kovac

That's interesting. In my case, I hardly edit urls manually in the address bar. Usually I end up on a site either by clicking on links or copying and pasting a whole url from elsewhere. So, when I click on the address bar it's almost always to copy that url. Exception may be if you are front end dev testing different paths on the browser in which case editing in the address bar could be common.

I think this is a very different scenario. In this case you have the option to not give up your personal information and walk away. If one particular grocery store is gaming you, you can go to a different store, or use an online store. If all of them are inflating prices unfairly, there are checks in place to make sure that doesn't happen.

In the case of internet and Google, we are being stripped of that basic choice. Google's browser, browser extensions, cdn, site analytics, dns, their prepackaged apps that are hard to uninstall on Android, all these are making it virtually impossible to walk away from that "loyalty program".

There may be people who like personalised advertising and I think they should have the choice to let Google and other internet companies scrape all the personal data they can from them in exchange for targeted ads. I'm not one of them. I want to surf the internet on my terms. I want to pay for the services I like to use like I do now for those that are available and uninstall apps from my devices without breaking warranty from my mobile manufacturer. I want that choice. After all, that's what life is about. If anyone says that we can't find that middle ground where people like me can browse the internet without personalised ads, then fuck personalised ads.

If you are really committed, you should be able to go up to at least 20 :)

I don't think it's meaningful to let defendant review the code each trial. Such code reviews should have been done before it was ever allowed to be used in the legal system.

On the other hand, there's always the more practical option of getting the dna testing done by a second, third or even a tenth different approved company if the defendants want to pursue this line of reasoning. From what I understand, dna testing is statistical which means even if they find some bug in the code there will have to be extended debates on whether or not a particular bug affected the credibility of this test result. This is just bullocks.

Having said that, the excuse the software company is giving is a bit lame.

Well, WhatsApp client does have access to the unencrypted chats.

Not saying this happens, one possibility can always be to send encrypted traffic to WhatsApp servers while opening a second unencrypted channel to govt servers if a govt asks for it.

I'm wondering why a company like Microsoft didn't try this who I feel is far better poised to create something like Stadia. They already have publishers for both Windows and XBox so they could support anyone one of those platforms on cloud infrastructure so that it's no cost to the publishers. Microsoft also has the necessary cloud infrastructure as well as a player base. So, if this product makes sense, what's holding them back?

Can't you just "share" the page via email, a messenger or a cloud drive? This is what I usually do. I use Vivaldi and Brave but I've never used sync feature of any browser I've used.

Same here. In fact, I've more or less stopped reading emails, listening to speeches from higher ups because there's literally no useful information in those other than empty, abstract phrases. One of those experiences was a series of bullshit praises over many months followed by a company wide retrenchment (not because of covid).

The failure rate doesn't need to be 0%. If the solution is good, at least it'll be close to 0% which means that it'd be possible for the vendor to provide better support for the small number of mistakes so that they can be clearly explained to the affected party and rectified more quickly. If the failure rate is too high to make better support infeasible, then the current solution is not really a good one and we need to consider a revision.

Thanks for the information. Going to give Mojeek a try.

Whatever people may think what mathematicians think, this comment describes the real situation best as I've experienced it.

Most pure mathematicians I've met/worked with actually look down (in a jocular way) on applied mathematics/physics. When Lagrange reformulated Newtonian physics, he was very proud of the fact that he didn't use any diagrams and arrows showing forces in his paper. In fact, of all the Physics I've seen, I found Lagrange's work to be the most beautiful and elegant.

I love how the commenter put it as "Nature is of no consideration whatsoever in some fields of maths". I'd restate it as "Nature is of no consideration whatsoever in pure mathematics" and I'm quite sure that the pure mathematicians would agree.

But since more babies should be born without DS, despite more diagnoses of DS due to more tests, shouldn't the negatives also increase (more) after the amniocentesis? I expect both positives and negatives to increase with the increase in negatives being more than the increase in positives.

