HN user
And each time this happens, you get better about writing readable comments up front describing edge cases and difficulties so that future self can avoid steps 1 - 6 with a head start on refactor ideas / feasibility.
Perhaps a site that's been around for over a decade and already has mass brand recognition might not get as many people googling it bare, since most people can just... go there directly.
It seems to me that googling for a popular site like reddit is actually pretty common. A couple of reasons:
1. Because google is often much better at returning relevant results for site:<site>.com <query> than searching for <query> in the site's search engine. I would think this to be the case even more so for types of sites like reddit simply because of such high total post / word count. In fact, brand recognition would seem to be more of a reason for people to google it. E.g. If you want to read a wikipedia article on some topic, you normally wouldn't visit wikipedia.org first to use its search, you'd google "wikipedia <topic>" or "site:wikipedia.org <topic>".
2. To avoid hitting enter after a typo and ending up on some malware site <domain with typo>.com.
My guess is that most companies decide to cut the cost of maintaining responsive web apps since they are already paying developers to maintain native mobile and desktop web. Because, in their minds "who wouldn't just use the app"?
To get around it, there are a few lesser known mobile browsers that allow you to modify the "User-Agent" header, in which case you can bypass by masking yourself as viewing on a desktop browser. Sleipnir is one.
they can’t query anything on a specific user.
What exactly do you mean by "user"? Can they query DNS traffic by IP address / subnet? Exactly what are all of the restrictions there?
EDIT: Is there a whitelist of things they can query by or do you simply trust them to be good citizens, have a binding legal agreement, all of the above?
APNIC gets to see the noise as well as the DNS traffic
Huston emphasised that APNIC intends to protect users' privacy. "DNS is remarkably informative about what users do, if you inspect it closely, and none of us are interested in doing that," he said.
Maybe it is reasonable to take them at their word as they seem trustworthy, but we should at least consider the fact that at least some of this DNS traffic is indeed being analyzed.
I don't think knowing exactly what parent comment is talking about is required to see that they weren't suggesting we should do away with all visualizations just because there are some cases where they might not be the best tool for teaching.
I'm not sure what posting this accomplishes, but it certainly was not intended to shame the developers, though I can see how it might be perceived that way. I am more than satisfied and thankful for everything else that Mozilla provides me in Firefox (especially after the 57 update).
It was, more than anything, intended to offer a noticeable bump in hopes that I don't have to continue wasting 5 seconds finding and closing the window every time I open Firefox (as I have had to do since using this feature over the last hand full of years). I've probably spent (roughly) 2 hours of my life closing these duplicate prompts over time.
It's an annoying user experience that seems fixable which is why I'm surprised it still remains at "normal" priority. I would spend the time to read every comment, read through and understand the architecture of this legacy code, fix the bug and submit a patch only to have it code reviewed and have me resubmit or be forced to resign my attempt because political reasons or some other factor, but that would probably take me more than 2 hours so I refrain and hope that it gets fixed in the next 7 years.
Not intending to be snide, just a moderately inconvenienced user trying to stir action.
What many seem to have missed from this is the bit at the end where Fowler concedes:
I don't feel I have enough anecdotes yet to get a firm handle on how to decide whether to use a monolith-first strategy.
after linking and mentioning points of a guest post [1] (with which I strongly agree) which argues against starting with a monolith. A key part from that post:
Microservices’ main benefit, in my view, is enabling parallel development by establishing a hard-to-cross boundary between different parts of your system. By doing this, you make it hard – or at least harder – to do the wrong thing: Namely, connecting parts that shouldn’t be connected, and coupling those that need to be connected too tightly. In theory, you don’t need microservices for this if you simply have the discipline to follow clear rules and establish clear boundaries within your monolithic application; in practice, I’ve found this to be the case only very rarely.
