't have your facts right.

From Wikipedia: "Federal prosecutors later charged him with two counts of wire fraud and eleven violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, carrying a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution, and supervised release."

Again, if you know something that Wikipedia doesn't, please update them; however, it certainly doesn't make ANY sense to say that others are "spouting nonsense" simply because they've received what may be incorrect information from a source like Wikipedia.

I understand your position, but I think 'L0pht' is how they actually spelt it, instead of 'Lopht'. </s?>

I believe that you are making a mistake when you say "not an opinion" in your (parent) post.

The words "appear to be" in one of the above quotes precisely indicates that this is a statement of opinion, and not a statement of fact. When we say "the wall is blue", we are talking about the color of the wall factually. When we say "the wall appears blue", we are talking about how someone sees the wall, which is a subjective observance; the wall may appear to be a color other than blue to someone else with a different pair of eyes.

At least one word, "is", refers to things as a matter of fact. Other words like "appears", "seems", or the sub-phrase "I think", are indicators that we're probably talking about a statement of opinion. This may be a useful rule to follow when reading news stories. I think it seems relevant here. (SwIdt?)

I have a standing desk. I've heard about how stupid standing desks were, so I went out and bought a highchair. Now I can sit at my desk like a normal person. Thanks, New York Times!

Crap, one more thing I meant to add -- Stanford Lagunita (lagunita.stanford.edu) has a number of interesting courses that you might be interested in indexing.

Thanks. The Tinder comparison is fairly clear, but there's still something nagging at me. Tinder (I think) is partially based on physical location. I suppose there's always "cyber", but that's kinda what I'm talking about. "Cyber", well, cybersex is a very distant and unwanted second-place compared to the real thing. I'm thinking there's something similar here. Studying with someone else, it seems to me, has a strong physical component that requires a face-to-face meeting. I don't remember adding location information to my profile, so I guess your algo doesn't match location? It might be useful when trying to create a study group.

Otherwise, for pair or group studying over the internet, I haven't been satisfied with anything that I've seen. That adds some difficulty to the social interactions once the connections are made, and anything that can be done to ease the introductions would be helpful. For physical meetings, it seems like the initial communication might be 'Hi, I'm so-and-so, if you're interested, we can meet in the student library at 10:00AM', or something like that. For Internet-based studying, I'm not sure how that interaction should go. Something like 'Skype me @mynamehere at 10AM EST and we'll study together' doesn't quite seem right to me, because IMing or IRC seems too cumbersome and slow to be useful for studying. I think I'm just ignorant of the tools that can be useful here, but what I've seen so far appears lacking to me.

Another thing, how do I actually find a list of my buddies? OK, I see them now under 'Notifications'. That's unexpected. I was looking for 'My Buddies' or something like that. I'm not sure what 'Notifications' would be for.

.. and the gray overlay does highlight the search bar, I just didn't immediately notice it. My eye is on the 'Search' button that I just clicked, and that gets covered by the overlay, so it gave me the feeling of 'WTF just happened?'

I sometimes feel like a bit of a dick when I critique the work of others, so I'm thankful that you're not taking this the wrong way. In fact, the only reason why I'm looking at this at all is because I think you've done something cool here, and it's potentially very useful. I think you're doing a good job here, and I hope the best for your project.

Latest firefox, created account, logged in, went to '_build_ my profile', received what looks like my profile screen, clicked on 'search' for courses, a gray overlay is put in front of the window, then nothing happens. unfocus and refocus window, gray is gone, but comes back when I hit 'search'. unfocus and refocus, grey is gone, selected 'Interested', tried 'search', same gray overlay. Same thing happens with 'search' from the 'Home' page. Result: cannot 'search', not usable in FF.

Same issue in FF incognito mode.

Same issue in Safari.

Same issue in Chrome.

How is this working for anyone?

Oh, wait a minute. The screen goes gray, but the search bar still works. Can I add that this is a bizarre user experience? Had I not been convinced that there might actually be something worthwhile behind this weird gray screen, I would've left and never thought about this again. A simple message 'Use the search bar above to search for courses to add to your profile' would have been more effective for me.

I'm having trouble understanding how this would work. I've got a course in my profile, pinged someone else who was interested, and now we're connected and I can send messages to them and I assume vice-versa. Now what?

How does one 'study' with others over the internet? I'd love to see a 2-player Anki or something like that, but that doesn't seem to be the purpose of this site. This just connects people, which is great, but then... The usefulness of the site seems to 'end' precisely where the work of studying begins. If I can already find a 'study buddy' for some MOOC using the discussion boards on the site, then what is this for?

and yeah, how does one _study_ with others using the internet? Maybe that's the more pertinent question. If I knew the answer to that, maybe the other questions would be obvious.

“The History of every major Galactic Civilization tends to pass through three distinct and recognizable phases, those of Survival, Inquiry and Sophistication, otherwise known as the How, Why, and Where phases. For instance, the first phase is characterized by the question 'How can we eat?' the second by the question 'Why do we eat?' and the third by the question 'Where shall we have lunch?”

― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

:)

In what way does it seem like that? There are many, many more _sightings_ in the current decade than the last, with a repeating pattern for about 50 to 70 years or so. Cellphone cameras are partially responsible for that, but unfortunately camera quality of most phones kinda sucks. That represents a different set of problems.