simoncarter

But how can they do in a way that scales?

Certain people seem to be annoyed that they don't just ask questions that can't be verified and take the candidates word at it.

How is Facebook inherently evil?

What were some of those concepts that ended up being usefu?

It's more akin to file diffing. Developers are notified of any differences in snapshots. The developer can they either accept the new snapshot, or investigate and fix.

Here is are a couple:

https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/r... https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/c...

Would be interested to hear of more also.

From the article:

"Where could a public health approach to violence be introduced next? One possibility is London, where in 2017 knife crime among under-25s reached a five-year high. In recent months, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, Cressida Dick, and the mayor, Sadiq Khan, have been among those calling for a public health approach."

I agree, and try to write all my react without it, using redux, thunks and reselect heavily.

I think it's easy to say it was a design error with hindsight. I'm happy React came along, and in the future it will either get better or we'll move on to something else, heaving learnt from it's mistakes.

> As demonstrated by the instant downvote of my comment, media that isn't explicitly controlled is generally self-censored to protect the mythical reality supporting the war effort.

The downvotes of your comment don't demonstrate that. You're making insensitive assertions with no evidence to back them up. Further, others have made more intelligent contributions on the rights and wrongs of certain state powers without getting downvoted.

Before clicking on the link, I thought for some reason this would be article explaining how Paul Graham had got his own number, much like the Erdos number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erd%C5%91s#Erd.C5.91s_numb....

Completely off topic, but the comma in the title feels very out of place.

Your response implies that you've not read the thread of comments I was contributing to. I wasn't taking a position on firewalls, nor on the current publication/journal practise. Rather, joelthelion tried to argue that paywalls could possibly explain the lack of citations for more recent publications. I gave counter arguments. Not sure what your comments on the right or wrongs on paywalls and journalling practises have to do with this?

> There are researchers at companies. There are researchers with no affiliation. Many have an issue with paywalls even though you haven't.

I never made any comment either way. I really don't see how you can make that comment. Just mentioned that researchers I have known find ways to get round paywalls, if they ever happen to to encounter one, if needed, including even emailing the author of the papers. If you want to publish you can't submit a paper for review without having demonstrated knowledge of the related literature, and where your work fits within that. Researchers will find a way to read and cite the relevant literature that they need to, and thus can't be used an excuse for lower citations for more recent papers.

EDIT: Didn't intend for my post to be harsh.

Most academic institutions pay to have access to the large academic sites. If you do need to read a paper that's still behind a paywall, you usually email someone at a different university who does have access, or even just look up the authors academic page, which will often have a pdf. So I can't see paywalls being an issue. It certainly never was for me or my former colleagues.

> In the UK and US at least, you do not need to show your photos to a person that tries to detain you, and you do not need to delete any photos. If you are arrested and charged with a crime, then they can inspect the photos as evidence, but not before. They still are not permitted to delete any.

My understanding is different for the UK. If you refuse to show a police officer the photos, they have the right to take you to a station, where they will examine the photos. Like you, i'm not a lawyer.

>Also, in the UK if someone who is not a police office tries to detain you (and this includes security guards and PCSOs), then they must be relying on the law of citizen's arrest, which means that they must have seen you in the act of committing an offense that could be tried at a crown court - in other words, something worthy of half a year or more in prison.

What you say is true about the citizens arrest, but as was mentioned in the article, my understanding was that they are able to call the police because you've been acting suspiciously, and that they have that 'right' to call the police if you are seen taking photos. They can't hold you, but then most people stay, because leaving is seen as an admission of guilt/being a terrorist. Would be nice if this was tested in a court of law, or to hear from someone who knows if it has. Even then i'm not convinced a Judge won't just say "Well, in this post 9/11 time, people should be expected to be stopped if they take photos of high value targets."

EDIT: Taking photos of a building == Acting suspiciously. Not what I believe, just what I understand is argued, often, when security guards call the police because you've been seen taking photos of their building.

In that case, the presence of the cameras gave a sense of security that was unwarranted. It didn't prevent the crime from happening, but did let the citizens think that that their presence would detract criminals, which it didn't, at least in their case, and that if there was a crime, the culprits would have a higher chance of being convicted.

The flip side to your flip side is that the cameras, for a number of reasons, do not always work. I remember dealing with a case of robbery, and it turned out that the camera was not working (either itself, or the transmission of the video to the center where they are monitored). This was some 7/8 years ago though, and the technology may have improved.

I agree with that. As I mentioned in another comment, the behaviour of the security guards and the police officers is often the most unsettling part of the experience. To quote myself in another comment:

"Ok, you have to do your job and check their photos, but why not crack a joke, apologise for the inconvenience, and check the photos quickly as possible."

