Kequc

Wikipedia lists energy consumption being 70% coal, I'm not sure why the large discrepancy there. I got my information about electrical engines from a website trying to talk up how great it was that we were moving away from oil based engines, but even there they admitted that until more power generation is switched over to renewable that emissions are higher with electric cars. Which makes perfect sense and is not dubious, the fewer times you need to convert energy the less energy wasted. Electricity does not store well, additionally.

I don't like that they're touting no emissions. Electricity has to be generated and in the US that's mainly coal. Hybrid vehicles are closer to having it right where running the car charges it and you can get by burning significantly less fuel. Strictly electrical has not been shown to be an energy saver or a flag bearer of emissions reduction. In many cases so far it has been a cause of more pollution than modern engines using oil.

Why is this a bad thing, let people post what they want to. Also if someone says YouTube is censoring them why wouldn't you believe it?

The entire article reads like blog spam. They make a contradictory statement in the same paragraph here:

> Experts say such technology is most likely to be used to offer discounts to customers with loyalty status <...> such as to induce a new customer with an especially affordable ticket.

Yeah exactly you're going to always offer the lowest price you can. I've never heard of someone being loyal to an airline who wasn't already getting significant discounts with a loyalty card. A loyalty card is going to be replaced with a browser cookie?

I don't think so.

The government is going to use them to finally start decrypting all of the VPN traffic they've been storing all these years.

Aren't there other bundlers out there which are much faster, much smaller, and already have had tree shaking for quite a little while? Why are you stating that Webpack is necessary I must be one of the people who doesn't understand the problem space.

I don't get it either, apparently a tech companies value is tied directly to and only to the size of its user base. I could never use the app effectively so I'm happy to hear it got a redesign of any kind.

This exploit might be defeated with the following css:

input[type="password"] { background-image: none !important; }

And if the exploit uses `!important` then you just need to make your selector more specific such as putting it inside an id. If you have malicious javascript running on your page there are better ways to steal data. I feel there is low risk of coming across this problem in the wild.

> No one would implement this in a real productive project.

Oh my word. If it's code on the internet someone will use it. Especially functional programmers who have somehow landed themselves in a JavaScript position. I've seen much stranger code pulled off the internet and used in production applications by professionals.

That's why it's important to generally publish the best code possible whenever we can.

I don't think iOS has ever been a half decent operating system, but that's an example of how a lot of the discussion in this thread might be subjective.

A glimpse into what's going on in my opinion can be seen in the long awaited new Pro line of Macbooks. Many point out these were not Pro, they are (exceedingly) under powered overpriced shiny Macbooks. Machines which are still outperformed by their predecessors. Apple has stopped focusing on the tech community because we are expensive hard to please customers.

So they focus their efforts making products for regular people, who might use the product once in a while. And by focus their efforts I mean they make products people want to buy but that aren't necessarily great. Software is one aspect of that. If you are not a power user you'll likely never run into any of the issues you mention.

e: Oh boo hoo

One of the primary reasons I don't like posting here or on services like you describe is because I cannot delete anything. Maybe you've enough users who don't care about that but it should be taken into consideration that many people will not participate.

You'd be therefore trading direct communication for archived communication and I'm not sure that's more valuable.

Haha I'm not gonna spend $60/month on data for my phone. You can buy a new phone three times a year for that. But you've got a point, a lot of people do.

I don't want webpages being preloaded on mobile because as it stands mobile carriers are still charging an arm and a leg for mobile data. Preloading means that pages are being loaded that I never see.

The clientside ecosystem is mad, average webpage size has ballooned to 3MB. I often choose to preload a podcast, in exchange for loading one single webpage. Therefore choosing which result I want before opening it is something I'm interested in.

Webpages are easily the heaviest use of my data as it is. I could spend all day on maps, reading email, or otherwise without any problem.

I'm reasonably secure in my feeling that centralisation isn't the problem.

As much as people far too freely giving up information about themselves online. Decentralisation can work as an anti-censorship measure but I wouldn't expect something I send out over Bittorrent (for example) to remain my personal private info.

Forgive me if I've missed it but I haven't seen any evidence that quantum computing has been used to solve even a very simple calculation. It seems that the purpose behind trying to build a quantum computer; is you really need to be out in front, not necessarily that it is possible.

Are quantum computers just the fusion reactors of the computing world? Maybe one won't be built for 20 or 30 years, maybe longer.

I cannot count how many interviews I've done where I've shown up with 10+ years of industry experience and been given an interview catered toward juniors. If anything there is too much emphasis on interviewing entry level software engineers. There are others out there with a proven track record.

I'm just underselling myself, shooting too low. At this point do I need to be applying for management?

The Open Internet Preservation Act (Dec 2017)

https://freedomoutpost.com/open-internet-preservation-act-se...

http://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NN_02_xml....

Why don't Democrats pass NN through congress and get it enshrined into law? Instead of trying to block that from happening, since it's Republicans who are trying to do that.

Why was NN so easy to repeal in the first place? Why didn't Obama do a proper job if it's such an important issue? I still don't agree with the accepted wisdom about what NN is in the first place. Seems to me to suggest companies that are using up a lot of bandwidth are going to start paying more, competitors are going to start paying less. Which is why every single large company is opposed to the change.

