osweiller

That was fixed 7 months ago.

https://trac.nginx.org/nginx/ticket/488#comment:4

(yes I realize this will be dead)

My comments are uncivil to uncivil discourse. I assume you've also measured this out to chris_wot, who has even stalked ancient posts of mine to drop their trolls.

You've clearly established that you're a troll. While I applaud your desperate fishing for partisan upvotes, hang your nonsensical queries and comments off of other people's posts. Thanks.

I don't disagree with this at all. The implementation was imperfect. It had the signature of political meddling (of the "we know better" type). It seemed poorly defined and inconsistent.

It should have been done in a very different way. It should have been more cooperative (e.g. "clarity officers" who have a masters in English or French, and who pour over statements and responses to ensure that it cannot be misinterpreted or misrepresented, without changing the core meaning).

The purpose of federally funded scientific research is not and cannot be to support the policy objectives of the currently sitting government.

There hasn't been a single example that had anything to do with the sitting government's policies or agenda. The government had no particular agenda regarding factory farming salmon or rock snot. Though from an overall government perspective for the health of an industry such as salmon (a cross-party industry), they want the message coherent.

So no facts or counterpoint, then? And you continue to fail to grasp even the basics of my original comment, yet are scatter-commenting throughout this thread, seemingly boastful about your own misunderstandings.

I'll let that speak for itself.

"That sounds like utter garbage" - this will surely be a rational discourse...

"These scientists are employees of the university." - Ignoring that the relationship of university professors and so on are the result of a long process of give and take, that sample is irrelevant.

The government's concern are media reports quoting Government of Canada scientists. These tend to have more authority. And indeed the media was free to contact any other author of the Science research, and they could talk to industry scientists, and university professors. Exactly as I said (not sure how you think what I said is a "hole" in my own argument). But they didn't want anyone representing the government, with the weight of the government, being misrepresented.

"Some guy at some university says we're all going to die!" is decidedly less convincing, to most, than "Government of Canada environmental scientist says we're all going to die!".

And to your other comment, no one is saying the scientist will misrepresent their own work. But, and this may surprise you if you have utterly no knowledge of how media works, the media will if you aren't extremely careful with your statements and responses. The mainstream media has a surprising ability to misrepresent findings and research, and they just love to attach an authoritative name to it.

This whole discussion is exactly why it's impossible to touch anything remotely "political" on HN. No one has offered a single fact or counterpoint, but instead I've been attacked repeatedly, every benign comment is rapidly moderated down. Get a grip, partisans, and if you find it impossible to discuss something on your partisan talking radar without emotionally gravitating to a side, grow up.

There is another post in this thread arguing that I'm speaking "partisan propaganda" (another a "mouthpiece of evil". How very theatrical) for my position. Which is a bit incredible given that I despised the Harper government, and personally lean to being a libertarian.

But at the same time I've considered the actual facts, coupled with the reality that mainstream media, when generalizing science, tends to do a really, really horrible job. The notion that the government wants to ensure the message is clear and coherent -- especially when it's given the weight of the government behind it -- given a free range of employees with their own quirks and communications issues, seems entirely rational.

The very article you're responding to mentions 3 specific examples of politically sensitive research

But all three demonstrate nothing being suppressed. It points to two people who claim to have left their jobs (moved elsewhere/retired) because of these restrictions (although unburdened they apparently had no big reveal, or even an anecdote about anything being suppressed. But polar bears or something -- the casual allusion being entirely manipulative and intentional), and a salmon researcher who released all of their science, including publication in Science, but couldn't give soundbites as an official representative of the government of Canada. Exactly as I stated, this is a union/workplace issue, and people having grievances about workplace policies, with shockingly little to say about how it actually impacted science.

including its featured example about salmon.

