HN user
If you wish to take issue with the fact I called a political figure a douche, fine.
But I will not refrain from using such language in the future when I feel it's appropriate.
Although, if you want to declare I started what can hardly be described as a flame war just by stating an opinion, you should just delete my account now.
Seriously.
So you just wanted to attack him personally without having any obligation to back up your opinion? Do I understand correctly?
Last time I checked, I posted useful information in this thread and only noted my opinion of Schneiderman after "josefresco" specifically named him in an attempt to divert the conversation. If I wanted to attack him specifically I would have picked a better forum than Hacker News where politically charged discourse is generally frowned upon. And moreover, I owe no one any further explanation of my opinion of Schneiderman; much less you in particular.
Do you understand correctly, now?
I'm not getting into a nitpick over his alliances to left-wing groups I strongly dislike or that he commonly tries to pull high ranking democrats further left than necessary, etc.
Do you know him personally?
That isn't a prerequisite for opposing someone due to their views or opinions, regardless if their actions regarding this incident are agreeable.
I'm sure if Trump takes up this cause against Equifax as well you're going to support him in that effort too. Correct?
His other interests, yes.
Not saying it doesn't. I'm saying Eric Schneiderman, alone, is a douche.
If by "New York State Attorney General" you mean Eric Schneiderman, or the guy jumping on every controversy to further his career, then yes.
This seems to be a bunch of people on Twitter, lead by a security researcher, reading legal documents and coming to conclusions which are being second guessed over the course of the thread.
Some keep quoting this line from the terms of service:
YOU MUST ACCEPT THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT CONTAINED IN SECTION 4 BELOW, BEFORE YOU WILL BE PERMITTED TO REGISTER FOR AND PURCHASE ANY PRODUCT FROM THIS SITE. BY REGISTERING ON THIS SITE AND SUBMITTING YOUR ORDER, YOU ARE ACKNOWLEDGING ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF, AND YOUR AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY, THIS AGREEMENT. YOU ALSO AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THIS AGREEMENT BY USING OR PAYING FOR OUR PRODUCTS OR TAKING OTHER ACTIONS THAT INDICATE ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT.
Whereas others have pointed to the Opt-Out:
Right to Opt-Out of this Arbitration Provision. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BOUND BY THE ARBITRATION PROVISION, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE YOURSELF. Opting out of the arbitration provision will have no adverse effect on your relationship with Equifax or the delivery of Products to You by Equifax. In order to exclude Yourself from the arbitration provision, You must notify Equifax in writing within 30 days of the date that You first accept this Agreement on the Site (for Products purchased from Equifax on the Site). If You purchased Your Product other than on the Site, and thus this Agreement was mailed, emailed or otherwise delivered to You, then You must notify Equifax in writing within 30 days of the date that You receive this Agreement. To be effective, timely written notice of opt out must be delivered to Equifax Consumer Services LLC, Attn.: Arbitration Opt-Out, P.O. Box 105496, Atlanta, GA 30348, and must include Your name, address, and Equifax User ID, as well as a clear statement that You do not wish to resolve disputes with Equifax through arbitration. If You have previously notified Equifax that You wish to opt-out of arbitration, You are not required to do so again. Any opt-out request postmarked after the opt-out deadline or that fails to satisfy the other requirements above will not be valid, and You must pursue your Claim in arbitration or small claims court.
Therefore, I'd take everything with a grain of salt and/or read the full terms for yourself:
I actually use this same method manually with git. I have a .theme folder in my home directory, which is a git repository, containing the directories bin and user. The bin directory houses utility and convenience scripts which are tacked on to my PATH while the user directory holds all my relevant dot files. Then, a setup script in the root .theme directory symlinks the relevant dot files from the user directory to $HOME.
The great part is that I can keep branches for each computer which share my configuration. And being that I consistently use Arch, I also employ an install script with my common packages to speed up new installations.
In the end, it shaves a good hour or so off my installation process.
Update:
Upon first reading I thought that Unit needed to be behind NGINX to function. When actually it listens for requests as a separate server, entirely. It only provides an API for configuration purposes.