I don't use Atom but I would say, if I did, that my development environment includes hardware that has 800MB available. This isn't to suggest I'm ok with bloat, I absolutely am not. But if the most important thing on my computer is using up resources then I don't mind that.

I'm more concerned about how much work I'm able to get done, and with Vim frustration eats up more of my time than with a modern GUI.

Why would anyone suspect that? You're talking about what 1 in several million users? All you have to be is above the threshold of "easy to hack". I'd like to be referred to such a thing if there is one already.

This seems to me like a very clean solution, is there a Chrome extension version of something like this? I'd love to tap on a password field, enter my secret key, and have it autofill based on the domain of the page.

That's approximately 100 lava lamps each at 100W = 10,000W = 10kW/h * 20.4 cents = $2.04/h * 24 = $48.96/day $1,489.20/month.

Ignoring the fact that is very little money in Silicon Valley. Lava lamps consume a large amount of electricity in order to generate the heat they need. There are cheaper better ways to generate randomness, this is purely for spectacle clearly.

It makes me nervous more than anything. If that's the front they put up, inside is there a Rube Goldberg machine that triggers DDoS protection?

I may not be up on the latest news.

My understanding from the best sources I can find detail a disagreement within the government about how net neutrality is implemented, not that it exists. Internet providers want to repeal net neutrality. Democrats are happy with the current implementation. Republicans want to enshrine net neutrality in law through congress, stripping what they believe is overreach on the part of the FCC.

The fact that net neutrality can currently be repealed so easily suggests to me that putting it through congress is a good idea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/02/01...

I was allowed to walk to and from school by myself every day. Not only that I spent a great deal of time not under my parent's gaze. In fact most people are raised outside of this situation you are imagining.

You are calling basically everybody a bad parent and that isn't the case.

This feels like the logos are better than there and logojoy took me through far too many steps. Leaving the forced registration to right before you even get to see the logos they generated.

OP is a lot better.

Other people could make competitors, and more importantly, people who are using Facebook could switch. It happened to MySpace. Makes a lot more sense to me than turning it into a public utility or breaking it up anyway.

Just stop using it, it really isn't that important.

I touched on this before in my rambling. Google botched it, not the product itself as the initial offering of G+ was actually really really good. Far better than Facebook, a return to basics in a clean interface with Circles. Groups being a feature Facebook later added.

When Google launched G+ it was actually one of two new products the primary one being Google Accounts. Before that point you needed to use a Gmail account to sign up on any of Google's services and it made everything a big pain when you had more than one Gmail.

Now with a single Google Account you could sign in to Google's entire ecosystem, including all of your Gmail accounts at the same time. It also came with a free, ad-free, totally simple, you-don't-have-to-use-it social network called G+.

Google should have marketed this all honestly. Instead they started talking up G+, and hid Google Accounts underneath it. This was a huge mistake. The general public felt like they were being tricked, because they were, albeit far less nefarious reasons than was assumed. Nobody wanted to give their name, to sign up to G+, and therefore rejected both G+ and the Google Accounts system.

This compounded because Google really needed everyone to switch to the new account system. Otherwise they were doomed to continue supporting both Gmail authentication and Google Accounts authentication forever. So Google began pushing for people to create Google Accounts, as you would imagine. People then saw this as Google trying to force them to give their full name, trust was already gone.

Amazing to me people trusted Facebook over Google because at the time Google so far had a very good record protecting private information. Now that's all gone of course but at the time they had an incredible amount of good will which was seemingly not reciprocated and now Google is a slimy gross privacy succubus the same as Facebook is. Probably they just threw their hands up and said 'fuck it'.

Google tried to further reduce complexity in their myriad of different platforms. They now had two social networks G+ and Youtube. G+ was going to eventually absorb and replace Youtube, it would have been pretty elegant really. The first step was to have the Google Accounts system absorb Youtube accounts. People resisted this again because at this point good will was gone. Eventually Google gave up on everything.

Now G+ is a cesspool of tacked on features, advertising, just a bad smell entirely. It did have a lively base for a short while. Things really went downhill after the Youtube consolidation because G+ suddenly had what was notoriously one of the worst communities on the internet, Youtube comments.

Google has I believe still not successfully moved everyone over to Google Accounts. Youtube was never successfully merged into G+. G+ is pretty much dead at this point. Nothing went well at all and now Google has to support a million different things that all barely work.

Meanwhile Youtube hasn't seen a facelift in about a decade while Google figures out what it wants to do with it.

This has been going on for a while but all the way down to the web host it seems like companies are on board with this stuff. I've found that terms of service for web hosting companies generally includes a clause that specifies one of your users harassing another one of your users.

As if you can prevent that as a website owner. Especially since such a thing would be totally subjective to judge. What it means is they are purposefully giving themselves any reason at all to shut off your site.

I asked one of them about it, I got directed to their legal department. I asked the legal department about the clause and they told me to look for hosting elsewhere given what they assumed was the way in which I conduct myself on the internet.

There is no legal reason. They just want to control information.

Don't wanna point any fingers but that sounded a little bit extremist to me.

Before I left I used a tool that would delete all of my posts and content and stuff like that. Cleaned up the profile as best I could. The type of data they had was more about who they thought I knew, how desperately single I am stuff like that. Given how many privacy related scandals they have had I don't think suing them is going to do anything.