That was the beginning (it was literally the first example of communications policies interfering in someone's feeling of being a freelancer). The salmon industry was already sensitive, and with great fanfare the PR circus began for a paper in Science. The government was sensitive about the misrepresentation of science, not about the science. Again, the paper was published. The science was documented. The same person was presenting at a Salmon inquiry. But they couldn't provide soundbites without it being considered and controlled.

EDIT: Two hours in, and for the many, many down arrows I've gotten by people showing how strongly they feel about this, it's notable that the combined examples of suppressed science catalogued thus far: ZERO.

EDIT: It is outrageous that it is impossible to discuss the facts of this without everyone immediately veering to their partisan sides.

Sorry, it was "rock snot".

I don't cite an article because this is really about the absence of something, not the existence of something. What is there to cite? Supposedly during the period in question the scientific world was suppressed. They've now had more than 6 months to drop all of the science bombs that were pent up. Literally nothing. Nothing was suppressed.

media coverage of climate change had dropped by more than 80 percent

This is an utterly outrageous claim, as if climate science is dependent upon media access to government scientists (particularly Canadian government scientists). There is an enormous non-government group of scientists in Canada, any of whom will freely talk (within the confines and agenda of their own employer, of course). And indeed, the science was as unrestricted as it always was, so they have all of the data and findings to talk to. This is the sort of "find the agenda" noise that just perverts the discussion -- remarkably the media still barely ever talks about global warming, nor do they reference government scientists. It just turns out that the story no longer brought the clicks and the viewers.

Your other link, "research" from a student at the Environment Law Center, begins by saying - "There are few issues more fundamental to democracy than the ability of the public to access scientific information produced by government scientists". But again, absolutely nothing changed about the science that government scientists produced, or its accessibility. The single and only change that happened was media access to government employees, which generally meant "try to get a soundbite that can be presented as we're all gonna die!".

This was a government worker's union issue that got absurdly bent out of proportion.

The government demanded that government employees get approval for any direct communications with media, etc. This all began when a researcher seriously impacted the salmon industry by releasing extremely preliminary results (that turned out to be wrong), making a name for herself and setting up a PR circuit. The media loves apocalyptic outcomes ("So would you say this means that we're all going to die?"), so of course it made headlines with the most dire of predictions.

This was not an independent researcher. This was not the private sector. This was someone directly employed by the government. It's like a Microsoft employee wrote about vulnerabilities in Windows on their private blog, offering to sell solutions.

So the government put a process in place not unlike much of the Western world, doing nothing to control the science (papers were published, research was released, etc. The scientific world understands that preliminary results are preliminary), but having everything to do with the message relayed to the media. Of course this was met with a conspiratorial narrative that continues to this day: That they were hiding dire greenhouse gas/global warming information, for instance.

But the shackles have come off. Where are all of these dramatic scientific findings that were suppressed?

...crickets...

The single example constantly floated is about a guy who got called by a reporter about a paper he released about ~~slime mold~~ rock snot (the exampled floated in literally hundreds of articles about the muzzling of scientists). This government scientist was outraged that he couldn't get approval within 24 hours, and the reporter lost interest. Apparently rock snot is a real timely issue in media circles.

There was a lot wrong with the prior government. An enormous amount. By this particular story is about some freelancing employees who don't want anyone telling them what to do.

That is an interesting article, but the meat of it contradicts, in a common sense, the title.

For instance, no one thinks that Apple has a big vault with hundreds of billions in it. Like all rational players, they hold most of their negotiables in short term securities. For tax reasons they also have been taking on debt in some areas rather than liberate cash from elsewhere.

But they have an enormous, enormous amount of wealth sitting virtually at a standstill. They have announced that they're going to spend a lot of it to buy back shares (boosting the value of the remaining shares), but they've been doing this so slowly they're adding to their pile quicker than they're spending it.

If you exclude the cash horde (edit - the zombies hired to protect the vault full of cash), Apple's P/E ratio is running at around 5 right now. IBM is 10. Microsoft is about 35 if excluding their much smaller cash pile.

