6,614 karma · joined May 14, 2013
I like to hope that they're doing lots of good work in the backend of HN, but what I see on the frontend is almost uniformly negative.
Remember when the Web was supposed to be device-independent? That was really awesome.
> The only thing you can—and should—do is be ruthless yourself. Negotiate for more confidently. Move on if you're undervalued.
Well, try not to think of it as being ruthless. Plenty of businesses do well by helping others do well, too. But, at the end of the day, you have bills to pay and a lifestyle to support: you have to preserve that.
The people of Anatolia spoke Greek before the Turks invaded.
I think that you're thinking of the Modern English of Shakespeare's era or Middle English (e.g. 'Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote'), not Old English (e.g. 'Hwæt we Gar-dena in geardagum, þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon').
Middle English is very similar to Modern English, and can be read with relative ease. Old English has to be studied as a foreign language.
Mozilla's protocol purports not to reveal passwords to Mozilla itself, but the security of the system rests on Javascript files delivered from … Mozilla. They can, if they wish, target a user and serve him suborned Javascript which send the plaintext password back. Unlike a tampered build of Firefox itself, which might actually be noticed, this could be a one-shot attack.
Worse, not just Mozilla as an organisation can do this: it can be compelled to do so on behalf of any government which has the power to compel it (or those employees capable of targeting someone).
It's a terrible, terrible change.
Does anyone have a link to the image(s)?
They started banning guns almost a century ago. While it did probably reduce the number of gun murders, it certainly didn't make terrorist organisation like the IRA any less effective — and it probably made non-gun crime worse.
Possessing encryption tools, lockpicks, knives, guns &c. is a fundamental human right of free men.
I hope you give a shit about the effectiveness of theprotection others are delivering you. The sort of person who works well in the Air Force is not the same sort of person who works well in the Army is not the same sort of person who works well in the Navy is not the same sort of person who works well in the Marine Corps. The jobs of the services are fundamentally different, as are the mindsets & aptitudes of those in them.
The Air Force is a mid-century corporation: it has metrics and deliverables (literal deliverables), and is oriented towards long-term sustainment of whatever it is asked to do. It's very, very good at building an organisation to do the same thing for years, with good morale for its people because they are never tasked too hard, and excellent safety results because that's important when operation a mid-century concern. On the downside, most of it is not really all that flexible, and its culture is not, in the main, oriented towards enduring long-term suffering (there are exceptions). If you have something you want done, you ask the Air Force. If you ask an Air Force officer to secure a building, he'll buy it.
The Army is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. It's all about mass, directed according to very strict orders. If you need to pave 1,000 miles of road, the Army Corps of Engineers will do it, according to its plans. If you need to garrison a town, the Army will do it, all nicely and neatly and according to plan. If you have a problem someone's faced before, you want the Army. There's a field manual for everything: a field manual for improvised munitions (because of course there's a manual for improvisation), a field manual for executions, a field manual for skiing. If you ask an Army officer to secure a building, he'll surround it and not let anyone in or out without authorisation.
The Navy is a floating, violent industrial plant. It never does the same thing twice; it's always going to one new port or another. It's not as laid-back as the Air Force, nor as regulation-bound as the Army. It speaks an entirely different dialect of the English language, for no particularly obvious reason. If you have a problem that no-one has ever seen before, you ask the Navy for a solution. If you ask a Naval officer to secure a building, he'll make sure a sailor sweeps & swabs the decks, and puts out the lights.
The Marines are a cult. They worship at the shrines of Chesty Puller, Dan Daly, Smedley Butler & John Basilone. They think that war is a racket, but they don't particularly care: they enjoy the racket. If you absolutely, positively need it dead or destroyed within 24 hours or less, you call the Marine Corps. If you ask a Marine to secure a building, he will take it by force, killing or capturing everyone inside. If he does a particularly good job of it, he'll be deified and join the pantheon along Puller &c.
If you put someone well-suited to the Marine Corps in the Air Force, he'll be fired for getting into a little trouble on the weekends. If you put someone well-suited to the Navy in the Army, he'll go out of his mind from boredom. If you put someone well-suited to the Air Force in the Army, he'll be miserable and quit. If you put someone well-suited to the Army in the Navy, he'll just be generally appalled.