[1] https://martinfowler.com/articles/dont-start-monolith.html
To quote the Intel Developer Instructions[1] on the HTT flag:
A value of 0 for HTT indicates there is only a single logical processor in the package and software should assume only a single APIC ID is reserved. A value of 1 for HTT indicates the value in CPUID.1.EBX[23:16] (the Maximum number of addressable IDs for logical processors in this package) is valid for the package.
UPDATE: It appears these flags refer to each initial APIC ID, so it seems the HTT flag value should be 0 in all cases where the overall processor:thread ratio is 1, suggesting there might either be incorrect information in the CPUID instruction for some Intel CPUs or the kernel is not correctly evaluating CPUID.1.EBX[23:16].
Hopefully, someone more versed in CPUs can correct me here.
[1]https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-tec...
It looks like dmidecode also contradicts itself with the hyper threading flag:
$ sudo dmidecode -t processor | grep -E 'Flags:|HTT|Status|Count'
Flags:
HTT (Multi-threading)
Status: Populated, Enabled
Core Count: 4
Thread Count: 4Rule of thumb: On a desktop, if you have an i5 you do not have Hyperthreading. All i3s and i7s do have Hyperthreading, as do new Kaby Lake Pentiums (G4560, 4600, 4620).
Hmm...either this statement is wrong or this desktop /proc/cpinfo is wrong:
$ grep -E 'model|stepping|cpu cores' /proc/cpuinfo | sort -u
cpu cores : 4
model : 94
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-6600 CPU @ 3.30GHz
stepping : 3
$ grep -q '^flags.*[[:space:]]ht[[:space:]]' /proc/cpuinfo && echo "Hyper-threading is supported"
Hyper-threading is supported
[1]https://ark.intel.com/products/88188/Intel-Core-i5-6600-Proc...
Never rely on your ISP to provide great wifi equipment. This is not something specific to Comcast. Generally, it seems residential ISPs are only on the hook for providing quoted speeds via a wired connection to their gateway.
This is why I always either disable the wifi from my ISP's modem/router combo and branch off my own wifi router from the modem's LAN or request a modem only device from the ISP and use my wifi router's LAN. The downside to the former case is that your wifi devices are now double NATed (unless you use a wireless bridge) which can be annoying if you want to forward ports (you now have to do it twice). The modem/router combo might not support disabling its LAN to act as a bridge very well.
Truth or not, I'm curious to know how the high probability that all content is curated doesn't bother you?
I can't find one leak that's been damaging to Putin's agenda. That doesn't prove Russia is in control of the site, but it's curious that every single leak has been either damaging to the United States, other parties that have not had good relations with Russia or relatively inconsequential to either.
The fact that Assange cannot verify he produces the content of his site only furthers the probability of Russia having seized possession of it, given there exists no damaging information to Putin's regime. Would it not be better if those leaks were exposed along with everything else?
The parallel example will definitely not work as you expect, and will likely result in most duplicate lines still being present. When using --pipe this way, if you don't declare --block to be the size of the file (in which case there's no benefit to using parallel), each parallel execution will be run on a separate 1MB (default --block size) chunk of the file before outputting results all separately, then together in a single group (stdout), to the output file.
If you're looking to spread work across CPUs and correctly get the desired output, I'd do something like:
parallel -a input.txt --pipepart mawk \'\!a[\$0]++\' | mawk '!a[$0]++' > output.txt
Unfortunately, "We were told the reason to track...is for fraud", does not make me very confident what you believe to be true is really true. And makes me even less confident considering your assertion that "nothing nefarious is going on. If there was, we the engineers would be against it completely." If your knowledge of what ultimately happens with the data relies merely on what you are told, how can it be possible for you to know nothing nefarious is going on?
I was more hoping you'd try to answer the part that addressed the "While Using" option being removed. I'm guessing that one might also be too difficult to answer honestly in a public forum?
Coupling this with the app's removal of the "While Using" location access option, given their history, it's hard to imagine Uber won't try to do something nefarious to violate their users' privacy in the worst way.
