How do you think this add on was working? do you think it was brute forcing the password of all the sites you were thinking of?
172 karma · joined January 28, 2011
It's crazy to send them the content but tell them not to read it... back to your example would you expect your bank to do that? Here's all the account details and transactions but oops thats not your account. I'm guessing no, you'd hold your bank to a high technical standard.
To be clear, if newspapers/journalists want to work out some special agreement with google (or partner/agreed upon indexers) so their requests are authenticated so that only they have access to the content - i think that is a better solution then pay walls and sending the article and saying "don't read this please"
Have you ever been in a conversation where someone talks about something and you said “hey I read this cool article on that, let me send it to you?” If so, guess what - you were the search engine for that conversation. Should you then have access to view the non-paywalled content?
Have you ever been in a conversation where someone talks about something and you said “hey I read this cool article on that, let me send it to you.” If so, guess what - you were the search engine for that conversation. Should you then have access to view the non-paywalled content?
So yeah, I have no issue with this add on. If they didn’t want the double standard - to allow free access for some and not others - it is easily possible and in their full control to prevent add ons like these (think of any admin site or service for which you have to login before seeing/do anything.)
Content producers have a choice and they’re choosing to be bullies. I have no moral or ethical qualms when it comes to dealing with bullies or double standards.
Just my two cents.
Thanks!
It’s almost like the current administration should also have these!
This post covers a lot of the things I had to recently learn the "hard" way. Thanks!
Kudos to the team(s) for all this work!
Most of the time I don’t care if they get the optimal algorithm, rather the can think through something and know where problems might be.
Might not be how/why the “others” use that question, but its worked well for me.
But what is preventing me from doing “((a) => 5)(0)” since the regex only requires at least one non space char between parens...
Or any function call really?
And then I realized that these are the things they’re stressing about. It’s nice to think those will be one less stressor in a life full of stressful things. Which I think is good - if only for the mental win of not having to worry about X.
Way to go CAH - you got me thinking. And this time it wasn’t about something I had to go look up on urban dictionary.
for anyone interested
As for the indexes - are they standard Cassandra secondary indexes? "Custom secondary indexes" - does that mean that it just looks like a secondary index, but is actually backed by Elastic search?
1. It mentions using secondary indexes - its my understanding thats a huge no-no, as they have to hit the whole cluster 2. Uses "lightweight" transactions - also another perf hit, as lightweight transactions have (anecdotally) a 6x slowdown...
I like the idea but I'm curious if these are issues and whether these uses are something the author is looking to replace...
Very interesting idea though!
(CoAuthor of cassieq here so these were things we had to learn about.)
Everywhere I've worked, we've always ended up copying jenkins jobs from "known-good" jobs when we bring up a new project. If someone makes a change to a job, it can't be shared by all the jobs that are related, and I'd like to solve that.
Has anyone else had this problem?