tie_

10 ms·

1. 91.▲
   by tie_ 12y ago

   > Doing things this way would mean we can drop these terrible DKIM and SPF systems that both fail to prevent spam and make it difficult to send legitimate mail. I can understand your feelings about SPF, but why is DKIM a terrible system
2. 92.▲
   by tie_ 12y ago

   > No, we shouldn't ban any of that. > Why would that be your take-away from this? People have very different sense of humour. As long as people are expressing that sense of humour via jokes, there will be jokes that are not seen
3. 93.▲
   by tie_ 12y ago

   > We deny her feelings, and in doing so we exclude her and other women. Now that comment is sexist, because you deny men the right to have the same feelings. It's easy to pick nits, especially in those fields. I don't think t
4. 94.▲
   by tie_ 12y ago

   > But we are oblivious to it, we can't even imagine how it feels. Nobody can imagine how would a random nerd from a 800-people conference would feel over a joke. Shall we ban joking? Fine people that use "dirty" words? &qu
5. 95.▲
   by tie_ 12y ago

   I was involved in creating something similar a couple of years ago - http://www.websecuritywatch.com/ My advise would be - aggregate! There most annoying aspect in security news tracking is wading through multiple iteration
6. 96.▲
   by tie_ 12y ago

   Kudos for publishing your approach to recommendations! Relying on users to explicitly mark objects is not the best approach, though. Each user have their own mind about what the best marks/weights would be, hence the input would be inc