pckspcks

And, sadly, completely incorrect.

There are a half-dozen different groups of mainstream programming languages (and a bunch of oddballs). Within those groups, it's relatively uniform. Going between -- not the same.

Most people who make comments like this have only seen languages which differ in syntax, but many do differ in semantics.

Two comments:

1. There is large variation in TN displays. I'm very happy with the Acer TN panels I have at home. I find good TN gives me less eye strain than a lot of the IPS panels. IPS is the way to go for photo editing and similar tasks which require color calibration, but for coding, I actually prefer a good TN panel. Again, the trick is to find the right one. Try them at a store, for example.

2. Consider getting one 4k, and keeping the 1080p monitors. I have a 5 display setup like that. It works pretty well, actually. The 4k is great as a main display, and all the auxiliary stuff lives on the 1080p panels.

That both does and doesn't help. There is the format, which looks sensible. There are the protocols around it, key generation, salt generation, overall design, etc. which are not.

What actually scares me about the design is if my machine is compromised, an attacker can grab my Password Safe file (plus keylogs or whatever) and has access to all of my passwords. The design seems not very robust at a designs+protocols level.

(In contrast, right now, if a machine is compromised, it only compromises the passwords I've used from that machine).

I like Bruce. I trust Bruce. However, as far as I can tell, this is a black box. There is no documentation on formats, protocols, and similar. I have no reason to trust the security of this system. The closest I could come would be to read the source code.

I'm at a startup where I found out a junior hire -- worse in every way than myself and several steps down in title -- is making at least 30% more than I am. It's a strange position. I've started polishing my resume as a result.

Work as few or as many hours as you like. That's a pretty big benefit of contractors.

I found this one of the most useful books I've read, but less so for the physics (which was mostly an intellectual curiosity), and more so for understanding how to write good code.

In it, Sussman shows you how to:

* Write a Lagrangian

* Symbolically convert it into Lagrange's Equations

* Compile those into native code

* Numerically integrate the with an optimized numerical algorithm to get a path of motion.

And all of this, with beautiful, clean, concise, simple code.

A-fing-mazing.

Correct. In contrast to Newtonian mechanics, Lagrangians and Hamiltonians completely describe essentially all fundamental laws of physics -- including things like quantum and relativity.

However, they are cumbersome to work with for some complex, compound phenomena, such as friction.

Yes it does. I'm confused why you believe it doesn't....

Step 1: Add support to Firefox for encryption when connecting on port 80. Call this HTTP, but have the protocol identical to HTTPS with self-signed cert. You negotiate that when you connect to the web server.

Step 2: Advertise to the community you'll be deprecating unencrypted on port 80 after 2 years time. Ideally, make patches to nginx and apache such that it's a small config change.

Step 3: Change behavior such that:

1. Port 80+old http+no encryption: Show a small warning

2. Port 80+encryption+self-signed cert: No warning. Also, unlocked padlock. "HTTP" in URL. Behavior as for current unencrypted web sites.

3. Port 443+encryption+self-signed cert: BIG SCARY WARNING.

4. Port 443+encryption+cert without identity: No padlock. HTTPS in the URL, but grey, and unlocked padlock.

5. Port 443+encryption+cert with identity: Padlock. Green. Name of organization. Indicated as trusted.

One of the problems with a push like this is that, aside from preventing open web, it also undermines the meaning of a cert. With initiatives like https://letsencrypt.org/, I a cert means I actually don't know who I'm talking to (at least in a legal sense -- I can identify the entity, and take them to court if they rob me).

To answer your question: I'm actually not too unhappy with the current state of affairs. I'd be more happy with the state of affairs I proposed above. I'm very unhappy with the state of affairs Mozilla proposes. I value an open web more than I do an arguably more secure one.

This stuff ain't rocket science. Mozilla has smart people. If it's being done a dumb way, there's a reason for it.

Well, in this case:

1. The technical solution is trivial. You always have encryption, but http=self-signed cert, and no authentication, and no lock icon. https=CA cert, encryption, authentication, and lock icon.

2. There are strong government and corporate interests in being able to filter the open web. This closes the open web.

3. For the first time in my life, I have a comment on Hacker News or Reddit at -4. I've posted much more controversial things before (I do care about anonymity; I do use one-off cypherpunks accounts, so my post history won't indicate things). Good debate was virtually always well-received, up-voted, and not censored. The only exception was here, and one place where there was a strong, clear, well-financed astroturf campaign. That's one datapoint, but overall, the debate on the topic smells of financed astroturf rather than genuine grassroots.

