purp

A sweet hack, and full marks for humor in the FAQ.[1]

  Q: Is it secure? 
  A: Security is not binary.

  Q: OK, how secure is it? 
  A: It seems like you just asked that question.

  Q: No, the first question was if it's secure, 
     the second question was how secure is it. 
  A: Well now that wasn't even a question at all. 
     Tell you what, if you find an unreported security 
     vulnerability I'll buy you a beer.

You get full encryption end to end, transparent to any app or program on the box, with next to zero config.

See http://trustiosity.com/snow/how-it-works.html

As I mentioned, I'm not a particular follower of hers; I guess I should have mentioned I'm also not her apologist.

Sorry I can't answer your question. I don't know what she was doing in that tweet; you provided no context. It's clear you believe you have the answer, though, and that you care enough to create a throwaway account; pull up a four year old tweet; and present in a discussion that really isn't about Randi. Seems like she's important to you.

Hope you got what you were looking for.

Thank you for thinking about this. It's a very worthy topic for thought. If you'd care to link the thread you mention, I'm sure others would like to help.

BTW, a very good primer on learning how to be helpful is http://juliepagano.com/blog/2014/05/10/so-you-want-to-be-an-...

Exactly right. Make it wholely unacceptable to make these "threats-in-jest" and a lot of the problem goes away.

Thanks for the link, chuckcode. Skimmed a bit and added to the "read before bedtime" pile.

There's a lot of interestingness around anonymity vs. pseudonymity. From what I've read and experienced, it comes down to how much you value a particular identity in a particular context; from there, it's all about framing incentives around the identity that you value. Violentcranz didn't value the online persona enough that online incentives mattered; when he was outed by a journalist, he valued the real life incentives enough to stop the online behavior.

Fair, and we can disagree. I'll say that I'm not a fan of urging people to die in fires.

However, it's noteworthy that her review made several clear statements, some opinion and some fact, in her own name. She didn't resort to ad hominem attacks, nor doxxing, nor swatting. And evidently 370 of 1218 people found it useful in some way.

Also noteworthy that Stop the Goodread Bullies isn't a balanced, objective news source. Their coverage makes clear that SJW is a pejorative term that equates to bullying[1]; that they're happy to damn with innuendo rather than fact[2] and they're seemingly okay with pulling quotes out of context[3]. The only mention of Vox Day, who has participated in the same bullying review activity[4], is in the article you shared. Ergo, I'd tend to say they're not unbiased.

Still, they're not aking lewd suggestions or threatening peoples' lives, so I'm glad they're out there working to represent their opinions directly.

[1] http://www.stopthegrbullies.com/2015/06/08/sjws-create-fake-... "Well, it appears that bullies (also known as SJWs) are at it again" [2] http://www.stopthegrbullies.com/2015/06/02/randi-harper-figh... which quotes a Breitbart article, including a link to an eleven year old arrest (the page gives no reason) along with "[...] for what she claims were traffic offences but around which much more salacious rumours swirl, say games industry insiders." Neither Breitbart nor STGRB offers evidence supporting the claim they perpetuated. [3] http://www.stopthegrbullies.com/2015/06/07/john-scalzi-and-t... ... I read the tweets at the time, and this is a very selective, one-sided collection. [4] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Theodore_Beale, which is a good source of referenced quotes made by Theodore Beale aka Vox Day. I wouldn't hold Rational Wiki up as an unbiased news source, either.

It's disingenuous to switch from your original context in which you, a bystander, urge listeners to believe that this is an unsolvable problem, to the context of the victim, which you aren't.

If you, the bystander, decide to take a stand rather than write this off as too hard a problem to solve, you help the victim by giving them support, and you help future victims by decreasing, however slightly, the chance that harassers will continue to believe that their behavior is tolerable.

If you, the bystander, are willing to spend time on one person who doesn't yet understand but who may be willing to think, and then to move from thought to action, your efforts gain leverage and that minuscule probability decrease becomes larger.

