yarou

> Spez's actions harm himself more than users of the site. By confirming what any technically minded person probably already knew (you can edit raw data backing something like a post), he gave the masses a new source of drama any time something they don't like appears on the site.

Vehemently disagree. You can extend the same argument to the NSA conducting effectively unrestricted surveillance on citizens. Those of us who are technically minded knew it was going on years before Snowden showed up. That still doesn't make the action morally correct, nor justifiable in any way.

You're being awfully charitable. It's on the order of magnitude of royal fuck-up. How can any user expect to be safe on Reddit anymore?

This is the sort of situation that irrevocably damages trust. What's the guarantee that this won't happen again?

What bothers me more is that this sort of functionality exists in the first place. All it would take is one compromised admin account, and boom, you can rewrite somebody's entire comment history without it being logged anywhere.

My reality is better than yours. My truth is more objective than yours. My morals are superior to yours.

That's all this is.

The vast majority of opiates, substituted amphetamines, and cocaine were available OTC for a myriad of ailments. Many Vietnam veterans were treated in hospitals with heroin, yet they didn't become addicted.

What it boils down to is that the addict is unable to achieve homeostasis with their environment. Unfulfilling relationships (both romantic and platonic), financial burdens, lack of a job, lack of intimacy all contribute to addictive behavior.

It's easy to blame a particular molecule for ruining someone's life. It's less easy to blame a system that turns men into machines.

Sedition, plain and simple.

It's not a joking matter to threaten the life of any individual, be they President or otherwise.

My bad, sleep deprivation :)

Updated accordingly, thanks for the correction.

Sure, "Google" as a private entity can curtail freedom of speech on its platform. It becomes less clear when Facebook, Twitter, and Google are effectively public goods.

Careful.

The implicit solution you're suggesting would curtail the First amendment. That's a bigger threat to democracy than a misinformed populace IMHO. What we really need are annotations that are community driven. A "bs meter" if you will.

Edit: Corrected populous -> populace

What a great person you are, liberator of the downtrodden immigrant! A divinely ordained role one must assume.

What a bizarre rant.

I'm not sure what I find more absurd about your comment: it's either the fact that you think of yourself as some sort of self-appointed immigrant savior, or the cognitive dissonance you display when it comes to your political beliefs.

The closest existence I can think of is being trapped in a singularity. An observer would obviously see your body obliterated in mere seconds, but time would exponentially slow down on your end.

He was using a man's death as a soapbox to criticize Thiel's political leanings. If you don't find that problematic, I'm not sure what to tell you.

Way to use someone's death for political purposes. Aren't you ashamed of yourself? (Note to mods: trying to be really civil here, but come on!)

You missed the point and sentiment of his comment.

Wikileaks is not the fact checker in this case, you are.

You were being invited to look at the raw data and draw your own conclusions/truths from it, not somebody else's.

Regardless of how you feel about him, you can't deny that he knows his audience. He's a salesman par excellence.

It's always easier to destroy than it is to create. When your god is Nihilism, especially so.

The plebeians have spoken! Let us wait for our Gaius Marius, Gracchus brothers, and Sulla.

It's quite sad how one's mind can be poisoned, corrupted, and manipulated by the loss of a dearly loved one.

> In practice, it turns out that composed types don't seem to be that hard.

Depends on what you mean by hard. Hard to read or hard to reason about?

* -> * and * -> * -> * are easy to read and reason about, i.e. Int -> Char -> Int. But what about types of types?

(* -> * ) -> * is confusing to reason about IMO. i.e. Applicative Functors:

(<$>) :: Functor f => (a -> b) -> f a -> f b

Not really intuitive at all, the only reason I can understand it is that I know what functors and Monads are.

Take a look at K&R C, and work through the problems without looking at the answers. Though it's a bit dated, I'd still recommend it to anyone who wants to learn C.

It's hard to make any true statement when terms are defined by what they aren't, rather than by what they are.

For example, the term "SJW". What is an SJW? I can tell you what it isn't. It is not racist, not misogynistic, etc. But what is it actually defined as?

I've never been a fan of post-structuralism, or any postmodern philosophical theory, but as of late I've been drawn to Jean Baudrillard. At the very least, our political landscape itself has become a simulacra of true political thought, as evidenced by groups defining themselves by the nihil or negation, i.e. there is no Universe where the statement "I am a bigot" can be made true.

What's forcing you to use Homebrew? You could easily use pkgsrc or Nix.

Ultimately, the deal breaker for me is that Slack is not on-prem. Microsoft's solution will be, and that will be the true end for Slack.

Sounds like a wild ride (no pun intended).

I tend to agree with this sentiment. As my colleague aptly put, algorithms/data structure questions aren't really about whether a potential candidate can perform the job.

It's more about whether or not they are "one of us". I mean, if you couldn't be bothered to brush up on CS fundamentals, how can I trust you with the responsibilities that the job entails? That looks like a red flag to me.

FWIW, when I interview people, I ask actual problems I've run into, i.e. design and implement a sane concurrency system that's easy to reason about on an embedded platform with limited resources.

Haha, beat me to it!

Seriously though, PHP has come a long way from the CGI/SQL injection days, though I feel its namespacing and scoping rules are rather ancient.

Epistemologically, I agree with you. What I was getting at is that if your employer is knowingly doing something unethical (again, relative, but let's hand waive that for a moment), I feel like it is your duty to report it and publicize it.

The truth always matters. I'd rather be a truthful mendicant than a lavishly rich liar.

Anonymity (and by extension, pseudo-anonymity) confer certain benefits. For example, the chilling effects of holding an unpopular viewpoint (increasingly untenable in today's polarizing political environment) are entirely absent in most online forums of discussion.

However, there is an insidious trend going on. There are those out there who would seek to remove anonymity entirely, and there are very few places left on the net where one can be truly anonymous.

The internet was once a great platform in that nobody cared who you were, where you were from, what ethnicity you were, etc. Now it is a place where ones views can be held on trial, and have real world implications.

So, forgive me for asking a potentially ignorant question, but how exactly are you brave for holding a viewpoint that is mainstream?

Believe it or not, but this is exactly what the Chinese government mandates. It's known as China shifting[0], and can cause quite a lot of headaches.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_d...