Apple is ridiculously "undervalued" compared to any peer in the industry. It is a money printing colossus.

Having said that, the market seems to get shivers around $600B, and that psychological barrier imposes a friction that makes the rules of the game change. No one can stay above that for long, and in the case of Apple its profoundly out of scale numbers makes everyone simply put it in a different universe of valuation.

~5% of developers, while small compared to the whole, still encompasses about a million of the estimated 20 million developers worldwide.

The other poster rightly mentioned the embedded space, and that is absolutely true (and indeed it is where I gained my affinity for C and C++), however there are easily 20 middleware / web / mobile developers for every embedded developer.

While C (and its love-child C++) bizarrely appears high in most synthetic programming popularity rankings, I personally doubt more than 5% of developers (if that) ply their days in it, or have more than a passing competency in it.

Everyone is programming in Java, C#, JavaScript, and so on. Aside from myself, I haven't a single professional peer who develops on C (anecdotal, of course, but this is a pretty big net crossing multiple cities and industries) in any real way.

It just happens to be that much of the most important software is written in it. Maybe there's something in that.

I'm unconvinced you read my comment and are instead painting me with a "disagrees with the Bitcoin community's consensus and is therefore bizarre" brush

You've plied this valiant contrarian noise in virtually all of your comments on this. I'm personally a critic of Bitcoin. I most certainly am not in the "community". Yet the evidence that we have leans overwhelmingly towards "con man". I honestly believe someone would have to have a serious bias to ignore the overwhelming evidence that they are being had.

Your claim that anyone thinks he's "subverting cryptography" immediately cast your comment as hysterical. No one has seriously argued this.

You mean convinced at least five people and three editors

He convinced one or two people. Editors and journalists will run with the weakest of evidence because it's salacious and draws viewers. Do you really think they provide evidence of anything?

I'm sitting here with a complete lack of ability to care

Your rhetoric betrays that you actually do care. Very much. And each time you claim that it's some heroic stand that is only be squelched by the bitcoin insiders, it makes you look a little more foolish.

To your substantial edits: you're trying entirely too much to tell everyone how little you care. To quote Shakespeare, the lady (or man) doth protest too much.

No one is getting upset about it and smashing keyboards. You do a disservice to your argument when that sort of caricature has to be the only alternative to your arguably gullible "prove a negative" attitude towards this.

Nic doesn't know despite many words to convince you otherwise

While you claim that you have no stake or position in this, your other post borders on the bizarre, with you seemingly completely misunderstanding the arguments made and then, having carefully constructed an absurd strawman, you confidently knock it down.

Anyone can be tricked by a con man with no shame. This includes very smart people. Anyone who controls the hardware and the network can render virtually any proof useless without moving outside of their control (which is extremely easy to do), and it can be a fun parlour trick. In this case we have someone with a long history of casual trickery (if not fraud) who, while under an impending cloud of peril, and with months to contrive a magic trick, convinced a single person.

You just described exactly what I described in various other posts. How you came to the conclusion that I "don't seem to understand" can only possibly be due to some sort of zealot blindness that makes you a defender.

Best case -- terrible abstraction. Worst case -- you're rewriting much of your code for each platform, working on a 3rd party incomplete abstraction that is always behind and full of unnecessary layered surprises.

What a win!

And for the next bizarre Xamarin sponsor that decides to wallow in and throw up this -- I worked on a large scale solution with Xamarin. We threw it out and just went with separate projects for each platform, sharing code with C++. Works wonders. Way better than Xamarin.

"All products" list four items, one of which is a product , three of which are services. Exactly as I already said.

Give it up. Your initial comment about Mono was ridiculous and grotesquely out of context, and you've just continued this bizarre obnoxiously.

And the most ridiculous part of all is that this very submission, and Xamarin's own terminology, calls their app development stack "Xamarin".

No one is confused but you.

At this point I have to assume you're trolling. No one is this obtuse.

