youngian

Exact same, Pocket is so close to being the perfect service and yet so far. I have a huge archive and their search is just terrible. I will have a specific keyword from an article I know I have in there, and yet all I get from their results is utterly irrelevant articles. Making it worse, you can't filter the search results to, say, your Favorites, so I have to sift through all the random crap in my full archive.

I ask for that great article about leaded gasoline (https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-most-important-scient...) and Pocket gives me an article about Rebecca Black instead (https://www.theawl.com/2011/03/arms-so-freezy-rebecca-blacks...).

Yeah, I wondered if I should add a caveat in there about this. I forewent it because I thought it would confuse people more than anything, and because I've never found this particular concern all that worrisome for the average developer. But maybe it's worth mentioning, in a footnote if nothing else.

Author here. I posted a quick follow-up with some corrections and other items of interest that came out of the discussion: http://technotes.iangreenleaf.com/posts/2013-12-10-the-reddi....

And of course, if you would like more articles written by me and an extremely high signal-to-noise ratio (because I post so rarely...), consider subscribing: http://technotes.iangreenleaf.com. RSS is not dead, dammit.

`ups` and `downs` are whole numbers, so `abs(s)` will usually be >= 1, like 2654 or something. The log is there to reduce the influence of additional votes after a certain level of popularity. See footnote ^2: http://technotes.iangreenleaf.com/posts/2013-12-09-reddits-e...

Yes, that would be a great place to find more like this. CoffeeScript has added support for literate programming, so that might be a good place to go for modern, web-oriented code samples.

Author here.

> It's perfectly plausible that something that ends up on the front page gets only a handful of upvotes in the first twenty minutes, or half an hour.

For example: this post.

Roughly, yes. I'm just happy to see that there are 3 now, instead of only Amazon.

It depends how you define "the space", of course. Dropbox, GitHub Pages, Heroku, and many more can be used to host static content. But I think this is an accurate list if you want something that is a) dirt cheap at any scale, b) fast and reliable, c) meant for this purpose, d) configurable enough to host a professional website without embarrassing quirks, e) not overly tied to a particular platform configuration.

Looks like they're using CORS. The Access-Control-* response headers control that.

Have you tried neoprene booties? They worked great for me in the midwest. My feet stayed plenty warm, and I didn't even bother to wear thick socks.

The hands were always my biggest problem.

If you don't want to use Gmail for sensitive email, by all means don't. But this is just a silly knee-jerk reaction. Even if Google is the evilest company in the world, how could their development and championing of an open WiFi standard possibly compromise your privacy?

I think people would be a lot less confused if you said this first. Say "Don't salt bcrypt, bcrypt salts for you" and you'll have to explain yourself less.

Yes please to OpenID. It kills me that an idea I was so excited about (single login) is being coopted by a site I hate so very much (Facebook), just because they are a behemoth. Offering both is great, but when I clicked through and saw only Facebook as an option, I immediately bounced.

Does anyone have a link to further information on the muscle repair stuff she cited? The part about how after 25, your brain might just give muscles up for lost?

That's brilliant! It's such a simple feature, but such a huge step in UI magic.

I always hated those needless extra steps in screenshotting. And then two months later your Desktop is full of things you forgot to delete and you had to figure out why you had ever needed a screenshot of top in the first place...

But no one wants to live in Disneyland. A manufactured experience can be nice for a while - it certainly achieves a level of perfection that other experiences cannot. But in the end, a walled garden only extends as far as the walls. And there's a whole world out there that's messy and dangerous and not as polished, but also more exciting, more fulfilling, more real.

Thanks for finding the weirdly cynical lining to that cloud. You gave me a good laugh.

I've actually taken to installing Windows on a separate hard drive, and disconnecting my primary drive before I even begin the installation, because I've had Windows screw so many things up.

Oh! I forgot to mention:

1.5 If the hard drive is so badly failed that you cannot even get ddrescue running, try again tomorrow. And the next day. And the next. I cannot explain why a hard drive would come back to life, but I have seen it happen a number of times. I have seen a hard drive that was clicking and irrecoverable for two solid weeks suddenly show up just fine one day in the device list. It mounted and everything, and we promptly pulled all the data off. I'm not much of an optimist, but when it comes to failed hard drives, I've seen miracles occur.