Yeah, it's baffling that there was no one there to link the new machine with the uptick in the diagnoses. It's almost like they didn't care at all that there was an increased number of diagnoses.

I feel that this is becoming true of much of the internet. The number of lame, banal blog posts that I come across is just insane. A lot of the tech blogs are just cheap ripoffs of original documentation/examples or just fluff. This is madness.

> every paper has an angle

Not really sure if this is true in general. May be true of commercial entities, but I really hope this isn't true in general.

> Furthermore, ceding the technological lead and removing the business incentive likely has defense (read: offense) implications on the global stage.

Does it though? Uncovering faults and cracks of a system does exactly the opposite. Discouraging experts from looking for those faults may give the perception of lead, for a while, but is a dangerous mistake to make in the long run.

Interfering with experts by pulling them out of, say, academia by paying them more and turning them into your PR tools, I think, is detrimental to the advancement of technology. We may be losing a whole generation of scientists to AdTech when they could have been doing more worthwhile work elsewhere(which, by the way, is why we are here in the first place - someone toiled away at a university to come up with a genius idea to design an artificial perceptron).

As to your claim about whether these companies will play a pivotal role in paradigm shifting technology advancements like fundamental research has in the past remains yet to be seen.

General proposition may be true, but how can a math publication place the department interests in a negative light? Like "Doesn't matter how hard we try, there are always undecidable facts in our own system"? :p

I still have faith in the research done by hard science research teams.

This quote might put things in perspective:

"The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can’t do. For instance, you can accept that your father was a pirate and a good man or you can’t. But pirate is in your blood, boy, so you’ll have to square with that some day. And me, for example, I can let you drown, but I can’t bring this ship into Tortuga all by me onesies, savvy? So, can you sail under the command of a pirate, or can you not?" (Jack Sparrow)

So, the question is what these other guys can do vs what you can do. You probably want to keep track of any correspondence regarding this matter in case legal action becomes an option. I hope no sane board will think that facing legal action is worth any cofounder's "wants" and "likes".

Changing a system architecture twice like this, specially to go back to what it was before is a large cost to a company. In this line of thinking, they may have to move back to a microservice if they had a bigger team for the exact same application! This is fine by me, but rather than what other benefits they enjoyed by migrating the second time, a clear analysis of motivations behind moving to microservice and then back to monolith without compromising the benefits attained by doing the first migration would be a lot more enlightening. Because I don't imagine the first migration to microservices happened just because they had too big a team. I suppose this thread will naturally attract people who hate microservices in principle.

Logic:

Because of microservices, we had bugs (okay, what kind of bugs?). Therefore we moved back to a monolith again (why did they use a microservice architecture in the first place). Then the bugs disappeared (how?) and we got a whole bunch of other benefits as a bonus (any trade offs?).

Cool, so the initial migration to microservices must have been done by complete idiots then. It seems that even to question that is too much here.

Eloquent. So... we should change application architectures as the team changes size?

I can see how that can be confusing :p On Google I got the increment operator as the top result (though not specifically for C language). On DDG I got an equivalent result for fifth result. Second search result on Google which is the increment operator for C++ in C++ reference was probably the best result?

Personally for me, when I search something like this I tend to lookup the language reference directly and find the operator I want there since it's a very specific query with a very specific answer. But yeah, ddg, ecosia both fall short on this query.

Very good list. Specially love 8, 9 and 10! I think these are practical points that one can actually try to follow. As someone mentioned in the comment section, would be nice if we could test these in interviews.

I did read the article. Saying your now small team to be "careful" is not a real solution which I mentioned in my comment. What do you mean by expressing my superiority? Expressing my opinion backed by my own professional experience which happened to disagree with your own?

"Not only were the various teams all competing for the same deployment resources, it meant that every time an "Incident" was declared, several teams' code had to get rolled-back; and, no team could deploy while an incident was being managed."