Xamarin is a company, not a product

Xamarin the company has a primary anchor product that is a tooling and SDK to build cross platform apps (indeed, on Xamarin.com it is literally the only non-service product. There is zero ambiguity). To anyone not autistic, that is clearly the focus on this entire discussion. Your bizarre incantation of Unity using a very old version of Mono as a citation in support of Xamarin set the bar pretty low for this conversation.

It happened 18 hours ago!

Microsoft made it completely free. Yawn.. Microsoft open sources the entire SDK. Yawn.

Clearly you work either for Microsoft, or you hitched your wagon entirely to Xamarin or Microsoft. Your emotions on this are bizarre and completely out of touch with the reality.

Xamarin (not Mono) is a solution that seems like all win: Why bother with completely separate solutions on iOS and Android...and maybe even Blackberry and Windows Phone and...

...when there's a magic solution that covers them all. Surely such a solution would completely take over the industry, right?

Crickets.

Extremely few successful solutions are built in Xamarin. Their case studies are limited, and are generally close to trivial apps. And when you point this out, Xamarin advocates tell you not to use most of the cross platform stuff, but instead use platform specific code that is layered on abstractions from the underlying tech, always a step behind and a mile too far.

I'm not amplifying anything: The market demonstrates every statement. Xamarin is something that floundering teams buy hoping it gives them a big heads up, and then some time down the path they just end up starting separate projects for each platform.

You obviously are heavily biased, and strangely confrontational, towards Xamarin. But this open sourcing has been met with a universal yawn.

You're talking about it like it's some stupid ORM wrapper or wonky Widget UI library. It is not.

Again, this conversation is about Xamarin the mobile app studio. There is zero ambiguity in this, so it is perplexing that you keep bringing this up.

https://www.xamarin.com/

The context is the cross-platform app creation toolset. It generates extremely poor quality code, usually at a significantly increased development time (quite contrary to the promise). This is the case found by almost everyone who uses it, which is exactly why most teams have an Android project, fully using the tools of the platform, and an iOS project, fully using the tools of the platform. If Xamarin were heavily used, Windows Phone wouldn't be so generally unsupported.

This is based upon attempting to use the products to build some solutions. The Xamarin advantage is in the cross-platform tooling (if I'm making separate code for each, why would I bother with a layer of abstraction?), but when used it generates a compromised result.

It is perfectly fine for some relatively simple things. Basic information apps, etc. But it isn't long in complex apps before the abstraction is leaking all over the place, and you find yourself fighting the tooling rather than leveraging the tooling. Which has been the case for virtually every similar "all platforms one tool" type solutions.

What does Unity have to do with Xamarin? Are you referring to the fact that Unity uses an old version of Mono, because that hardly is relevant to greenspot's comment.

To their actual comment, it is extraordinarily difficult to make a quality product with Xamarin. As they said, there are shockingly few wins built with it. There are loads and loads of teams using it, all sure that it's the short cut that will build for everything with one code base, but so few wins.

"Its a well known fact that Google bought Motorola only for the patents. Google has also managed to use the patents to sue other companies including Microsoft."

Really? Which suits were that?

Google has never sued another company over patents. They've made counterclaims when themselves sued, but claiming otherwise is just a fiction.

And they bought Motorola because Motorola was threatening to start suing all of the other Android makers, causing infighting that Google didn't want. So Google bought Motorola....to stop those patents from being used to sue, further diminishing your point.

On the whole, Google is very much the good guys, and Microsoft are very much the bad guys.

However I will say it is naive to assume this will continue forever. There was a period where Microsoft seldom threatened anyone, and we all held quaint notions about all of their "defensive" patents. Situations and markets change, and suddenly desperation takes foot and the company that was hugs and kisses becomes claws and kicks, so I would never assume that Google will always be a fairly good citizen. It could change.

If, on the other hand, you genuinely want to understand what "white male privilege" is all about, you should look at how women of racial minorities fared in your home town, or other similar towns.

