danielrm26

Well, given that a tiny fraction of users are developers, doesn't it seem like a poor decision on Google's part to have a poor user experience in order to help in some other area?

Seems like UX should in fact be the highest priority.

In case you're not trolling, why is it that the business class cabin of most flights is full of iPhone users? Why is it that most artists, journalists, photographers, etc. seem to lean heavily towards iOS?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just asking what group you think it is that is highly busy/productive, on Android, and doesn't show up in web logs?

iOS user here, so bias acknowledged, but I am a mobile security guy and I get new phones quite often.

Just last week I fired up the new Google Nexus device from LG and tried to spend a full week on it--for the purpose of being more familiar with Android as a user.

I couldn't make it a full 24 hours.

This was a fully stock Android experience, on the latest and greatest phone, and Chrome crashed six (6) times on me. Scrolling in the browser was markedly inferior. And the overall experience of reading on the device just felt far worse.

I didn't want to read anything on it, honestly. I tried to account for my own bias towards iPhone/iOS, but I don't think it makes up even half of the bad experience I had.

In short, I think Android phones discourage, from a UX standpoint, the activity of browsing. And I think that's a much larger factor than that mentioned in the original post.

You say this as if it's easy. You're talking about like 2-20% of parents who can do this. I made that number up, but it's small.

I believe the future will see far fewer people having children simply because it won't be necessary. I've captured a lot of this idea here: http://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-future-of-human-identity-... .

Basically, as we move from 100,000 years ago to 1000 years from now we'll have gone from needing to have children to survive to essentially living forever. All the way back there was zero individuality, and we have more now, and we'll have more in the future.

Individuality is the opposite of parenting. That's why women are still behind. To a larger extent than men they live their lives for their children. And when you pour your entire life force into another human, you simply cannot achieve the same as someone who does that to create art or music or literature.

Men started being individuals before women did, and they are ahead as a result. Women are catching up, though, and that's a good thing. The important thing is that in the distant future we won't have the requirement.

When we are creative life forces with arbitrary bodies that live (effectively) forever, what will be the need for reproduction? At that point we'll be enlightened entities providing services for each other.

In short, reproduction is a vestigial requirement that we sill possess. And because it's evolutionary it provides us pleasure, but it will give out to advanced happiness in the future, and that happiness is the happiness of creating art, music, literature, etc.

There will still be children for a long time, and they should be celebrated and loved enjoyed when they do happen. But we've long since past the time where everyone needs to make them. In fact, it's nearly becoming criminal to keep making them when so many exist that have no loving parents.

As for the article's direct point of whether one can be happy without them, I think the answer lies in how much happiness one can gain from being an individual. If you are an author or a painter or a musician, and you truly love what you do because it helps other people then you likely are tapping into the same sensation that parents get--and likely something more as well. For people like that, having children is not a requirement.

And since this should be the goal anyway, i.e. people CREATING things for others to enjoy (as opposed to http://danielmiessler.com/blog/parent-to-child-propagation-o...) then those who can do so should pursue this course without fear.

As for those who simply feel elation from raising children, there should be no shame in that either. Opposing nature in the name of a distant, future type of happiness that may not be possible for that person is not likely to be fulfilling.

It's not time to abandon parenthood. But it is time to adopt adoption, and to look forward to a time when creation of art and beauty should become the goal of everyone living rather than a default action of creating new humans who will participate in a mostly meaningless means of making money so that their offspring can do the same.

Anyway, sorry for the ramble. I think a lot about this.

It's great, but nothing on the iPhone will open the app, which is very annoying.

If he'd read Techcrunch he would have read about Cloudflare and Varnish and other things that keep his site up during HN/Reddit appearances.

Good content. Thanks for sharing it rather than cowering before the self-publishing police.

You could also use the Vimium extension that already exists: http://vimium.github.com/

You can learn everything you learn in college somewhere else. But it's nowhere near as easy.

Possibly. But I have seen college itself (not just dedicated writing classes) help people write immeasurably. This is because writing is involved in most everything one does there. It's an extension of high school. Same concept.

> In fact, I might go a step further and say that the fear and uncertainty that came with not having a degree actually pushed me to hustle harder than I think I would've otherwise.

Stress caused by feeling behind is not a strong endorsement in my opinion.

I think even great programmers who get solid on-the-job training doing a startup job will have major gaps as they progress. There is something to be said for learning fundamentals.

I often wonder how many people who write these kinds of posts actually benefitted greatly from college in ways they don't understand. For example, most people who didn't go to college can't write a blog post like this one.

In short, I think most people who can write great posts about how college didn't help them actually gained a lot of their most valuable (if intangible) skills from their college experience.

This is a good list for getting a job in information security. Becoming an expert? Not so much.