So, how exactly did switching back to monolith solved the above problems? Seems to me like your actual problem is in QA and managing releases than application architecture whether it's towards or away from microservices. What I'm hearing is that you decided to fallback on relying on people to not push broken code out to production. Which is fine and all but what are you going to do if your team grows again? Rearchitect the system into microservices? A little heavy handed don't you think? In your particular case, I think, be it monolith or microservice architecture you need to work more on improving QA and streamlining releases. These, once automated, don't depend much on the number of developers. I've experienced this with a team of 3 as well as a team of about 15 (not 30 though). I don't think that the application architecture has anything to do with your problems one way or the other.

Having said that, if the late night calls stopped after this exercise, then that's fine because no one should have to go through that!

Lots of banal sweeping statements and unqualified assertions. Unless you have lots of "worst days", people tend to remember what you do most of the time and companies tend to recognise you for the money you bring in.

"We imagine the internet as a global medium where anyone can access any resource, and it’s supposed to make communication easier, especially across international borders,".

It is. That doesn't mean that a democratically elected govt has to allow sites considered "good" by a private group (like the authors of this article) especially when even the authors themselves seem to be okay with blocking child pornography sites. It's tricky to argue against articles like this as it can quickly be twisted into an argument against human rights or same-sex marriages.

As far as I can see, all parties involved are behaving exactly like one would expect in a free society. People deciding who they want ruling them, democratically elected govts deciding what's good for their societies, ISPs following the laws and those who want to access the blocked sites firing up vpns and accessing them anyway while a group of people whining about this whole situation for profit pretending like they are the watchmen of a free society. This is virtue signalling. A private group passing judgment on what other sovereign nations may consider right and wrong (at that time) for their peoples.

Plastic is not biodegradable. Which means once plastic has come into existence, it's gonna be around pretty much forever. Considering the fact that forever is a long time and that we continue to make more plastic anyway, I don't see how it matters that we use the same plastic once or some finite number of times.

We need to find a way to destroy plastic safely or just not produce plastic at all. I imagine the politics and the economics around plastic is more complicated than we appreciate. After all it's related to oil.

Recyclable plastic is just a way to get us to buy more plastic while feeling a sense of satisfaction/pride that we are doing our part to save the planet. That's just ironic and, frankly, as consumers quite pathetic.

You are right. It mattered when I was applying for jobs as a fresh grad. But it no longer matters. On the other hand, I still remember lots of the ideas behind theorems though I haven't done any pure math in a long time. While most of the people I know can't remember what a vector space is anymore despite high grades. Universities need to cut down the number of exams and let kids have sometime to think and try things out. When you have competitive quizzes every two weeks whole life revolves around them. Professors used tell us that those frequent quizzes were there to help us spread the eggs in multiple baskets so that our grades didnt depend on just one exam. I think they missed the point that I wasn't there for their exam grades in the first place. Well.

I remember when I was in college, we had this end of semester exam for stochastic processes. Our exams are usually about 2 hours long and have about 4-5 problems to solve. After this particular exam, a friend of mine was surprised that I hadn't seen the last problem with the answer in our professor's book (she has seen it the night before. Looks like all her friends had too). Ina mathematics exam with 4 problems, I can't exaggerate the relief one would feel if one of the problems is already solved for you. Not sure how often this happens, but it seems like it's quite common. I was in a special scholar's group. I was more into going to the library, exploring related theorems and stuff while except for a handful of others, most my peers were just doing past papers and practice questions for the exam. I did okay, but I felt like trying to learn more and explore things in university was a liability as far as exams concerned. I just couldn't bring myself to do it. Felt like a waste of time.

You are brilliant! Is this opensource? Would love to contribute!

True, most non-technical people I know don't know that a search engine and an Internet browser are two separate things. They only know internet browsing as Chrome+Google search. If they are given Microsoft Edge at work or something, they'll search Google on Bing, go to Google, bookmark it and use it :D

I use Qwant primarily and DDG on mobile. But that's a personal choice and it works for me. I think with Chromebooks given away at schools to kids, Google will become synonymous with internet. Heck, I think Chromebooks will be synonymous with computers to them. It's what it is.