tmp538394722

Exactly my experience. Often the professors held us undergraduates in open contempt.

One in particular said straight up on the first day, “I do not like teaching. I am required to do this in order to do the research I want to do.”

I guess I at least appreciated his candor, it gave me insight to what many of the other professors felt but never said out loud.

…and actually he was in the better half of instructors (there was an admittedly low bar with a few excellent standouts).

This was a better comment than your original sarcastic comment - the internet’s got enough vitriol, please don’t add to it.

The article mentions that the parasites are treated if they infect the blood or liver…

So I guess they are monitoring the vaccinated closely. Honestly sounds a bit touchy.

That’s the only interpretation that at least makes some kind of sense.

Not that I agree with it. Signal and iMessage have way more in common than they do differently, but at least it’s a coherent sentence.

I would be amazed if less than 5 million people in India used iMessage.

This is awesome. Thanks for sharing.

> Although the impacts took place on the side of Jupiter hidden from Earth, Galileo, then at a distance of 1.6 AU (240 million km; 150 million mi) from the planet, was able to see the impacts as they occurred.

We’re getting better at this stuff!

I think seeing something world changingly large randomly smashing into our next door neighbor would leave me feeling something other than lucky.

But sure if it’s gonna happen, let’s get the neighbors a pool! Just let me uh… change my shorts.

It’s also used to talk about things like clothing made out of leather alternative.

Ah, ok. Sorry I assumed sarcasm because your summary was super short and, in my opinion, kind of missed the point of the article.

A better summary might be:

There was no silver bullet that fixed everything, rather a vigorous campaign of teaching a security mindset.

See though, this is kind of the problem right here. Doing everything right is super rote and boring and apparently deserves your mocking commentary.

Whereas doing things wrong (or taking advantage of other people who do things wrong), well that’s fertile soil for good storytelling.

If someone without context had walked into the room and heard him say “spoon me”, they’d likely think something very different were going on.

“Spoon” as a verb usually means something like “cuddle me” - as in “let’s be like spoons and fit all our curves really close together”.

It seems like the “o” in “olyžicujte ma” clarified that you’re talking about equipping.

I haven’t seen the show, but that double entendre on “spoon” might have been one layer of the joke.

The first 1/3 of the article explains their historical motivation for this approach and specifically why this was a breakthrough for teaching. Names can matter.

And from a more practical standpoint, RSpec is now much more than just a different mapping of some key words.

the DSL rspec landed on can be very concise, which I appreciate. This is mostly made possible by Ruby’s short block syntax and the ability to nest them.

One thing this enables is an easy way to define a hierarchy of concerns with their own nested setup/tear down blocks, which allows you to easily share code across similar example groups.

This is nice in and of itself, but it also leads you to differentiate the “boring setup” code from the “here’s the part I’m actually testing code” which is helpful for clarity when coming back to old tests.

These things are sharp knives and can be used poorly, but I’ve never yet found a system I like better.

I think they might be a bot or they have some system for reposting content.

https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Why%20a%20Baker’s%20Dozen%20is...

https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Daily%20life%20in%20a%20federa...

https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=governmentisgood.com

https://hn.algolia.com/?query=The%20Trouble%20with%20Teachin...

Eh, feels pretty different.

HN’s ban was intentionally a short term reboot/cooldown, during a particularly hot time - not a broad and indefinite ban.

Society is hard. I think it’s good to experiment, and when you’re explicit about a timeline, it seems like the stakes are reasonable.

That’s a fair question about proportionality.

I don’t have any special insight into the kernel team, but I think the response is as much about making an example of the university as it is about removing any plausibly contaminated commits, in which case it makes sense to be somewhat extreme.

Others are saying the entire research team should be fired.

It’s interesting that the former (reverting the commits) is something the kernel devs can do to publish the university, while the latter (firing researchers) is something the university can do to punish the researchers.

Who messed up? The researchers or the university who approved their research?

Probably enough blame to go around.

Yes, I do know that.

The policy is not about them being physically prevented from emailing from not-a-umn-researcher@yahoo.com.

It’s a symbolic policy, but I would be extremely surprised if a university flouted a clear and explicit ban on their participation.

Really? I unequivocally think it was unethical research, and thus a mistake.

But what’s the appropriate proportional response?

I honestly have a hard time thinking firing a bunch of people over this would be a good outcome for anyone.

What’s the end goal? I feel like already there’s been enough action to deter this kind of sneaky research in the future.

But at some point you’re just going to scare away the ethical researchers too.

I mean, there’s all kinds of terrible unethical research.

What makes you think this isn’t research?

It’s not so much that they banned umn email, as it is they banned the university of Minnesota.

This particular act is about avoiding the risk of researchers wasting kernel developers time.

As evinced by the response, it seems really unlikely that other institutions would think it’s a good idea to perform experiments on the kernel devs in the future.

I already require manual intervention via a bot interaction to trigger CI, so this all SGTM.

It seems like kind of a stretch to be outraged by this. I suppose there might be certain styles of collaborative repositories that have a huge volume of one time contributors, but I’m having a hard time imagining this being much of a burden.

...maaaayyyyybe.

But on the other hand, it makes it less likely that crypto miners will bother opening up junk PRs against your repo. So you save some time there.

For one, it’s a way of punishing the university.

Eg - If you want to do kernel related research, don’t go to the university of Minnesota.

The “DHCP server” for us was a sheet of paper where you’d write down the IP you were going to ifconfig.

> Shortly after being charged with espionage, Snowden flew to Russia, where he was granted asylum, then residency.

The article seems neutral about Snowden, but this characterization of events is bad reporting.

He did not fly with the intent of staying in Russia. He was grounded and his passport revoked by the US gov. mid travel, stranding him in Russia, in the airport, for over a month.

Eventually Russia granted him long term status there.

The goal is to look like normal boring traffic.

A more secure delete, for one.

It could be done client side.

Sorry anything is possible, but your comment is a bit hand wavy.

Reproducible builds are non trivial.

And then what - the reviewer is now supposed to build your software and verify some Hash?

Or were you thinking something else?

What is accreditation for? Do you think you’ll be more likely to get a job from having this accreditation?

My personal path hasnt shown that to be true, but maybe I’m the odd duck.

Interesting. I wonder how this plays out in practice - what choices people tend to make.

I wonder if there are politics for people who take more cash and less stock - does mgmt assume it implies less good will, since the employee is literally “less invested” in the outcome?