Person5478

IIRC, they were doing things like patching bittorrent to prefer closer IP's to pull from during their deploys. So it would roll through their network from 1 side to the other without just completely saturating the entire network.

But the point still remains, they had challenges to solve, but they were also simple, which made it possible TO solve those challenges.

I want both.

I would be completely happy if IOS by default did not allow all the things it doesn't allow, but you could add a setting to allow 3rd party app stores with a list that apple curated themselves (similar to search engine preferences in a browser).

Apple can make it all scary about how the apps on the 3rd party applications could be doing more nefarious things. I would even be ok with apple having the ability to simply refuse to install specific apps from these 3rd party app stores for things that are egregious violations of ethics.

but I've just read too many stories about Apple rejecting apps over very innocuous things, and apple rejecting smaller apps but allowing the same thing in larger apps (anti-competitive).

It's a legitimate problem.

Because it's both unnecessary and distracting.

When I misunderstand titles and then realize my mistake I don't start complaining about it.

Can it be read either way? Yes. Does it really matter? No. Language is often ambiguous without context.

But even with that, it really isn't confusing. The ones who don't know who Larry Flint are may choose not to click on it whether they take the word Hustler as a verb or a noun. And the ones who do click will be disabused of their potential confusion almost immediately.

IOW, it's a huge nothingburger.

Someone can believe in free speech while choosing to censor their own platform

No, someone can __CLAIM__ to believe in free speech, but if they're not allowing it on their own platform then they really don't. There's a reason why the adage "actions speak louder than words" exists.

The posters point is that Ruby has surprising concurrency semantics compared to other solutions.

yeah, Heroku infamously had a really hard time getting Ruby to scale well.

Ruby traded safety (GIL) for absolutely speed, although it should be noted that Ruby's C interfaces do allow you to op out of the GIL, which means if speed is absolutely paramount you can write a Ruby C extension to opt out of it.

I've done it in the past, but OTOH if you're to that point maybe Ruby no longer makes sense.

Same for me only it was mid to late 90's and I was interested in understanding MUD code.

I have fond memories of that guide and it's always a treat when it pops back up.

lots of people were using lots of things at that time, most were using git.

git was the clear winner when github released.

That is absolutely hilarious.

it's not an analogy.

I'd say about 90% or so of the code I look at where someone is building raw SQL queries has trivial SQL injections in it.

Just parameterize the query and you're done. If someone isn't doing so in 2020 they're either working on a very old system or they're not doing it right.

SQL injection is just not a reason to avoid raw SQL.

One of the reasons I love Dapper.net is because it allows me to use raw SQL and helps solve the only pain point I have with raw SQL, dynamically building queries.

Not only that, but in order to build a fault tolerant system you __WANT__ your components to fail fast and hard. Anything else runs the risk of your system doing the wrong thing while you have no idea it's happening.

failing is noisy, it's a very clear signal to the system to pay attention.

and will often leave or mistrust you otherwise

Oh bullcrap.

This is just a rationalization from people who like the shiny.

This is an area where the law needs to catch up.

Current law limits what many people can do in terms of the stock market specifically to protect unsavvy investors. What Robinhood is doing is no different than a 3rd party acting as a go between the stock market and an unsavvy investor but telling the unsavvy investor they went 700k+ in the hole.

The internet is slowly moving away from being the wild west, and things like this is a part of it.

Under your definition the word cripple would also be a slur.

When we get to that point, we've lost the forest for the trees.

I don't know your age, but I suspect it's more likely you're finally reaching the point of realizing how shit everyone and everything is.

My experience was stupidly believing the idealistic crap I was taught when young only to eventually be forced to realize we're not much better than the ones we villify.

I guess my point is that you should consider whether journalism has really gone to shit or if you're less idealistic than you used to be. There is hope in the thought that you're less idealistic. It means the world has always been kind of shit, yet has survived, so perhaps you're just a bit more alarmist than you should be.

Or atleast that's what I tell myself.

I think the idea is that a slur is a much stronger insult typically aimed at one's ethnicity.

What's being said here is that the word retard is an insult, but does not rise to the level/strength of a slur.

I would legit watch a Star Trek franchise that had the Ferengi running Big Tech.

I know HN doesn't like these types of comments, but I genuinely laughed.

Hard agree for businesses. Office just isn't that expensive anymore, especially if you're in the MS ecosystem already.

This is known as common law marriage and has the requirement that you _PRESENT_ as married to the world. If you don't present as married you are not common law married.

yes.

every woman I've ever dated has understood from the beginning that if she ends up pregnant there will paternity tests done.

I've had a few get angry with me, but all of them understood it was going to happen regardless of their feelings.

I graduated HS in the late 90's, have no children, and it was a very explicit choice.

When I was in college I read a story about a boy who was raped and then the courts required him to pay child support (IIRC the woman was a caregiver in a state facility).

I then read a story about a man who had his child support payments based upon his _SAVINGS_ rather than his income and after he went broken and could no longer make the full payments, went to jail.

I then read about a man who had 3 children with a woman and at some point his wife left him for his best friend. He had all 3 children tested and he was not the father of any of them. The courts still required him to pay child support.

After the 3rd story I decided the risk for me as a male was too great and I would never marry, nor have children.

I've been with my current SO for over 7 years and definitely consider her my life partner, but she understands that:

1. We will never marry, 2. We will never present as married (to protect against common law) 3. We will never have children (she cannot, so this works out for both of us)

---

It's easy to pass men like me off as MRA or disenfranchised or any other number of labels, but the truth is I don't think I've ever been on an MRA site, by all accounts I'm considered successful, and the opportunity has definitely been there.

The truth is I was physically and mentally abused until I left home for college and the result of this experience is that I'm very anti-authoritarian and in general much more guarded against the world than most. Once I realized just how stacked our legal system is against men I chose to protect myself. I just cannot imagine being told I can only see my children on a schedule and having to pay for the right to do so with the threat of jail.

Society pays a very real cost for its decision to treat men so badly. And this is not nearly as uncommon as you think, the ones who have made these sorts of decisions just tend not to talk about it.

Perhaps, rather than dismissing this as a toxic attitude you should endeavor to understand and perhaps help right the very real injustices that happen to men.

Maybe it's a cultural thing but I've never seen a company require a leetcode score and I don't think I would ever apply to such a company.

It seems weird to me.

yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Anyone who thinks not all "security vulnerabilities" are created equal believes security is just not important.

threat of harm is protected speech.

It has to be shown that there is both intent and the ability to carry it out before it starts entering the territory of illegal.

Which makes sense if you think about it. A 5 year old child threatening you with violence is not the same as a 25 year old man with a bat in their hand.

The reason threats of violence online are not illegal is because they have no ability to carry it out. This is actually a large reason why doxxing is such a big deal online. Suddenly, these people DO have the ability to carry out the threats.

If you REALLY want to go at it from that perspective, these companies leaking/selling PII should make them legally liable.

Just break them up, this type of legislation is going to harm everyone.

seriously, this is a common problem online for some reason.

Why do so many people try to act as if implication isn't a thing in online interactions?

exactly.

The platform used to be the OS, but google effectively commoditized it and the new platform is the 'cloud'. If you're on MS your new platform is going to be OWS, Azure, etc. With google it's going to be google cloud, gmail, and so forth.

What's considered a platform has vastly changed.