Nope. The goal is to make running a server only available to corporate entities. It reduce competition from folks like yourself.

I don't know anyone who can sustain 80 hour work weeks if they're not passionate about what they're doing and enjoy it. People who try to do it just for the money do it for a while, and then either turn into cheaters (as the article documents), or burn out and move onto more fulfilling careers.

Doing something you're passionate about and having an impact on the world is living. It is much more living than going to a job you don't give an f- about for 40 hours per week so you can buy a house in the suburbs and an SUV, retire after 40 years, and then die having left no impact on the world.

It's false in the typical case. It's true in the atypical case, where the worker genuinely cares about the job. Earlier in my career, I had sustained 70+ hour work weeks at very high levels of productivity. In the process, I've personally conservative generated tens of millions of dollars of value. That moved me into my current position.

I know a number of other folks like me. I'm not unique here. It's that sort of person that you want to hire.

Let me put this in real numbers. Most folks I know who work those hours make around $300k. That's mean. I know folks who make half that, and I know folks who make several times that.

I can see what the author is saying, but... It's not necessarily about everyone working 80 hour weeks. It's about a corporate culture of 80 hour weeks. Cheating, if you get the job done, and maintain the image, doesn't discourage that culture. Acknowledging that some people are working 40 hours does.

80 hour weeks are important. It gives 40 hours for work, and 40 hours for personal growth. The former is a short cycle, and the latter is a long cycle.

1. If you trim down the growth part, your employees won't be competitive in the long term. Growth compounds, and sometimes superlinearly. If you know more, you learn faster.

2. This may be less relevant to management consulting, but if you trim down the work part, product part falls apart. I've seen organizations killed when work-life balance management stepped in. You go from 20 employees at 80 hours per week to 80 employees at 40 hours per week. Knowledge becomes much more distributed. Communication channels grow. Hiring standards slip.

In addition, if it's an 80 hour week, it becomes your life. It may sound like just 80 hours, but it dominates your life. You think about it in the shower. You dream about it. When you spend time with family, you're distracted with work and want to go work.

In practice, if I can get the same quantity of output from 20 employees as from 80 or a hundred at a higher level of quality, I can pay those employees at least five times as much. Many high-performance organizations try to make this trade-off.

But when society demands work life balance of employees with salaries starting at $300k and going into millions -- that falls flat.

Part of the obscene salaries go into making sure kids and families are healthy, even with a parent out of the house.

If this goes through, I'll be super-excited. I don't want my kids on ads. I don't want me on ads either.

There's welding and there's welding. Structural stick welding, I can train you on in a few hours. That's not going much higher than $16.50 per hour.

Speciality welding -- of the level of precision needed to make lightweight parts (aerospace, bicycle), some types of artwork, underwater, etc. -- that's a much more skilled job.

It'd be like grouping basic IT and kernel hacking as the same thing.

Well, I'm not getting one for three reasons:

1. The laptop sometimes sits on my lap. The surface keyboard doesn't work as a laptop.

2. The resolution is a joke.

3. There is no sane pen storage. For a pen device, that's dumb. Thinkpads add a few mm, and have a hole you put it in which stores it securely. There's a move to move everything out of the device to make it small, but carrying around 50 gizmos is worse than one slightly bigger gizmo.

Empirically, I have not seen this to be the case.

Test coverage has had little correlation to code quality on the projects I've worked on.

I would agree that well-written tests of the most complex parts of code help contribute towards a quality system. Most of the other tests -- sometimes more so, and sometimes less so, depending on other aspects of the project.

what are you talking about?

Read about 3 more lines of the post, and you'll see.

Your reading comprehension skills are lower than my toddler's. Fortunately, you're in good company, from the number of similar posts.

There is no way to not use Facebook.

Let me repeat that: THERE IS NO WAY TO NOT USE FACEBOOK.

Everyone's photos: Mine, yours, Stallmans, get posted to Facebook, annotated with our names (which is increasingly becoming easy enough to do with ML -- the human component will increasingly decline). If at least one of your friends uses Facebook, Facebook has profile information on you.

Stallman doesn't have a Facebook account, but things posted to Facebook identify where Stallman is, who his friends and peers are, who he interacts with, etc.

Signing up for a Facebook/Google Scholar/Researchgate/etc. simply gives you some level of control over the visibility of the information collected about you. If you care about your personal brand, there is strong reason to do it. It's almost blackmail. But if you don't do it, you're still on Facebook; simply without the EULA, and without any control.