However, If you want to use the other features of NGINX, like providing static files, you will need to put it in front of Unit.
Yes, you can generally think of it as a replacement for mod_php as Unit would parse requests from NGINX, pass them along to the PHP parser, then return the responses back to NGINX. That's the same job mod_php does for Apache and what PHP-FPM (essentially) does for servers like NGINX.
You can see the PHP configuration here:
http://unit.nginx.org/docs-configuration.html#php-applicatio...
And here's the configuration needed to integrate Unit with NGINX:
NGINX allows you to proxy a back-end applications giving you the ability to load balance, handle upstream failures with custom maintenance pages, employ server blocks (virtual hosts), and much more. However, you always need to do the leg work to get your specific application language up and running. This new unit system makes that job easier as you would no longer need to employ separate middleware, like PHP-FPM for PHP applications, or use a separate init system like systemd to run Go or Node applications. Now NGINX would assume those responsibilities and provide you with a consistent interface.
Here you can see the configuration of workers and user/group permissions for a Go application:
http://unit.nginx.org/docs-configuration.html#go-application
I never said "all the benefits SPA structure can offer the multitude of other projects" were meaningless, in fact I specifically said there's a time and place for them.
No, you said:
There’s a time and a place for JavaScript frameworks, and whatever it is you’re building probably isn’t it.
Do tell us when a SPA structure is appropriate... Then, explain how that sentiment is any less "arrogant" than Ember.
I used quite an early beta of Ember to build BugMuncehr’s new feedback interface.
I wanted to add a full REST API to BugMuncher, even though no-one had asked for it.
I committed to using Ember before I knew enough about it.
I didn’t keep it simple, I was stupid.
Web apps often look complicated from the outsite, but underneath most of what they do is simply Create Read Update Delete, and you really don’t need a fancy JavaScript framework to do that.
So, to summarize, you failed at your first usage of a JavaScript framework due to your own bad decisions. Therefore, all the benefits SPA structure can offer the multitude of other projects is meaningless as, "...most of what they do is simply Create Read Update Delete." Honestly, you've just swapped the bandwagon effect for confirmation bias as you fell back to Rails.
At first, given the headline, I thought this was some new investigative feature.
This seems to be the same idea that Google rolled out over YouTube. Demonetize videos that "may not be appropriate for all advertisers." However, the videos which are usually being demonetized are those simply expressing a dissenting opinion. It's going to be interesting what this system classifies as "fake" or "incorrect" news.
"It’s racist, far-right violence, and that requires determined and forceful resistance no matter where in the world it appears," Chancellor Angela Merkel said.
Sure. It's not like the growing number of far-left anarcho-socialist and anarcho-communist groups haven't been shutting down non-violent right-wing freedom of speech events for the past two years. It's not like they haven't been broadly labeling anyone with a dissenting opinion a racist, sexist, etc. It's not like they haven't been using violence and black bloc tactics from the beginning.
No, that's all completely beside the point, and in no way does it alienate portions of the population creating more extremists on both sides.
Forked by snowflakes who can't separate a person's opinion from their position within a group. Nice...
You bring up stuff like this and the left is going to call for the institution to be renamed in favor of their feelings.
If you think a 64-bit DIV instruction is a good way to divide by two, then no wonder the compiler's asm output beat your hand-written code...
Compilers employ multitudes of optimizations that will go overlooked in hand-written ASM unless you, as the author, are very knowledgeable. End of story.
"In the wake of the recent anti-diversity manifesto controversy at Google, the subject of women in tech has been a major talking point."
1. That memo was not a manifesto, it was a memo...
2. That memo was not anti-diversity, it was pro-logic and pro-science with references.
3. This subject was a already major talking point, which is what provoked this memo and these discussions in the first place.
"A culture of harassment"
23% of respondents were outside the US, so I assume this is a world wide "culture of harassment".
"The findings echoed many of the anecdotes shared by women and minorities in the industry, with 53pc of women experiencing harassment compared to a meagre 16pc of men."