If you, the bystander, continue to do this, even without being a victim yourself; if you do this in places your voice can be heard; if you do this even when you gain no personal benefit, you hopefully influence the people around you to at least think deeper, and from there, to act in some way that fits with their conscience. And in doing so, you give the victims hope for a day when this isn't their norm.

It's not a clogged sink. It's also not an intractable problem.

So let's fix it.

It's easy to say that this happens all the time, urge folks to call the cops, let them deal with it, and otherwise don't make a big deal.

So here's the thing: people have been calling the cops; the cops are ill-equipped to deal with this. The inherent structure of police agencies in the U.S. is oriented around physical communities and jurisdictions. More than 5/6 of the sworn officers are below the federal level, thus not easily able to pursue investigations across state lines.[1] but it's easier to push this conveniently to being a problem for the cops than it is to think and choose to act.

You could instead:

* lobby your congressperson and senators to start a federal reporting program. * develop a set of tools that helps narrow the source of these threats, along with a toolkit of self-serve legal forms to demand IP information so victims can submit full evidence to police * support EFF and others who are helping fight this * stop blaming the victim

mholt, you ask how Astrocyte's is part of Jesse's problem. Here's how:

* Astrocyte is assuming that none of this has already been done. * Astrocyte is refusing to do some research and learn about the current state of affairs before minimizing the concerns of people actually experiencing the problem. * Astrocyte is demanding that victims prove they've met Astrocyte's standards before those victims are supposed to raise broad-based concerns publicly. * Astrocyte is writing this off as an isolated thing despite it clearly being more than that. * Astrocyte is doing so publicly while implicitly urging others to do the same.

Astrocyte is choosing to push this problem away and say it's not as big, as wide, as common, or as horrific as it is. That's Astrocyte's choice. People are responsible for their own choices.

Astrocyte is part of the problem.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_Unite...

There are no social problems so large that we can't fix them once we develop the will to do so.

It is a big problem with no solution. [...]

I imagine a lot of the country felt that way about civil rights in the early 1960s. Then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968 ... And while it's nowhere near solved, people don't regard cross-burnings and lynchings as matter-of-fact daily occurrences anymore.

This is an insanely hard problem to solve, and it might actually not be possible to fix.

I imagine folks in the mid-1960s thought exactly that of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation; that folks in the 1860s thought exactly that of reuniting the states after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war; and that folks in the 1760s thought that of the whole "How can we get the King to listen to us and help us manage our colony in our best interest?" until we did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_I... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

There are no social problems so large that we can't fix them once we develop the will to do so. We don't develop the will until we admit that these problems are tractable.

So let's fix it.

A counter-counter-example: do you believe the majority of the citizenry of Tombstone, Arizona, circa October 1881 were outlaws? And yet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfight_at_the_O.K._Corral

I'm happy it hasn't impinged on your work life, and I hope it never does. And there's still folks being hurt by a malevolent minority in and around our industry.

When does that majority of incredibly decent human beings, both men and women, start to care enough that they refuse to accept this any longer?

Actually, yes. There's ample evidence of the effects of under reporting crimes:

http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/more-than-3-million-v... http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vnrp0610.pdf

From the article:

"Bullying remains a big problem, according to the study data. About 76% of violent crimes that occurred at school were not reported to police, which is consistent with the findings that from 2006 to 2010, crimes against youth age 12 to 17 were more likely to go unreported than crimes against persons in other age categories."

Now, here's my question for you, mholt (and others), meant in a kind but very direct tone: why should someone need to prove that reporting more of these crimes is justifiable? Why quibble with that question versus addressing the question of, "is there a wrong being done and can I help stop it?"

There is a wrong being done. You can help stop it.

So let's fix it.

I'm not a particular follower of Randi's and still couldn't help but see the Vivek stuff going on. I wouldn't have labeled it harassment; what I saw was a loud and unrelenting public call for accountability. I don't believe she threatened, doxxed, or otherwise harassed him. Do you know differently?

What I would call harassment is that Randi was doxxed as well as swatted, seemingly by the same sort of folks involved in this situation. She seems to have decided to aggressively stand up for her rights and the rights of others.

