rosser

83 ms·

751.
by rosser 9y ago
The far more insidious part of (some) advertising is how it makes "consumers" feel about themselves . Poke that little nugget of self-doubt someone carries (because we all do), and then tell them you have just the thing to make
752.
by rosser 9y ago
> ...to me. That's your choice, consciously or otherwise. There's no trickery here. It's not like this is being hidden from people. It's just not widely recognized.
753.
by rosser 9y ago
It's not about being scary . Why on earth would you think that? It's about creating cognizance of the fact that someone else is making money off your behavior. You can be scared of that if you want, but creating that fear is cert
754.
by rosser 9y ago
I must have missed the part where the patent clause in the React license applied only to software patents.
755.
by rosser 9y ago
I'd call that a "distinction without a difference". Those are generally fallacious, and more often pedantic. Sure, you can still technically use React if, say, you're based somewhere that patents aren't particular
756.
by rosser 9y ago
It's a de facto one-way "all your patents are available to us" grant, because you can't sue them if they violate any patents you may have, without ceding your l̶i̶c̶e̶n̶s̶e̶ ability to use React. EDIT: better?
757.
by rosser 9y ago
I know it's not the specific kind of "risk" you're referring to, but the notion of trying to engage with human intimacy in a way that avoids risk sounds like it would be pretty Pyrrhic — or, at best, hollow — if it were
758.
by rosser 9y ago
How does incrementing a counter address some sites requiring special characters while others reject them?
759.
by rosser 9y ago
And I am 100% in favor of that outcome, in that case.
760.
by rosser 9y ago
No. You're just not specifically subject to that test. If you're in their management chain, and you get involved with them, you've actually exposed them to significant risk.
761.
by rosser 9y ago
It's not that hard, dude — and I say that being nontrivially Aspie, and profoundly bad at these kinds of social cues. The point where it becomes "unacceptable" is subtle and situational, but not terribly ambiguous. A good gen
762.
by rosser 9y ago
The presumption here is that the list will be abused by founders more than the VCs it was explicitly created to enumerate do their position vis a vis founders. I think that attitude is no small part of why this problem is as deeply ro
763.
by rosser 9y ago
Calling them "indistinguishable" is the kind of "welp!" hyperbole that excuses — no, encourages — the slide you bemoan. If that's what HN is, congratulations: You just helped make it that way a little bit more.
764.
by rosser 9y ago
Years ago, I was visiting friends in Atlanta, one of whom was a civil engineer for GDoT. He took me to the intersection of Rosser Rd and Rosser Pl.
765.
by rosser 9y ago
At that resolution, you probably couldn't distinguish the TransAmerica Pyramid from the SalesForce Tower. I wouldn't call that particularly well-known.
766.
by rosser 9y ago
Explanations ≠ excuses.
767.
by rosser 9y ago
Ad hominem much? EDIT: Particularly ironic, given your username.
768.
by rosser 9y ago
I have a pretty strong hunch that has more to do with fraud prevention than it does consumer protection. EDIT: Not to imply either is solely one or the other. Just, on a spectrum with those motives as the poles, "can't buy lotto t
769.
by rosser 9y ago
This morning, a FB friend shared an article about some startup raising a $17mm round for an app that's supposed to make buying lotto tickets more appealing to or easy for millennials, or something. I'm not sure which is Onion-ier,
770.
by rosser 9y ago
You're right. With a super-contrived test case, I got the described behavior. Somehow, in all the the hundreds of millions (guesstimate) of rows I've used SELECT FOR UPDATE NOWAIT to process without lock conflicts, I've never
771.
by rosser 9y ago
This is the kind of comment that makes me wish I could burn some of my own karma to downvote more than once.
772.
by rosser 9y ago
The clause "SKIP LOCKED" did not exist until 9.5. Before that version, the behavior of silently skipping rows that had outstanding locks against them was specified by using "NOWAIT". The decision of which specific clau
773.
by rosser 9y ago
No, I would say that makes it harder. People have all kinds of crazy, naïve assumptions about how databases work. I often don't see the result of those assumptions until late in the process, when correcting them is significantly more d
774.
by rosser 9y ago
> Pre-9.5...
775.
by rosser 9y ago
The problem with the first point is that autovacuum can't mark "dead" tuples as "dead" if there are open transactions that are "older" (in MVCC terms) than those tuples, no matter how aggressively it'
776.
by rosser 9y ago
Disclaimer: IAAPDBA (I am a PostgreSQL DBA) I have been employed thusly for a decade now, and have worked in environments ranging from tens of concurrent users to hundreds of thousands. Previously, I was a developer. A few jobs ago, I encou
777.
by rosser 9y ago
Pre-9.5, you could use "SELECT ... FOR UPDATE NOWAIT" to achieve the same end.
778.
by rosser 9y ago
No, it's because, to properly do "science" you can (generally) meaningfully only ask a single question at a time. This is an observational finding, not an investigative one. That means these specific scientists are there to o
779.
by rosser 9y ago
Yeah, dude, you don't get to take the carefully phrased, deliberately hedged, so as not to claim a finding which wasn't even studied language that scientists use in their research as a matter of principle, and argue that it means
780.
by rosser 9y ago
That argument would be far more (read: "at all") compelling if they weren't keeping the full-rez, EXIF'ed images. At that point, they're de facto acting as a backup service, and obscuring my access to my conte

More ›