aparadja

I think this would be much easier to appreciate and understand if the idea was first explained in text.

Now the user lands on a page with a grid, a tank and some control arrows, with no idea how all of it relates to CPUs. I'm sure the whole thing is rich and deep, but it's probably lost on most of the visitors.

Any idea whether this affects (randomized) A/B testing? I think that in the past, Google has simply ignored the dynamic test changes to the site's content. Now I'm not quite sure anymore.

You certainly don't have to trust or use Google. However, it would certainly be weird to order Google to stop because of its popularity.

The Beatles had the number one position in the billboard charts for almost 60 weeks. That's a lot of popularity for one band to have. Should we have told them to stop making music?

Wouldn't that only explain an asymmetry of exactly one, just like in your example?

Could someone more skilled than me in English explain the sudden "Whorfer" ending to the paper on page 103? It makes no sense to me.

As a reward to the miner of the block, no?

Based on a few minutes of observation, Ed Sheeran is the most popular artist in the world.

Is there any sophistication behind the sound clip selection? Just a certain static point in each song, or some kind of algorithm to get to a recognisable part?

Oh dear.

I already wrote an emulator for the MSP430 from scratch just to try out an approach for the current challenge's final level.

And now you tell me the next one is going to be pretty intense.

The how-to-draw-an-owl example is not accurate at all.

If you would not have gone "to the exercises ignoring all the other stuff", you would have gotten a clear 6 minute lecture where Andrew Ng explains, in detail, the position in the first exercise.

In the video, he introduces three tactics, the fork, the pin and the skewer, which are methods to attack two pieces at once.

If your comment was just plain sarcasm, then I apologize, I didn't get it.

This is actually one of my favorite things about version control. If I know it's been committed at one point, I can delete anything and breathe the sweet air of clean code.

Your post probably wasn't noticed by the right eyes. There's a lot of content being posted to HN these days.

It's not a personal attack. HN doesn't have a campaign against you (or if there is one, I wasn't invited).

The users kyledlloyd, fletchtastic and emnroth seem to be fake/astroturfy. They have all commented on the exact same posts with meaningless praise that adds nothing to the discussion. For example, "Great article!"

The posts they've commented on link to wearableworldnews.com.

This is not a smart marketing strategy. Please stop.

We don't know that.

Could you post links to some reputable ones?

Part of me wishes that you too would have a tight time limit. Your level 19 still keeps me up at night. It disturbs my work. It makes me slightly worse as a person.

I understand that collaborating on code is a hard problem. But if this is the simplest solution, part of me wants to throw it all in the trash and start over. It's just not good enough.

It seems to me that whenever something security related is published, there is an expectation that it has to be something completely new. Something that was previously thought impossible. It's almost as if software has no value if it doesn't exploit some new bug.

For example, everybody knows that root is allowed to do basically anything on a system. If you write a blog post about a technique that requires root access, the typical reaction is "boring, of course root can do that". Everybody knows it's possible, and therefore it's considered uninteresting.

Why doesn't that same attitude apply to other software development? If I write a new chat app or a new operating system, nobody replies with "boring, of course a computer can do that". Even though everybody already knows it's possible to write an operating system.

It sometimes baffles me why the practical side of software development is often considered trivial just because it begins with a root shell, or in this case, physical access.

Just the 1-10 character lowercase alphanumeric rainbow table from freerainbowtables.com is 297 GB. Of course, you can generate rainbow tables with various parameters and tradeoffs so it's not trivial to compare them.

Still, I don't think I've ever had a rainbow table that contained plaintexts longer than 12 characters. Are 30+ length tables common these days?

Borrow money for more leverage. Or buy derivatives.

Can someone explain what we're supposed to see here? Why is this interesting? I'm genuinely curious.

It took five full middle finger mouse wheel scrolls to get to the portion where the first map popped up on screen. It looks cool and all, but this is just ridiculous.

Higher adoption of mechanisation leads to better availablity and lower prices for the machines, though.

I might be wrong, but think I see a trend where the barriers of entry for many businesses are becoming lower and lower. For example: 3d printers, UAV drones, computers, sewing machines, craft beer equipment. They are all easily obtainable by a private person without outside money.

Also, while some equipment is still too expensive for a layman, a huge amount of manufacturing processes are now offered as a service. Better automation makes it viable to produce small batches of custom products. It is because of this mechanisation trend that I'm now able to send a 3d file to some company in UK and get a few hundred custom injection moulded parts delivered by mail.

"Jolla" is a Finnish word, pronounced "yolla". I'd be very surprised to hear any Finn actually say "dzholla".

We don't.

Start your own blog or offer to guest post on someone else's blog. Publish single chapters/excerpts from your book as posts, with a note that promotes your book.

I've seen this marketing tactic used quite often, and it has certainly sparked my interest more than once. Here's an example I ran into yesterday: http://alistapart.com/article/why-sass

I think the idea is to still find your vulnerability in the browser as usual, but abuse the unrandomized Dropbox DLL for executing the payload.

So, the DLL isn't directly attacked. It's simply used to circumvent ASLR.

I'm absolutely stuck on that. Any hints?

Has RoR really started forcing you to write unit tests? By the thousands?

I've written several RoR apps in the past where I didn't unit test at all. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

Author here. This app is a sibling to my previous firewall, Radio Silence (http://radiosilenceapp.com). Quite a few customers have asked for a whitelist-based firewall instead of the blacklist-based one, so I decided to give it a try.

What was originally meant to be almost a single changed line of code evolved into a full UI remake. The use cases are quite different, and it was interesting to see all the things that had to be rethought.

All critique is welcome, as always.

They did ask for your email so that you'll get notified when it launches.