250% more women than men were surveyed.
"None of the male founders polled were propositioned for sex in exchange for business opportunities. Instead, most of the harassment directed at male founders was in relation to their professional character."
Probably because most investors are heterosexual males...
"Reporting this harassment to HR is seemingly a rarity, with only 16pc of women who experienced it doing so. 68pc of the women who filed reports were unhappy with how their workplace dealt with their issue, and, in 64pc of cases, the harasser in question faced no consequences for their unprofessional behaviour."
That 68% unhappy with the results of their reporting and the 64% of cases in which the harasser faced no consequences is actually a combination of both men and women who reported harassment...
I could go on, but this is sad.
Others within this thread are claiming, without evidence, that this is an incorrect application of the DMCA. I'm simply quoting the portion of the law which is in accordance with Admiral's claim. I care nothing about the mechanism they've created or the philosophical implications or discrepancies of protecting content after it was already made available, etc. I'm simply restating their argument here so others may view it in regard to the letter of the law, and stating that on its face it seems to be a valid claim.
It's important to note that Admiral is making the claim that this domain is used as part of their platform which protects the integrity of paywalls, which in turn guards copyrighted material of their clients. Therefore, this would be a correct application of the DMCA according to 17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
Subsection A specifically states, "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
So while I do not endorse the mechanism of paywalls: if Admirals narrative and claims hold true, this is in fact a correct application of the DMCA.
They outlawed "vulgar"...
I say if you're committed to an off-color joke or gag, this is a terrible attempt to save face. Just apologize with authenticity and go more subtle. Don't turn it into another *gate or whatever the hell.
Exactly, and this is so obviously a troll.
Look at the original feature request to even add the mirror:
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/51870
You can see Pritz's hesitation at using "cuntflaps.me" as a mirror and his request to use a different name.
To which Alucard suggests "loli.forsale", instead.
So excuse the Arch maintainers for not allowing you to politicize their distribution, thereby polarizing their user base...
Element.classList:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Element/cla...
Property Accessors (Bracket Notation):
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...
Conditional (ternary) Operator:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...
I will never understand why these examples are considered abuse as they exhibit standard behavior.
It's just as if I were to write the following JavaScript:
node.classList[ isHidden ? 'add' : 'remove' ]( 'hide' );
The data does not support that conclusion as the 14% represents the whole of those surveyed, which includes both parenting and non-parenting students.
There is no breakdown of such characters on a parenting vs. non-parenting basis.
So it could be 13% of "homeless" students are parenting vs. 1% who are non-parenting, the complete reversal, or anything in between.
As in_cahoots noted above, check out Table 3 of the data. It alone is much more clear on what's what.
For your interpretation to be right the wording would have to be, "63% of students are food-insecure and, of those students, 14% are homeless".
Actually, no. For my interpretation to be absolutely correct it would need to be:
"63 percent of parenting community college students surveyed were food insecure and of those students almost 14 percent were homeless..."
So I see your point and I stand corrected, but I contest that the sentence in question was written very poorly--easily leading to this misinterpretation.
The subject of it is "parenting community college students", yet the context shifts regarding the 14% according to the table you mentioned.
There the 14% is representative of "Prevalence of Housing Insecurity, Homelessness, and Food Security Among Survey Respondents."
Therefore, the 14% is of the whole but that sentence alludes, incorrectly, to only the "parenting" subset.
It found that 13-14% of students were homeless ...
Incorrect.
The study actually found that, "63 percent of parenting community college students surveyed were food insecure and almost 14 percent were homeless..."
That 14% is therefore a percentage of a percentage of a subset of those surveyed.
Meaning it only makes up 8.82% of "parenting" students, alone, and we are never given what percentage that the "parenting" subset comprises of the whole.
So the headline should really read, "Less than 8% of community college students surveyed are homeless."
Where homeless can mean thrown out or evicted from a previous residence, stayed in a shelter or abandon building, car, etc., or actually had no home or idea where to stay.
While the study is worthwhile, the USA TODAY article is worthless.