godelski

26 ms·

451.
by godelski 7mo ago
> Some things do that. I think you're missing the point... > Sounds pretty good to me Really? Be a bit more serious now. There are a lot of things that connect to the internet, and not just for stupid data harvesti
452.
by godelski 7mo ago
That doesn't change anything I said. But you do bring up another issue people aren't discussing. That the default setting is under 18. So we protect the children from adults by... having no way to actually verify someone is a chil
453.
by godelski 7mo ago
> The OS could require the parent to manually update it. How is their age verified? At some point one of two things is required: 1) A promise that the user is a certain age - Which puts us exactly where we are 2) Offici
454.
by godelski 7mo ago
> They employ some of the best security analysts in the world and have $10-30B/yr revenue I'll never not be impressed by how many people will defend trillion dollar organizations and say that things are too expensive. E
455.
by godelski 7mo ago
Neither big players have refined enough permissions. These set users up for giving away more data than they think. Maybe one clear example is needing a permission once for setup and then it remaining persistent. An easy demonstration is jus
456.
by godelski 7mo ago
> Why not? Why can't faster typing help us understand the problem faster? Can it help ? Of course! But I think the question is too vague here and you're (presumably) unintentionally creating a false dichotomy. I'l
457.
by godelski 7mo ago
> This course covered CLIs/git/Unix/shell/IDEs/vim/emacs/regex/etc. Fwiw I just graduated grad school and our lower division courses taught most of this stuff, though not as the main subjec
458.
by godelski 7mo ago
>.< idk why I copy pasted my line with the correction again. Sorry about that, but glad you got it despite that haha
459.
by godelski 7mo ago
It was the safe_sleep function. Here's an issue on it [0]. IIRC there was an early issue, but really this is code that never should have made it in. Here's the conditional in question SECONDS=0 while [[ $SECONDS -lt $1 ]]; d
460.
by godelski 7mo ago
A warrant usually isn't a free pass to search everything. They are often narrow. The warrant is the receipt. Even if you believe it's fine most of the time I'm pretty certain most people would feel uncomfortable if they went
461.
by godelski 7mo ago
You used a conditional so I assume you also know how such a system can fail. It's not hard to figure out how that can be exploited, right? You can't rely on that conditional being executed perfectly every time, even without advers
462.
by godelski 7mo ago
It's become more a shorthand for saying much more. Though the original context differs from how it is used today (common with many idioms). People do not generally believe a seat belt limits your liberty, but you're not exactly wr
463.
by godelski 7mo ago
> until I realized it’s predicated on living in a high trust society. I don't think it's predicated on that. It's based on low trust of authority. Not necessarily even current authority. And low trust of authority
464.
by godelski 7mo ago
Honestly I think we're just becoming more aware of this way of thinking. It's certainly exacerbated it now that everyone has "an expert" in their pocket. It's no different than conspiracy theorists. We saw a lot mor
465.
by godelski 7mo ago
I'm not Canadian, but it seems similarly written to how laws in the US have been exploited to be used to spy on Americans. And despite not being Canadian, as an American I have a horse in this race, as the OP notes... | many of the
466.
by godelski 7mo ago
There were two commenters that responded 15 minutes prior to your comment. I'd suggest starting there if you want to understand. Then if you disagree with those, you can comment and actually contribute to the conversation ;)
467.
by godelski 7mo ago
In general cars have also gotten safer for pedestrians[0]. Modern cars are lighter and made of plastic. There's better visibility, sensors, and for most vehicles the shape of the car has improved things. American trucks are an interest
468.
by godelski 7mo ago
To be frank, I tried to address your point with my comment about the audience. I very much disagree that you start with money and work backwards to technical problems. I do not think this approach would make you efficient at solving probl
469.
by godelski 7mo ago
> I notice that your comment history is all rapid-fire three-paragraph LLM responses I looked after you said this and those are all from today, in the last hour. And is a stark change from their (very short) comment history. In p
470.
by godelski 7mo ago
> According to whom? Certainly not the people did the hiring. Actually yes, according to them. Maybe they'll say that you should also be concerned about the money but that just makes the business people redundant now doesn
471.
by godelski 7mo ago
I agree and think it's extra important when you have specialized products. Experts are more sensitive to the little things. Engineers and developers are especially sensitive. It's our job to find problems and fix them. I don'
472.
by godelski 7mo ago
I hope I left the lead as the lead. But I also think we've had a culture shift that's hurting our field. Where engineers are arguing about if we should implement certain features based on the monetary value (which are all fictiona
473.
by godelski 7mo ago
The parent didn't say "there's no legitimate uses of eval", they said "using eval should make people pay more attention." A red flag is a warning. An alert. Not a signal saying "this is 100% no doubt malic
474.
by godelski 7mo ago
I'm not a JS person, but taking the line at face value shouldn't it to nothing? Which, if I understand correctly, should never be merged. Why would you merge no-ops?
475.
by godelski 7mo ago
Here's the big reason GitHub should do it: It makes the product better I know people love to talk money and costs and "value", but HN is a space for developers, not the business people. Our primary concern, as develo
476.
by godelski 8mo ago
What would really help is for people to understand that that's the "spirit of the law" and the "letter of the law". People don't want the letter of the law enforced, they want the spirit. Using the example from
477.
by godelski 8mo ago
I think you think that because we don't agree that I have some grave misunderstanding of some, to be frank, basic facts. I assure you, I perfectly understand what you're bringing up here and in the last comment. But I think you st
478.
by godelski 8mo ago
So you're agreeing? The problem with TDD isn't the T it's the (first) D
479.
by godelski 8mo ago
Then you agree. But the existence of unit tests does not mean you're doing TDD.
480.
by godelski 8mo ago
You can have software behave differently while passing the same tests. Idk man, this is pretty easy to demonstrate. Start with a trivial example: test is that input (2,2) -> 4. Function 1 does multiplication, function 2 does exponentiati

More ›