The different services have different roles, different strengths and different weaknesses. Those differences are why they are well-prepared for a major conflict.
I think this is because they use a different URL in meeting invites than the one registered for the Hangouts app.
It's been a bug for ages, and AFAICT they just don't care.
The post you replied to, OTOH, was arguing that writing one's own Lisp is sufficient, and I think it's right: if one implements Lisp from scratch, one will end up appreciating Lisp. Outside of half-assed homework assignments, anyway.
There are 25 special forms in Lisp, and the standard forbids the creation of more: http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/03_aba...
MIT Scheme has 30 special forms: https://www.gnu.org/software/mit-scheme/documentation/mit-sc...
R7RS doesn't seem to define special forms per se; it considers anything other than define-syntax, literals, variables, calls, lambda, if & set! to be derived expression types; I think quote & quasiquote probably have to be considered special forms in at least some senses.
Scheme itself is a minimalist language, but a practical Scheme must add in plenty of functionality not specified in the standard. A truly useful Scheme will thus be roughly as big as Common Lisp, or bigger — only much less of that bulk will necessarily be standardised & portable.
Isn't '"People in the cities" (who tend to be strongly left-leaning) literally want to give money to the less well-off people in rural areas to help support them. It's the right-leaning candidates who are opposed to wealth redistribution. Who is missing empathy for whom? From my perspective, the fiscal conservatives from the rural areas have relatively less empathy than vice versa.' exactly as much of an generic ideological talking point?
It certainly led to a lot of heated discussion, e.g. the top-rated comment in that thread, which stated in part 'If anything I'd say there's a lot of disgust with how many rural Americans live off the system.'
I don't really know what to do. The current one isn't very energy efficient, isn't laid out very well — but it's better than any of my other options.
Is there some small bespoke fridge maker out there?
What really worries me is that most of us have far more false experience of most of the world than we have real experience: how many of us know much about chess, or police work, or soldiering, or programming (okay, that one HN has down pretty well, I hope), or love (I hope most of HN has that one down at least a bit), or church, or business? And yet no doubt all of us have very strong opinions about these things, due in no small part to … the false movie experiences we've had.
I've never read Atlas Shrugged. We pay our taxes because if we don't, armed men will try to arrest us, and if we resist them then they will kill us. Violence is the ultimate backstop of any law. That's fine: we need laws, and we need taxes. But let's try to ensure that we threaten & use violence as little as is reasonable.
I think it was P.J. O'Rourke who suggested asking oneself, for any law, if one would wave a gun at one's grandmother to force her to comply. Laws against murder and theft? Sure, grandma had better not do that. Taxes to prevent people starving on the streets? Sure, grandma had better cough up. Laws against selling soup in one's home, or taxes to fund cowboy poetry festivals? Somehow I just can't see pointing a gun at grandma for that.
It's more accurate to say that they want to give other people's money to the less-well-off. I don't know that it's terribly empathetic to use violence to take someone else's wealth and give it to another in order to get warm fuzzies or votes.
Last night, I went to a banquet for an organisation which is (AFAIK) entirely funded voluntarily, and which helps folks in crises (natural and man-made disasters, e.g. hurricanes, earthquakes and wars) all over the world, regardless of creed. They only spend 8% of their revenue on fundraising, which I think is pretty good. I voluntarily wrote them a cheque, and was glad to do it.
The moral calculus would be completely different had I voted to send armed agents to raid your bank account and give those funds to the organisation.
I'm reminded of the story about æroplanes and the mythical average pilot: just as no pilot is actually average (and, in the original story, that's why cockpits designed for the average were bad for everyone), might it not be that none of us is statistically normal, and thus every one of us is thus abnormal, and hence dangerous to the bureaucratic state?
None of this is meant to minimise Brevik's horrific crime, of course. But I'm worried about this level of detail being available for anyone on the planet. I don't know what the solution is: obviously, it's now possible to record lots of details about anyone, and just as obviously, it's possible for those details to be made available. That implies that those details will be made available, and so we as a society must come to terms with that.
Still, it's a bit chilling that a State can track a man down to that level of detail.