__jal

> kill the lizard

You grab the lizard by its neck and pull it close to you. It lets out a scream and tries to escape, but you catch it and hold it tight. You begin to choke it until it falls unconscious. You take off the lizard's skin and sew it onto your own body

As long as people continue to pay good money for defective products, there will be people selling them.

Vote with your wallet.

> tech startups is specifically because of tech's unique promise of both worldwide scale and zero marginal costs

This theory fails to adequately explain WeWork.

I mean, I think you should be right, but in principle I do not see why WeDryClean should not work while WeWork does.

Older Macs had the indicator light hardwired. I don't know if they still do.

> If it isn't, why on earth not?

The same reason for nearly every other design defect in retail-grade hardware: cost vs. margins.

> Key feature, must not look suspicious on credit card bill

That's called a hotel room.

Google has a market cap of 894.52B at this point in time. For instance.

Then it is not a Mac app.

Which is fine, but if I'm looking for an application in the app store (as opposed to looking for some service on the web), I want a Mac application, not a web app.

One hint: if I'm looking for a Mac app, there's a good chance one of my requirements is controlling the data the app generates.

I've worked on exactly one project where performance concerns lead to removing Fkeys.

The compromise we came to was to enforce them in dev and qa in order to catch bugs, and relax them in prod.

I still strongly believe that database constraints are a developer's best friend, in that you can trivially make your data structures fight back against misuse. This makes several classes of bugs obvious. But like anything, there are times they are not optimal.

I'll also say I think there are very few cases where a small performance advantage outweighs the costs, and would be hesitant to head down this path with a team less competent than the folks at Github.

Back when I still used them, this was why I only had things delivered to my office. If I tried to have things delivered to my home, one of two things nearly invariably happened: I'd either waste my time waiting on a delivery only to have it marked "no answer" or "can't access", or they'd leave it on the sidewalk outside my door. (I live in downtown San Francisco. You can guess how well that worked.)

But I dropped Prime a while back and stopped using them, and am still happy with that choice.

There is this practice called "backing up".

If you try it, you might find you can protect your data more easily than you can protect most other things in your house if it burns down.

A huge swath of the consumer market in physical products is Chinese goods. Why would your average nontechnical, fairly apolitical, non-foreign policy or intelligence news following person draw a distinction?

They see a fun app, they play with it. If they're even aware of censorship issues or geopolitical power games, that seems very distant from some app that amuses them for a few minutes a day.

Pretty bullshit method. Any software that wastes my time begging me to market for them gets uninstalled, period.

I don't know why anyone puts up with that.

For their next trick, I would encourage them to abolish and reform the NYPD. Although I fear if someone seriously tried, there would be a coup.

Perl is really great at text processing. Pretty much any kind. A lot of folks dislike first-class regexes, but if they're magic in a lot of contexts like this.

My second remaining use is experimental coding. It is probably about familiarity and experience (I've been writing perl since Perl 4), but I find it to be the most fluid, most "fun" language for noodling around and trying out ideas.

I use Python for things other people will have to work on, because it is the current popular kid, so most folks have at least seen it. Not because I especially like it - the GIL is still a performance killer, purity of essence arguments keep obviously useful things (like case statements) out, and (as I'm sure will be demonstrated shortly) there are always annoying people around to condescendingly tell you why you're wrong to want things like case statements.

You pretty clearly have very little familiarity with "Perl culture" and even less with Perl6/Raku.

Perl 5 is in decline, no doubt. But it isn't because whomever you're visualizing when you wrote the above is an annoying nerd. People can and do disagree on the 'why'; I personally think it is the general decline of Unix-style syntax combined with the natural ebb and flow of language evolution.

If "what you've seen" is watching the compiler developers work through language design, the origin of your misconception at least makes a little sense, even if that's obviously a weird, unfair basis.

By all means, hate on perlmonks.org if you like. Just don't spread insulting nonsense.

The last couple times I've made big architectural decisions that would be expensive/impossible to change, I've bounced it off of a small number of trusted folks first. This is almost nothing like a formal critique like you see in the arts, and I do think formalizing it a bit more could be useful.

But yes, one of my first reactions to a lot of bone-headed choices I see is usually, "nobody noticed that X would happen?"

The operative difference is that intelligent adversaries are not coming up with new and better methods of making your bumper fall off.

The economics of providing 5 years of defensive patching on a $100 device simply does not work.

Right, because the quality of every lesson one learns about programming practice should be evaluated by the market cap of the firm where it was learned.

Get back to me when beavers are causing the extinction of thousands of other species and arguing about how to warn their descendants about radioactive waste.

Some[1] will never drop the "simple physics" line because they don't care about learning about the biology of body weight, but rather reaffirming their aesthetic judgement that people they decide are overweight are also morally weak.

[1] Emphatically not judging anyone posting here; that's not my goal. I'm simply bluntly stating what has become painfully clear after having this discussion multiple times.

"Haskell. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems."

> I don't think that's Google's job at all, especially for a competitor's product.

If they want security professionals to pay attention to them, it is.

I accept that maybe P0 just didn't carefully think through what they were saying; they've been straight shooters in the past. But the definitely gave both a misleading impression about the situation they described _and_ downplayed other risks.

If that keeps happening, I (for one) will end up treating them more like Oracle's security/marketing department. And that would be a serious loss, because P0 has been doing really good work.

Oh, but it is worse. It teaches members of the class that exploit it that taxes are for everyone else. They spend time on efforts to avoid taxes, which not only "starve the beast", but are frankly non-productive while shifting the burden on to others.

It breeds sociopathy among the executive class that doesn't need any help in that department while encouraging nonproductive "investment".

Please allow me to introduce you to J. Edgar Hoover.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover

Not that he was the first in US history, by a long shot.

No more so than you usually are. Which means it can happen to you at any time.

I don't know, but if I were doing this, I'd find out. Call your residential waste management company and ask them who handles commercial hazmat in the area, if you can't think of any other way to start.

If you're planning out your own home fab, you're researching a bunch of other things and giving serious thought to a lot of nontrivial problems. Choosing to ignore waste disposal is irresponsible, and you deserve any legal hassle you run in to.

That is a reasonable restatement of parts of the Bork doctrine, yes.

Suffice to say this is a recent legal innovation, and many, many people believe ignoring other monopoly effects is myopic.

> why shouldn't Amazon be allowed

Antitrust law used to address this. Monopolies are not allowed to do things that non-monopolies are allowed to do, because the effects of monopolies doing them are different than the effects of non-monopolies doing it.

Of course, Bork rewrote monopoly policy in a way that opens the door to exactly the sort of monopolies we now have. But it isn't as if this is some new notion invented because people hate Amazon; it used to be the rule.

As if Zuck wasn't a right-place-right-time lottery winner.

A refreshing view. So many people seem to emotionally need some sort of social vindication of their injury, or in some other way feel dissatisfied if there isn't third-party shaming/punishment/etc. involved in conflict resolution.

Sometimes, the best approach is "Yo, can you cut that out?"