r0muald

I make a point of never using pip outside of a virtual environment exactly for this reason. It has worked well!

I'm surprised no one has mentioned friends https://github.com/JacobEvelyn/friends a command line tool that does a lot of what Monica aims to do. A Ruby gem that will be "friendly" only to laptop users, but with a wide community and continued development.

Because when you talk to a salesperson you know you're being looked at (and reciprocally you're looking at them), and human memory is limited so it's unlikely they will retain any "data" about you when the contact is finished.

Here, instead, there is no indication that you're being watched, analyzed and kept recorded for indefinite amounts of time.

If you find the subject interesting I suggest reading "The white road" by Edmund De Waal. It gives a more human, broad and intimate insight into the history of porcelain both in China, Europe and... the USA.

As always, I would prefer more focus on training your own models rather than running prebaked ones.

> I will never accidentally create a merge commit

What is the big deal about creating a merge commit? It that because you only merge in `origin` (wherever that lives)?

Dumb question: what are the possibilities for obtaining the same service offered by these data-hungry companies without giving up genetic privacy?

Really good results! Is there a quick way to copy and paste the hex values for the palette?

That's not​ how Wikipedia works. You are not a reliable source about yourself, be it social media, blogs, company websites.

Same for me as well. I just assumed my account was being under potential compromise, changed password, etc.

Uh?

> There was a “gag order” that prevented us from disclosing even the existence of these warrants until now. This was also the reason why we could not update our “Canary”

Seems the exact purpose it was intended for. And they discuss at length why that canary was too broad and how the new one is better.

So buying Pebble was nothing but their previous try at surviving in a challenging wearable market? It's really difficult to wrap my head around these two recent moves in a way that makes sense.

I found analog loopholes are the most basic countermeasure to document fingerprinting.

The whole point of Schwarzenegger's advice this is that, while you like meat and find it insulting to have someone else's views imposed on you, for many purposes you are the one imposing his own view onto others by eating meat, since that means keeping alive the industry that contributes to 20% or 25% of all carbon emissions in the world. Others may not like that, and will try to convince you and other meat-eaters like myself to stop or reduce meat consumption.

You'd be surprised to know how many millions of people use these dead operating systems on a daily basis.

Funny how after a few messages the author is brought to discuss SGML:

> I'm not familar with SGML, but will have a look.

Excellent project! I wish I had this kind of service available a few years ago.

Minor question: are the servers configured for IPv4 only?

> We are very vulnerable (in terms of rights) when driving in the US.

We are very vulnerable (in terms of rights) in the US.

Or OpenSFM: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12835771

Furthermore, if you are registered with username+ password, I think you will want to have a password recovery method as well, so you're back to giving a phone number or an email address to the server.

I don't understand how having that one hypothetical paper published in PLOS One instead of another journal would be negative.

For one, "owning" means that there is no one, except you, who can singlehandedly delete or censor content that you published on the social media platform. This happens regularly e.g. in Turkey to silence opposition. Most recent notable case https://twitter.com/MahirZeynalov/status/780420919470751744

And that's the tip of the iceberg.

Adds up very well with almost contemporary evidence from Monte Verde in Chile http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... so "mystery" is a non sequitur. But that's the headline.

The original research paper is worth a read (open access FTW).

Anyone could explain briefly what is the "stretch" theory or hypothesis that is mentioned in the heated comments section to the blog post?

I appreciate your comment as a genuine expression of confidence and hope. However, it seems that this generic comment could reference an existing initiative that is already being used by several office suites http://www.documentliberation.org/

So it's not like there aren't already chances for the integration you propose, that span a broader section of the FOSS landscape than just LO/AOO. But ... You'll see that Document Liberation is spearheaded by LO/TDF and ignored by AOO/ASF.

The solution to bad comments is deleting them before they are even visible to other users. Deleting aggressively, as is done in certain subreddits (r/science) may seem offensive towards naive users who just want to add their "2 c" to the discussion, but it's the only effective AND honest strategy: if your comment adds little of interest, it's worth nothing. The bar should be very high, the more popular the website the higher the required quality. But in the end I think NPR are making the right choice. Comments on websites are not a constitutional right, after all.

For those on Linux there have been xdg-app/flatpak nightlies available for a while: http://flatpak.org/apps.html including the GTK+3 version.

They're highly usable but of course care must be taken with changes in the native format.

Edit: typos.

"Of course not all Leavers are racists. That would be a terrible thought. But all racists now think 52% of the population agree with them."

https://twitter.com/paullewismoney/status/747080385683660801

Calling episodes of racism and xenophobia for what they are qualifies as "hate" towards those who voted Leave?

The attack on the Polish cultural centre is "rhetoric"? The murder of Jo Cox is rhetoric?

Feel offended, but at least don't try to paint yourself as subject of hate.

> "carbon-14 testing can’t really do more than offer a certain probability for a timeframe of approximately a century or so: about the same timeframe that palaeographers can offer"

The main takeaway is that the scale of both methods is essentially the same, and will rarely span more than 100 years, for the time frame of interest to papyrologists.