Agreed, and not trying to be pedantic, but it might be more accurate to say: "If AB is a vulnerability only if B is present, then A is not a vulnerability".
One problem is that the children's IQs weren't considered in relation to the task at hand. A more useful study would have included how praise for ability and effort effect children in separate classes of intelligence. To be remotely helpful, at the very least, we should know the range and mean IQ of the children in the study.
3. Seems like the biggest issue to me. If you're an Uber/taxi driver you have the ability to stop the car and kick people out. Your presence is what mostly deters the riders from doing untoward shit. Just think about everything drunk people would do if a driver was absent.
Whatever counter Tesla might have in store to prevent this, it would have to involve them analyzing/monitoring/recording the behavior of people in the vehicle, which would be a huge privacy nightmare that nobody wants to be a party to.
Or, more specifically, humans are awful at estimating the intelligence of others when they assume those with a special degree are more intelligent.
This is fascinating to me. Do you consume fiction purely for analyses of the writing/acting? Of course, either of those things done poorly can quickly make one focus on the fabricated nature of it, but to not have any real capacity to entertain fantasy as reality when there are no obvious negatives or doubts to point out seems to be a rare thing.
If you're unable to "suspend disbelief", what is the actual gain from that experience if no engaged entertainment value is received? Does it only come from being a so-called "grinch"?
I could be wrong, but without a real explanation, it seems more likely Uber is still convinced analyzing customer behavior in the most personally invasive ways is worth the risk, and were testing the waters, hoping a response like the OP's wouldn't gain traction the way it did.
In a company with thousands of employees, already scrutinized for privacy violations, it's hard to believe that a single engineer could ask for the most sensitive of permissions without anyone else reviewing or bumping up the chain first.
These permissions were mistakenly introduced by an engineer on the team who thought a 3rd party library needed them when in fact it does not.
What caused the engineer to be mistaken about this? What library?
Considering Uber's history, expecting people to believe a claim like: "one guy acted alone in an oopsy", without providing a more detailed report, is a bit optimistic.
The first person the article gives credit to is Bezos, asserting his presence influenced the tool. Is it safe to doubt he had anything to do with this? I would expect this type of tooling from any web publication with in house engineering staff.
I've discovered, through trial and error, that hitting SHIFT+ENTER creates a new cell, but this should maybe be more easily discoverable.
This is in the tutorial, Section 3 - Cell Operations.
Do you know something we don't, or do you mean to imply that anytime someone refers to another as an asshole the asshole must have a neurological condition as their excuse? I didn't see an indication from the OP that the person in question is on the autism spectrum.
There might be many more success stories if children growing up closer to the poverty line were able to do so in more nourishing environments. However, discouragement, lack of confidence, anxiety are things not restricted to any racial or economic background. Not having a silver spoon is in many ways a better environment in which to be raised.
The OP does not say that his parents didn't show him any love, which is more important for the development of a person than any economic status. Many of the other struggles might be used as fuel for building positive character traits, unless one doesn't let it.
Having read through the post, it doesn't appear that he's actually arrived at a valid point, and is just trying to brand himself as being underprivileged through the telling of his life story, which has turned out to be successful by most standards. He uses the argument that "mindset inequality" gave him a chip on his shoulder so he was able to succeed, and therefore others fail because of it, which seems contradictory.
The type of separation he's talking about would limit the ability of banks to affiliate with each other in a risky manor, as they had leading up to the crisis.
In an attempt to accomplish this, Elizabeth Warren has drafted a reasonable, 21st century take [1] on Glass-Steagall, which Senator Sanders supports.
[1] http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/21stCenturyGlas...
Stack Overflow tried preventing +1/-1 comments[1], and the community came to the consensus[2][3] that those comments can be useful.
[1]https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/277314
So if the S.E.C. can't punish these agencies forcefully enough to seriously damage their margins, this may never change as they'll have little incentive to shape up.