Such an analysis would not yield the results I believe you expect. Most of the minority families from my town have been very successful -- they put high demands and expectations on their children, worked hard, etc. The world didn't expect them to fail, as it does with "white trash" males, and their potential was theirs to make. In no universe am I saying they excelled because of affirmative action or anything of the sort -- they worked for everything they got, and earned it -- but society isn't predetermined to expect failure from them.

I grew up a poor white male in unfortunate circumstances. Nothing was expected of me (I often joked about wishing I was Jewish, because then I'd have expectations), and every door was shut. There were no advantages. I remember one particular malignant teacher saying to another, after I had left a room, "water flows to its own level". And of the white males who I grew up around, most did menial jobs and cycled in and out of unemployment, some went to jail, etc. 90%+, roughly, still live in that small town.

The whole white male privilege thing seems to be a classic divergence between the median, and the mean. A small percentage of spectacularly successful white males pull the mean up, while the median lies in the masses of people living miserable lives. But the masses have to suffer and acknowledge their privilege because of the mean.

Or maybe we should simply discard with the whole premise of trying to simplify large groups on traits.

Do you think that no...

I have not assumed anyone else's privilege, or lack of privilege. I haven't made assumptions, demanding group guilt or deference, based upon a simplistic caricature or stereotype.

It's not about tearing anyone down.

I read a statement telling me to remember all of the privilege I have enjoyed since birth. My experience differs, and these sorts of simplified claims fail (the same sort of simplification/see what you want that is the root of racism).

Countering sexism or racism or inequality by attempting to force feed sexism, racism and inequality will never move the conversation forward. It is never useful.

I'm from an Eastern Europe and my family never was rich, I had to put in a tremendous effort to even get into the industry.

I grew up in a small, very blue collar town (the sort that most people never escape). We lived on social assistance, at least until my mother killed herself and I went to live in foster homes. Eventually my father -- who later died from asbestos related cancer from his job -- let me move into a spare bedroom at his girlfriend's house.

"White male privilege".

I "made it", so to speak, purely on the backs of a couple of teachers who tried really hard, and the luck of having interests and aptitudes perfect for the time in a burgeoning, lucrative industry. But I certainly did not have a privileged upbringing.

Assuming that Valve just hasn't gotten around to closing this loophole seems remarkably charitable, if not naive.

Valve is making untold millions on people gambling for items in the game itself. They're looking the other way as secondary markets allow for monetization. I respect Valve as a game maker, but I have no respect for this extremely dubious, gray-market gambling. Claiming that the article is "dishonest" when Valve is one of the largest beneficiaries of this seems dubious.

It's also worth noting that this is very real money. I can put $70 on my Steam account and buy a new triple-A game....or in the land of Valve I can sell some skins and buy the game. It is trading things in CS:GO for real world value, so comparisons to closed-systems (throughout this thread) seems deeply suspect. I can also use that CS:GO loot to "gift" a new game to a friend who then pays me in the real world. And so on.

For the past decade plus, Intel has been their own biggest competitor. Atom processors aren't weak and built on an old process because Intel can't make them better, but rather because Intel's greatest fear is undercutting their more lucrative markets. Their very high profit markets.

So if you go back ten years and say "what if Intel did this" (which in that case was making a processor for Apple that Apple was paying maybe $20 each for, estimating on the very high side), it is over simplified to just imagine that it's additive. Intel has been rolling on profit margins that the hyper-competitive ARM market can only dream about. It may be time for them to adapt (and arguably they have been), but those 12,000 didn't lose their job because Intel didn't do something different ten years ago. They, and thousands others, might never have had an Intel job in the first place if Intel made different choices.

More computers are being sold than ever before. The market is absolutely saturated with computing devices. And aside from the intense competition Intel is facing, they're suffering the same issue that the GPU makers face -- I once upgraded yearly because the gains made it worthwhile. Now I upgrade pretty much only when something fails.

It is absolutely picking a narrative.