119 karma · joined March 8, 2012
['1', '2', '3'].map(parseInt); // While one could expect [1, 2, 3] // The actual result is [1, NaN, NaN]
parseInt is often used with one argument, but takes two. The first is an expression and the second is the radix. To the callback function, Array.prototype.map passes 3 arguments: the element, the index, the array. The third argument is ignored by parseInt, but not the second one, hence the possible confusion.
Would I still be on the hook to pay you 17% of my income despite not landing a programming job?
Because they did have customers and revenue for the service that they offered. They had everything that is part of a business (albeit, a very slow and unprofitable one). They're missing the ability to scale since they had no tech stack to speak of, but their MVP did not really need one.
While you are right that there is no DFS analogy to 'playing the player,' advanced DFS players build complex models, hedge their bets, and write (or hire people to write) scripts that update their bets as their beliefs about that day's games changes. Different kinds of skills than poker, but not less skill.
San Francisco, but remote preferred.
Full-stack LAMP Web Engineer (also proficient with node.js)
Five years experience in Silicon Valley at both Zynga and as engineering hire #1 at a startup working on point of sales. I lead development for our website component, which is a dashboard for our merchants, showing them their sales data, business analytics, inventory management, email marketing, and much more. I am happy to give you a demo of all the features I worked on over Skype or gChat.
I have extensive experience with both scaling problems and building and shipping a product from scratch. I can help you ruthlessly prioritize your features and build your product!
Please contact me at tom.tran at gmail.
Or you could just skip the article when you see it. I don't see why we'd ban wsj.com just because you have trouble reading it.
I honestly would be stunned if this happened in <10 years. I think we very often underestimate how slow adoption rate is for new technology and how much money can be made by playing nice with the incumbent technology instead of trying to disrupt it from the onset.
Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/26/why-can-t-w...
But could someone explain how an attacker can take advantage of the fact that 0 is returned ~1% more often than other digits? It this flaw alone sufficient to break cryptocat? Or does it simply make brute forcing easier when combined with other crypto flaws?