> I've gotten into arguments about this before, but I still fully believe that any long-term security measure requiring secrecy is bound to fail and/or be ineffective.

Agree with the sentiment, especially when applied to computers, though i'm not sure how it applies to non-IT based security, because I just don't know enough about the subject.

> It's another step of security theatre; they need to look like they're doing something otherwise if something happens they're afraid of looking like idiots (despite their measures being completely and utterly useless).

Agreed. On a slight tangent, base jumpers are more than able to gain illegal access to tall buildings in the city, with all their secretive security measures. There are a couple of documentaries out there on this, one I'm confident was shot post 9/11.

My greatest concern when reading about or watching these incidents is the poor treatment of those non-violent citizens taking the photos. Ok, you have to do your job and check their photos, but why not crack a joke, apologise for the inconvenience, and check the photos quickly as possible.

Photographers being detained seems to be an unfortunately frequent occurrence in London (anecdotal belief rather than based on any numbers). There are a number of videos on youtube of people having filmed themselves being detained for the same or similar reasons. It is tricky issue; you want to prevent terrorists gaining information on the security measures of certain buildings/areas, while allowing non violent citizens to go about their day. However I fear if terrorists were to do this, they would be more subtle, using hidden cameras, or working off memory and multiple trips, so seems like the current approach only impacts genuine photographers and concerned citizens. Usually, looking at the videos on youtube, the most unsettling part is the behaviour of the security guards and police officers, though I do seem to remember one video where the police officer/PCSO was reasonable.

I was about to ask this question, though not sure I can share in the conclusion. I was under the impression that people who spend money on consumables help drive the economy, though this might be tangential to the net value to society of each dollar spent. Further, as I understood, taxes on consumables such as VAT, which is how I assume one would go about dealing with that third category of wealthy person, tends to disproportionately impact the poorer in society, at least from what i've read in the news.

In what appears to be the original paper on the 10,000 hour rule (The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/D...), even the Authors state:

"It is important to note that our study shows only that the amount and distribution of practice is related to the level of performance of adult musicians. In fact, many additional factors consistent with the skill-acquisition framework could attenuate the differences among our three groups. Sosniak (1985) found that international-level pianists had spent considerable efforts to seek out the very best musical teachers during their musical development. Furthermore, it is likely that an analysis of the detailed activities during practice alone would reveal qualitative differences between violinists at different advanced levels of performance (Gruson, 1988; Miklaszewski, 1989)."

But more recent research has demonstrated (though I don't know to what degree, nor how many other papers have validated the following findings) that "individual differences in accumulated amount of deliberate practice accounted for about one-third of the reliable variance in performance in chess and music, leaving the majority of the reliable variance unexplained and potentially explainable by other factors". From http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614..., sorry for the paywall.

In the end, I think it's important to spend time searching and finding something you will be happy to do for the majority of your life. If you want to progress at your chosen field, thought out and well planned studying/practise is necessary, and will make you better, whether or not you end up becoming the accepted world best. And if you enjoy it, it won't matter how high you go.

I'm in Eastern Europe right now, and the percentage of people I know who do this, either via a friend, friend of a friend, or a client, is high.

Obvious, though not insurmountable, problems aside, I disagree it's niche.

I think people also forget that the point of the 10k hours is not just the time, but also the fact that experts actively spend time figuring our their weaknesses, and focus on that, while making sure their strengths don't start to wilt. Planning rather than just doing, are also important.

I'm intrigued to know how the process for a 8$ cert is different to that of a basic free StartSSL cert. The last paid for certificate I got was a year ago, and getting a StartSSL certificate is just as streamlined a process as the paid one. The only thing I can think of is if you are talking about certificates with wild-card matching, which will save time on the individual certificates you have to get when free. But for $8, is it possible to get a wild-card matching one?

That the assumptions you made are not necessarily feasible/possible/correct in a real world, startup scenario.

StartSSL is great. I'm able to role and go live with SSL certs, now i've written down the process, in less than half an hour, with checking and all other stuff involved.

Maybe because he is to busy. Or maybe because of a 100 different other reasons. Whatever his excuse, the fact that someone could be to busy to implement some software doesn't mean they can't critique something they don't like, or suggest ideas for things they do.

I can’t figure out if you’re making a sarcastic point in rebuttal against orclev, or, because the analogy is so bad, taking the piss out of people who would use that analogy.

Nice clean design. However, I'm not sure about the use-case you present on the website. If you're developing websocket enabled apps, you're going to have use get a socket server at some time, so why put it off?

FYI, Coursera is offering a free alternative. No one-on-one, but an active student community on the course. https://class.coursera.org/android-001

I'd be interested in knowing more of some of the pitfalls you briefly mention in dealing with VCs and the world of startups in general. An article, somewhere, anywhere, would be nice.