SQL Map is a SQL Injection tool. Skipfish is a web vulnerability scanner. Skipfish, in other words, is more like Burpsuite or WebInspect or Nikto than like SQL Map.

Actually, no. Stored Procedures can contain dynamic SQL, which is the actual problem, so it is quite possible to have a stored procedure with SQL Injection built into it. This would yield high-performance SQL Injection and little else.

The better answer is a parameterized query, which actually controls the inputs properly to ensure that no dynamic SQL is possible.

Someone's afraid of iOS 6 Beta 2.

Perhaps Apple does it for quality purposes, while Microsoft does it to avoid competition.

Well done on the article, man -- very detailed.

I would say you should dump the caching plugin, however, and just do everything it's doing in nginx itself. My mix also adds CloudFlare as a caching system:

http://danielmiessler.com/blog/how-to-run-a-wicked-fast-word...

The referer header is also controlled by the client. Anything controlled by the client should be considered tainted.

Not contrived. That was the actual dialog, as it happened, within like five minutes of it happening.

Yes, perhaps "dojo" is a term for the Bay Area ones, but there are other groups across the country where people get together to code collaboratively.

Linode, Ubuntu, Nginx, Varnish, Google Apps for mail.

Did the custom mail server with Postfix on Gentoo for a few years. Had the experience. Loved it. Came to realize I should be doing things with tools instead of managing tools, hence current config.

According to who? When in the position of counter-offering, it feels to most people like it's extremely risky. Risk in this context isn't about actual danger, it's about how much danger is perceived.

Ok, I'll be that guy.

1. Testosterone promotes risk taking (http://goo.gl/s2gf4) 2. Men have more testosterone. 3. Salary negotiation is a risk game.

Now for the important part: this doesn't mean it's right. That would be the naturalistic fallacy, i.e. that because something is natural it must be o.k.

So, yes, absolutely combat this. Learn techniques to overcome the disparity. But do not, in a forum full of smart people, wonder WHY this is happening. The answer is obvious to anyone who doesn't mind unpleasant truth.

The point is to ask the candidate about the low score, not to immediately disqualify him for it. Again, this is no different than being asked to explain a 2.5 GPA, or a horrible review from a former manager. Now you have to recant a number of highly unpleasant issues with your past boss in an attempt to illustrate why it wasn't your fault. In short, all three examples are likely to take one into personal territory, yet we are choosing credit as the one to fight about. My explanation of that phenomenon can be found above.

Thank you for your honesty in amitting that Google and Apple do this as well. I simply think you're unaware of how standard this practice is in hiring today--not just for high-end tech hiring but for any position where they're attempting to predict reliability.

To the point of the article, though, most probably don't eject someone from the process based on credit alone.

Thank you for your honesty in amitting that Google and Apple do this as well. I simply think you're unaware of how standard this practice is in hiring today--not just for high-end tech hiring but for any position where they're attempting to predict reliability

To the point of the article, though, most probably don't eject someone from the process based on credit alone.

As the article points out, the credit check is supposed to be one metric among many, and not taken as some overpowering data point. But for anyone to say that one's credit score does not proxy dependability is, I think, naive.

I think the notion that credit score is something invasive while work history, criminal record, GPA, determining how one got along with previous bosses, etc. is commonplace and goes unnoticed is somewhat odd. It should be obvious that employers have no interest in one's actual affairs, and instead are attempting to gauge dependability through proxies. GPA, how many times you've left jobs recently, insane rants on the internet -- these are all fair play and raise no eyebrows whatsoever, so why is a credit score any different?

This is a simple matter of being averse to things you're not used to and comfortable with those you are. Credit score bad! But pulling and evaluating your GPA, stalking your online footprint, looking into your criminal record, talking to your old bosses -- that's all fine. Sure, that will remain true until it becomes commonplace. At that point, just as with all these other things that most find completely unobjectionable, this won't bother anyone either. This is especially true when it's not even being considered as any sort of overriding decision point. Great candidates can have poor credit scores. Poor candidates can have high ones. Everyone knows this. But that can be said for all the other metrics gathered in an interview process as well.

And then there's the argument that credit score clearly can be asked for in certain jobs, e.g. financial services, but not others. This is highly curious. Why is it that one asks for credit scores when a position involves working with money? It's not a work competence question, to be sure -- it's a dependability metric: plain and simple. So I ask you: what is the difference between counting money somewhere and handling vulnerability data for the internal networks of Fortune 50 companies? Very little.

If the objection is that you don't like someone getting your credit score, then sure: I don't either. But I don't like the 10 other invasive activities that happen during any modern interview. It's all somewhat uncomfortable, which should be expected since the entire process reduces to evaluating your past and present to predict worthiness and fit for a given position. Complain about that if you wish, i.e. make the argument that interviews are too invasive to begin with, and perhaps I'll agree with you. That's a much better premise than taking one metric among others and claiming it alone is a problem.