Here's a better set of steps:

1. Use ddrescue (http://www.gnu.org/software/ddrescue/ddrescue.html) to copy a complete image of your hard drive onto another drive with lots of space. Let it work for a long time and it will probably get all the data off. If it doesn't you can try the freezer trick, but don't be too hopeful.

2. Unplug the busted hard drive and set it aside. You can perform all the subsequent recovery steps on the image you just copied, which is better than stressing an already-dying drive.

3. Mount the hard drive image (http://tcdb.grinnell.edu/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Help.Ddrescue).

4. Use testdisk (http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk) to try to recreate the partition table.

4.5 Alternatively, you can use parted with the rescue command, but that works better if you know exactly what your partition table was.

5. If that fails, use photorec (http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/PhotoRec) to pull off all the files it can find. It should be able to get most of your documents, photos, etc, but it might not find everything, and they will be missing file names and folder structure. Remind yourself that this is better than nothing.

Yeah, I just noticed that as well. CNN's World page has "He married a video game character," but not a mention of this. Things like this make it hard to feel bad about the looming death of Old Media.

I think that's part of the reason it's so important that things like this become public. I think every American of voting age should have to watch this video, because this is the reality of war and we need to come to terms with what we're inflicting. People need to realize that there are real people dying horrific, needless deaths, because war is always horrific and no amount of euphemisms changes that fact. If we are going to support a war, we should be forced to reckon with the real face of it, and accept that some of the blood is on our hands. It's easy to pretend otherwise when you've always lived with an ocean between you and the conflicts.

I'm not crazy about their chosen marketing stance either. I've been careful not to say that I like what they're doing, just that I think I know why they're doing it. It's a little distasteful, but so are the various fundraising strategies most other orgs employ ("Don't you have two minutes for starving orphans in Irkutsk?" or public radio's week of not playing any music to lecture you about donating instead).

At the end of the day, if this is what it takes to get Wikileaks back online, then I support it because of that. Because I still very much believe in their mission, and believe that they are unique in what they provide the world right now.

Oh, and who would provide the tracker? Who would make sure there were always seeders? Who would protect the servers when every person they've ever pissed off comes knocking?

Wikileaks has managed to protect all their sources and repel all the legal assaults on their publishing. And they're not playing in the kiddie pool with those RIAA clowns. The intelligence arm of just about every major country wants them extinguished, not to mention a bunch of multinational companies and some very pissed-off warlords.

This "Wikileaks costs too much" discourse on HN is ridiculous. $600,000 a year for unprecedented whistleblowing, provided to the entire world, against all comers, is a fucking bargain.

I made a longer comment down the page about this. In short: Wikileaks is low on money right now, and my guess is that all the hoopla around this presentation is a marketing tactic to get noticed and get donations. I don't like it either, but I expect they will get back on mission if they become financially stable again.

My impression is that this is a publicity move on their part to get people interested and get donations. The presentation seems part of that. They're pitching "hey, look at how useful we are."

Before the shutdown, Wikileaks did present most of their content without editing or editorializing. Content would generally be accompanied by a short couple of paragraphs discussing the context, veracity, and format. If memory serves, they did write some opinion/publicity pieces, but labeled them as such and published them separately from the content itself.

I guess what I'm saying is this: I think the extra stuff is there because they need money badly and are basically marketing themselves with this. I don't think they intend to make a habit of straying from their original focus on content. I don't have any proof of this, but that's because they're still short on money. So if you would donate to the former, donate. Hopefully they'll be back to their old selves soon.

In case anyone hasn't heard, Wikileaks is badly in need of donations. http://collateralmurder.com/en/support.html.

This video is a damn good argument for why what they do is important. Go give them a few dollars. I can't think of a cause I see as more important in the world right now (with the one possible exception of free software).

Yes! I've been using that feature for quite a while now, and as far as I'm concerned it has completely solved the accidental sending problem. And even better, it does so in a way that seems perfectly intuitive and consistent with the rest of the Gmail interface.

Quite possibly it's just quirks in the trendlines caused by small sample size or something. I would imagine the original paper has more numbers and information on methods, but sadly it looks like it's behind a paywall.

No, it's very clear who funds Wikileaks. Individual donors do. They make it clear that they do not accept money from governments or corporations. They are, in general, very open about their finances, and the information is not difficult to find.

I would imagine they don't publish things that they cannot verify as probably true, or things that aren't newsworthy.

On the other hand, here's something they did publish: a leak of their own donor list. http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/46864/. I see that as pretty good evidence of their integrity.