jiiam

Clearly the winner is Shakespeare (https://github.com/leachim6/hello-world/blob/master/s/shakes...):

"The Infamous Hello World Program.

Romeo, a young man with a remarkable patience.

Juliet, a likewise young woman of remarkable grace.

Ophelia, a remarkable woman much in dispute with Hamlet.

Hamlet, the flatterer of Andersen Insulting A/S."

A bit disappoint by the narrow point of view. Atlas of Number Theoretical Objects would have been more appropriate. Still nice, though.

Very cool. I believe that this is a very instructive piece of code to introduce in a concrete way what a compiler does to optimize your code, at least to unexperienced people like myself.

I'm very amazed by the simplicity of this example. Are there more serious optimization that can be seen with simple code?

I know some adults who often say something and then continue "But I can't lie, I'm a paladin".

In Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, I'm a SpWz of Gozag.

In D&D, I'm a utility/crowd control generalist Elf Wizard.

In real life I never bothered to check. It's not like I'll get any free spell out of it.

Most of these websites have zero load time, compared to their fancy non-brutalist counterparts. I's say, let's have more brutalist websites.

I know it's because the fancier counterparts are JS-intensive, but it's still a question worth asking: "Why are we in the time where a nice website should take seconds to load?"

This seems like an astonishingly good idea. It maybe lacks features for my home computer, but would be good for throw away servers like those you get from DigitalOcean, where I systematically set up everything over and over again each time.

Oh god, yes! Finally! I'm sick of hundreds of dotfiles forgotten in remote places of my filesystem, organized via a github repo and deployed with a handcrafted (by a friend) Rakefile.

The only change I'd make is to deploy by copying (and not by symlinking).

Extremely helpful post: insightful and inspiring. This author's comment also underlines the modern situation of the self employed:

"I'm a single person LLC with practically zero expenses (I paid a whopping $3k for my MacBook and made $700k), so Uncle Sam is going to get his money. I save a bit based on marginal tax rates, but pretty much I'm SOL because the tax system doesn't understand how a single guy can make so much."

The point that makes universal basic income (UBI) unconvincing IMO is that it relies on a reality that it actually subverts, i.e. money. I'm not saying that we should eliminate money or provide UBI in a different, subsidiary, form. But maybe it is worth thinking on what the meaning of money, economy, markets, loans, etc will be in a world where there is a UBI.

"Reduce inequality in income distribution" is the easiest solution that comes to mind with this respect, however I think that is is not the real problem.

In truth, we are getting to the time where there will be too many people for the amount of work required by the whole humankind to possibly satisfy its needs. We should all embrace this new reality and think of a way in which people can live without working, or in other word, we should solve the economic problem [0].

[0](http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf)

In Europe is far worse. In Italy I believe that 60% is the minimum, with two caveats:

- there is a huge problem of tax evasion, in the sense that a big portion of the middle-high income professionals declare only a small fraction of their earning

- the health system is public

We could argue for hours about whether it's right or not to increase taxes on the richer, but truth is that there is a natural balance that occurs when the tax rate is so high that people prefer to ask Putin for a citizenship. I believe that with these numbers, California might have a problem.

I would not be so hard on the matter, but yes, making private files available by url only seems like a bad security habit. Still, sometimes one wants to avoid Registration Wall to enhance usability (doodle.com is a nice example).

This is to say that the whole url-shortening business should still be improved, even though you're probably not going to use it for your private stuff where you want access control.

Also notice the different attitudes of affected services:

- OneDrive "[...] reiterated that the issues we discovered do not qualify as a security vulnerability"

- Google Maps "[...] responded immediately. All newly generated goo.gl/maps URLs have 11- or 12-character tokens, and Google deployed defenses to limit the scanning of the existing URLs."

Well done, Microsoft!

Ok, this convinced me. At first I was skeptical, but looking at how it works compared to existing methods that need a ton of configuration, I believe it is at least worth a try.

More importantly, I believe it appeals to newcomers. We are getting into a world where learning the proper way of coding requires a lot more than the famous 10.000 hours, mostly because there are hundreds of standards. This tool might become a much nicer introduction for newbies, compared to digging through pages of documentations in search for the one example that satisfy your use-case (I'm talking to you, Python requests).

I like better the universal command line client, i.e. w3m. Pity that some websites are so strict about js.

The whole point of social engineering is that, no matter how good the protocol you use, if there is a point of failure involving a person (like a tech support guy with access to a console), then it will fail.

The only solution is to remove these sort of powers from your general tech support guy and let them in the hands of a few highly technical, well trained, well paid staff members (presumably managers?). Of course, I made the blind assumption that your average support staff member is not paranoid enough, but based on my acquaintance with a few guys in the business it seems to me that the salary is not high enough to expect well trained technical stuff doing support.

I might be wrong, and in that case I would gladly know which companies employ such well trained staff, so that I can move my servers there.

Seems good. Actually what I like most is that it appears to be well documented, so it might be worth a try. I always found cumbersome to use console based debuggers, and wonder if there's any real advantage once the learning curve as been climbed.

Interesting, but annoyingly condescending.

I just want to point out to all those who believe that "with minimal effort you can get your point across in English" that it simply isn't true.

You think you can do it with just a few years of learning, but talking in English to someone you share a language with is entirely different than talking to someone of a very distant origin. I remember trying to do it with my classmates in our very similar accents, with our common lexicon, as opposed to talking to Asian people during visits abroad (I am European).

Even with fellow Europeans from a different country it's not easy to get the message across, even between similar languages like Spanish and Italian, to the point that if you're from Spain and need to get something in an Italian shop, you're probably better off by speaking Spanish, statistically it will be understood much easier than English.

To sum up, English is not easy at all. It's just a bit easier and surely worth the effort given the great amount of resources already available in English, including the giant pool of speakers.

I am very interested, may I ask you to provide a reference to such a clause? Maybe when confronted with a real contract it would be better to ask a lawyer, but having seen an example would be useful nonetheless.

Let's not play dumb. Of course you got an EULA with your software, the point is the legitimacy of the EULA from a legal and jurisprudential point. Same holds for the copyright law.

I mean, there is obviously a law stating that you cannot do this or that because it violates copyright. This implies that you as a citizen might do something illegal as close yourself in your room, do some magic and then get out and forget about it, although what you did has no influence on the world whatsoever. That is a problem.

Now, if we want to be precise there is actually a clear definition of what you own, and in fact you probably do not own the copy of Windows running on your PC. Still it is possible that you own that PC, and its hard drives and other stuff, so when we say that you do not own the software but just a license to use it we are giving credit to stuff like this:

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/10-ridiculous-eula-clauses-agre...

or this:

http://www.zdnet.com/article/apples-eula-nonsense/#!

To sum up, sure you might not have the right to hack your properties, but that's caused by a set of laws defending a power inbalance between consumers and producers. I believe that claiming that any sort of "hacking your stuff" should be prohibited because the law says so is an example of irrational justificationism if not supported by further arguments, still I'd like to hear about the reasons why we need copyright law as is.