tptacek

Criminally, the intent standards for hacking are high enough that no reasonable case is going to be made against the labs for this stuff. A human being has to intend for websites to get hacked. Recklessness generally isn't enough. In the most severe criminal cases, not only do you have to prove intent to break into a computer, but you also need to prove an intent to defraud specific to that breakin.

Meanwhile, the civil liability that attaches to this stuff doesn't depend on intent, and "rogue agent" isn't a meaningful defense. To whatever extent the labs are exposed civilly, they're exposed regardless of how this stuff is described. In fact, the "rogue agent" thing can exacerbate their exposure.

(I'm not a lawyer, I have spent a career paying attention to this specific armpit of the law though.)

    while(1) { fork(); } 

    exit(main(kfp->kargc, argv, environ));

Then:

    statements: /*E*/ | statement statements

If there was a single line I could come up with for "double the size of the hash table when it fills up", that'd deserve a slot here.

Then, of course (we get to cheat because assembly):

    jmp .call
    .pop: pop esi
    ...
    .call: call .pop

For sure:

    void walk(node *n) { if(!n) return; walk(n->left); visit(n); walk(n->right); }

Similarly: when Vern Paxson explained to me that he'd implemented TCP reassembly by simply opening up a file and using "seek" to place incoming segments in the right position. I could probably golf that down to a line! But it would be an annoying line.

That's not true for all (or even most) of what I write, but it's true this time, and I'm not letting it slide.

This is a super useful article but a lot of these complaints about things like alignments are also the natural outcome of me, a non-frontend person, building any kind of web frontend at all. So I wouldn't sweat it too much.

We're about to have a board vote eliminating single-family zoning (I expect us to win) and this rings extremely true about local politics. If you count "votes" in Facebook comments --- Facebook is where all our local politics happen --- you'd think this is the most contentious issue in the world. But in our last mayoral election, you'd draw the same conclusion about the race being tight, and in fact the progressive rinsed the moderate by a huge margin.

The same thing is very true of public meetings; the turnout for comment at those things is almost never representative of the area's median sentiment. "No" turns out for everything; "yes" rarely does.

I spend a lot of time in online arguments with opponents, on the theory that I'm not really writing to the person I'm arguing with but rather to everyone quietly reading comments. But it's almost certainly the case that the only conversations that have really mattered have been with electeds themselves.

That doesn't mean they're required to faithfully represent the interests of any one person with majority voting power, but it does mean they can't select some random subset of minority voters and serve them instead.

The board has every right to fire the CEO. That's not at issue. The board could reasonably do that even if the CEO has majority voting control --- iff the board is certain the CEO won't immediately reverse the decision and replace the board. If they fire the CEO performatively (or as a hail mary) knowing the CEO will reverse them, they're causing operational chaos with no upside, and that's not something the board can legitimately do.

There's a subtext in some comments about this that the board can legitimately express a position that it's better that the company not exist than exist with Mullenweg at the helm. That's not a legitimate thing for the board to pursue.