dave2000

This is great though because things have moved on to the extent that you might now have 1000 people who qualify as neighbours, any number of whom you've never met and don't know.

So buses transmit data. So do cars, planes, satellites, the space station. One day someone talks about doing it from a balloon and years later, when someone manages to do it they stole something and must be punished?

I'm not justifying low salaries; i'm saying that $155,000 is plenty.

I just posted my opinion on an aspect of the post. (I don't care about down votes; if I could hide my scores I would.)

I don't need to know anything about a companies culture to know what they're saying is patently specious nonsense. You might be impressed by it, who knows. Do you read a company's mission statement when considering a job and say "company a say they're honest and driven by a desire to put both their employees and their customers first, but company b claims integrity and a desire to raise the standard of customer service to a new level.....oh I just can't decide!"?

I think you're going to get perfectly good developers for $150,000. Are you going to get twice as good ones if you pay twice that, or just greedy ones? Have transparency and let someone else pay the darlings. You'll still get your work done.

"With our culture of bringing our whole selves to work and seeing team as family, with shared values we live by,..."

It's moronic drivel, isn't it. Apart from being nonsensical (how can you bring less than your whole self to work, unless you've had some sort of psychotic breakdown) and the poor English ("seeing team as family") it just reads like corporate babble. It's not a family. I care about my family. I don't care about my job, its stakeholders, its values, its products or its customers. It's just a job. I'm a wage slave so I do it for the money and for no other reason at all. Whenever I see a company stating their values I immediately lose any respect I might have had for them. It's as if they've been on a fact finding trip to north Korea.

Probably? Odd thing to say. If someone actually believed that they would quit rather than lay someone off.

Thank you for taking the trouble to find and post it, but I don't agree with hardly any of it. Facebook is free and so even if it were true that it would be of higher quality if there was a cost associated with it, i'm happy with it the way it is. (The great is the enemy of the good and all that). I have a very minimal use of facebook; just Messenger, and that's a great little app. If my usage of Facebook is paying for the infrastructure (and for Whatsapp, which I prefer because of the encryption) then so be it. I'm glad to be a part of it; I don't feel used or violated at all. They're welcome to whatever data they can clean from me; very little, I suspect. I don't see the ads, of course, because I use ad-blockers. The arguments about the best minds making people click on ads; well, at least the ads pay for services like google, facebook etc. A lot of very smart people are creating games, or writing blogs, or whatever. Utterly artless (most games are not art using any meaningful definition of the word) distractions from life. But that's their choice, and the consumers who use them. I'm not going to start paying for search engines or facebook or email etc any time soon.

The bit about advertising and its effects on society at the end is the bit I come closest to agreeing with, and it's a shame that the author of that past thought to start it with a quote from a terrible book and not, say, Noam Chomsky. I have no problem with advertising in principle; just the way it's been co-opted to sell lies and dreams. Ads on the web - in contrast to the sorts of ads you get offline - seem to be old fashioned, telling you about specific products and services, rather than showing you what your life could be like if only you owned this or that brand of fridge.

"You are blaming the victim"

Odd way of phrasing it. It's more accurate to say "you're pointing out that they have put themselves at risk through a number of insecure practises". It's not so much blaming a girl for getting raped; more "don't walk around an area that suffers from high crime, at night, using an expensive phone and getting a laptop and flashy camera and act surprised if you get robbed".

I'm guessing they mean the sites.

People blocking ads are just the same as people skipping through ads on a vhs recording of TV, or going to the toilet/making a drink when the ads are on. Nobody likes ads.

They are both exactly as bad as each other in this application but at least it's always possible to avoid a segfault.

I didn't read the question as "what if Google discontinues authenticator" but more as "what if I use Google authenticator on my phone and it gets stolen and i can't log in any more"

I'm already paying that? I would never opt into advertising like that were it available. Most of the sites on the internet can just die for all I care. I'd still do online banking, buy stuff from amazon, read news on the BBC's sites. I don't mind paying individual sites if they ever wake up and offer that possibility but i'm not holding my breath. But as long as the choice is "streaming video/running javascript/annoying popups/privacy violation" vs that site going away, well...bye bye.