I'm sure that makes many uncomfortable, some so much so that they create new profiles in social media to comment on it without risking their reputation. Which is fair, though you have to ask yourself why.

You can't do anything to stop trolls online [...]

So painfully wrong. There are many things you can do, including not giving up and walking off. You just have to decide you've had enough and are willing to do hard work.

Speak out, even when it's not in your own best interest.

Support people who are targeted.

And, last but not least, don't pick pedantic points to argue while losing sight of the main issue: it absolutely stinks to be a woman in tech.

So let's fix it.

As judk mentions, an offer in hand (or even a ballpark from the recruiter) is solid data.

Also, Wealthfront keeps their startup compensation tool pretty up to date (https://www.wealthfront.com/tools/startup-salary-equity-comp...), so that's useful.

Agree that Glassdoor's data isn't very reliable. There are too many crossed incentives in that system to make me want to believe.

Yup. I agree with Hilary and Diego. Optimizing for the clickability of the ad is shortsighted. Yahoo is an advertising company.

Optimizing for revenue via delivering valuable clicks to your ad buyers seems more a right choice. That speaks of good placement and excellent targeting (better CTR) combined with an overall good experience (to attract/keep users in the first place).

For engineers in Silicon Valley, it very nearly is.

It's about building their confidence from age 0. It's about making and reinforcing a community of respect for difference wherever you are. And it's about being sure that your kids know they're never really out there all by themselves.

Our kids go to public school, are healthily wonky in different (and wonderful) ways, and have friends who are healthily wonky in other different (and wonderful) ways. We live in a community that, among other things, had spirited discussions about bullying years ago. We live there despite a long daily commute for me because we believe that having a good environment is almost as important as being good parents.

They look to you to tell them what's good and bad. Choose carefully the lessons you give, explicit or other.

Because every useful tool has the opportunity to establish an audience, make a market, monetize, and become successful. Sounds like a startup to me.

<snark>You'd prefer C?</snark>

Seriously, though, how would you improve the solution? What would decrease the likelihood of serving the wrong asset or no asset at all? I'm sure there are other interesting solutions to this problem, but are they as complete and in some measurable way better?

Disclaimer: I work with Jared and enjoy the benefit of the solution as described.

It's been (properly) folded into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarks_Law

I interleaved for decades, then switched for anything that's not a point-by-point reply. And it's all GMail's fault. You see, top replies are now snippeted in my GMail and on my phone.

I can process email faster that way, as can most folks I converse with.

... which is why you frequently hear BDD called "Agile Acceptance Testing"

BDD means testing that you've delivered what the customer asked for. User stories expressed as test. This is like the architect's rendering of a building; it expresses and implies certain desired qualities.

TDD means testing that you've implemented a system which has all the significant qualities you expected. It intends to prove that the system does all of the right things and none of the wrong things on the way to delivering what the customer asked for. This is more like the blueprint of the building, making all significant details explicit.

You could practice BDD without TDD, though I've yet to see someone choose to. You can practice TDD without BDD, which I've seen many people do.

Same here. I got two FB firsts this year: first death of a friend I learned of via FB (I've had another since), and first "update" from a dead friend who's mother now controls his account.

It's like you're reading my mind. Or stalking me. Or maybe both.

Just had to get in on the hate, eh, teejae? Ah, well, I can sleep when I'm dead.

http://prezi.com/ ... most interesting thing to come to presentations in a looong time. Check out their take on Pecha-Kucha:

http://prezi.com/j9anrjn-gdwj/prezi-pecha-kucha-bw/

Danger is that you'll spend all your time futzing with the style and not put in enough substance.

Great, now I won't sleep tonight as I learn the difference between syllabic alphabets and syllabaries. I hate you in the kindest way possible. ;]

The answer, from the other HN post about this blog article (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1355797):

"Well. We're talking about making this work in quite a number of different browsers, including IE6. So yes, it is." --matthiaskramm

(please don't vote up my comment; instead, give Matthias the points: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1355880)