Yeah, legally you're totally allowed to download stuff from websites.

Legally? Yes.

Amazingly, Firefox on Android is fine.

I block ads so perhaps one of the many "we owe it to site owners to not block ads" types can explain an alternative solution which doesn't involve me paying for stuff I don't want and which both slows my devices and drains their batteries.

That's what I was thinking, although I don't think Google and Facebook are a problem as they can only provide slightly different choices from within a narrow range that people are already interested in. It's the relentess torrent of brainwashing across all media which frames people's opinions and doesn't allow them to think seriously outside of the narrow choices (2 party system, pro/anti [issue]) which ensures that there'll never be change which actually makes a difference (ie the environment, religious crazies controlling nuclear weapons, increasing gulf between rich and poor, companies subverting democracy via lobbying and trade agreements).

Heh!

I typed "brazil" and got recommended "boys from brazil". Next I tried "being there" and got recommended "there will be blood". Everything about this needs a lot of work.

Plus nobody likes Microsoft or linked in. Microsoft makes stuff you only use because you're paid to, and LinkedIn is something you use because of its ubiquity and despite the phone calls you're going to receive at work by desperate recruiters.

You've never worked with..uh... cheaper developers who've been on a course and need everything explained 4 times and have no common sense and sniff a lot but who claim to be great Java/c#/JavaScript developers? Happens all the time. I'm guessing it's harder to bullshit the sort of person who handles hiring Haskell developers.

Plus, someone who's studying Haskell probably is smarter on average than the average developer (and no, I'm not a Haskell developer although it interests me)

Microsoft doesn't have that many products that they can't get someone 1) high enough up the tree that people will listen to their comments and 2) with ui experience/common sense to check them prior to any acquisition/major change and make sure it doesn't suck.

"Actually looking forward to MS's UX folk cleaning up LinkedIn."

You buy the shades, and I'll get ready to search the registry for a lower case hack.

I don't think i picture it at all in the same way that synasthetes literally "see" other senses, but I do picture a year as a 2d row divided into rectangles. I don't see it as a circle because I see no connection between the end of December and the January of the same year. The next January starts at the beginning of another row entirely unconnected to the previous year.

Please try and find anyone who'd rather be lynched or beaten than have their racial group spoken of negatively.

An interesting observation. Obvious, on the face of it, but then you consider: what if they'd been shot in the little finger. Very unlikely to cause death (where prompt medical help is available). People have died from biting their nails (at least, from complications caused from subsequent infection when the skin was broken) but you'd hardly call nail biting a "deadly habit". They both lay along a scale of deadliness. I wonder how probable an action has to be of causing death before it can safely be called deadly?

I'm almost entirely ignorant on this topic but it sounds like you're suggesting this could be a thing, which is more than the other posters here are currently saying (although it's early days yet, with only a handful of comments).

The things you've just mentioned sound like properties of the sequences, whereas the site sounds like it's describing something which modifies the meaning of the sequences depending on how they're physically located. Ie if gtta is resting next to tacg or whatever it'll have a different meaning to if it was next to gata.

Why not? What's the cost? What's the benefit? I create new accounts for all sites I use, including hacker news, every year or so.

For sharing a few email addresses? $0 I'd imagine. It's not like its anything important like credentials for shopping/banking or other details which could be used in identify theft. Worst case scenario; google's spam filters have to work a little harder. You'd not even notice. Yes, some people have chosen to run their own mail servers for some reason and those people might conceivably get a bit more spam for a while.

What would the authorities do to prevent these things, if they existed, from being loaded with explosives and driven into buildings? Even if the idea got off the ground and anyone (who could afford one) could start flying around, how many terrorist attacks would it take before they were outlawed? Do you think, having taken out the white house, the government would stand behind civilians rights to own and fly them? They'd not only ban them, they're probably restrict private use of drones and planes too.