lomegor

I have not seen the service itself for the developer, but as for the screen I would recommend a way of customizing a bit more what site it should check. Right now it seems you can only change the port, but plenty of times I just create a new directory under root for the webapp (something like http://localhost:8080/mywebapp) because it's easier in some web servers.

I don't think that's the idea. I've had multiple interviews where I've been asked to code something to show that I know how to do it (even something simple as modifying a website or showing a counter). This just eases that process.

OK, maybe you are right. I just never saw a critical analysis of free software by usability experts. I mean, I have seen analysis of some free software that has bad usability, but the premise "free software has poor usability" with some of the arguments used in the article, at least for me, implies that most free software has bad usability.

I know GIMP, Emacs and VIM may be in that field (although I do not agree particularly with Emacs and VIM), but there are so many free software projects used everywhere, and these are just examples; you cannot generalize from that. There are also plenty of examples of free software with good usability, and I have never seen a broad study of different free software to study their poor usability.

Hmm... although I agree with many of the points I think it starts with a bad premise. First you have to prove that free software has poor usability, then you can try to understand it. Most of the free software I use has great usability in my opinion (except for GIMP), although some of them only have good usability for their target markets (e.g. zsh or bash).

This is really important news. It was mostly social engineering hacking, but it seems to have been very clever. It's important to notice that it wasn't a flaw in two factor authentication itself, but on the recovery options.

I really hate the recovery options. I don't know what they are there. If I forgot my password, my recovery e-mail, I don't want to answer questions to be sure it was me. Who knows how this exactly worked, but it sure seems to be a problem with that logic.

If you say everybody cares about privacy you should back that up (unless you are using privacy in the general term and not for this specific example). I, for one, do not care about site tracking; in fact, I would gladly opt in to any such service if I see it fit. And I know a lot of people who also do not care about tracking.

I've seen worse. Agh, I can't find it now... but some Microsoft website for developers... can't remember which one though.

Maybe they are blocking POST requests too with those terms? It's not that they cannot access them on POST requests.

One of the reasons they back down on China was because they could not compete with Baidu. It's not just the ethical 'I won't censor my results' (which in my own view, is a good thing).

I'm not sure how their decision went, but I assume that they did their research first to see if their changes would really drop their marketplace share too much. I'm not sure if China will block Google... if they do I don't think it would be much different than Google censuring their own results (the censored content would not be accessible). When people try to go to Google they would notice it's censored too.

Yeah, that's what kept me away from using their services.

I think it doesn't matter if it's a bed or not, just that the icon is recognizable in small sizes. I think they did a good job in that sense.

I agree with you. I think it's unethical not to publicly announce this one. I understand that some bugs may be best treated in private, but compromised certificates can cause real havoc.

Exactly. I was hoping to try it out to see if it worked, but when I got the 'please give me your e-mail' I just tuned out.

Edit: Just wanted to say that besides that, the landing page looks really nice, and it can be a useful product, albeit with a small market.

I couldn't find anywhere what the concerns really were. Anyone can point them out? I mean, more specific than travel searches and abusing monopoly power.

I think this is really far fetched. If you can get a person who has their cell phone number in Google as a recovery option, to not notice that an SMS number comes from two different sources (one of them possible marked as Google), and to enter a security number (explicitly labelled so) on an insecure webpage, I think it would be easier to just ask for their Gmail password.

Yeah, you are right on that ideas making an action immoral do not make too much sense. What I'm trying to say that the idea behind those actions is immoral, making the action immoral. But still, I'm not sure about that.

I am sure about your second part. If you make decisions on predicted consumer behaviour, most of the time you are OK. The same happens when you are testing an hypothesis or something like that. What makes it immoral is propagating the stereotypes and probably worsening discrimination. So, it isn't a problem if you assume all men want to clean their hair or don't want to have dandruff. It's not OK if you assume all men don't know how to cook, even if it has been predicted (or demonstrated) by consumer behaviour.

It's not that these actions are always bad, is that they are bad in the current society we live in.

Maybe I did not express myself correctly. First of all, if it was true that black people are stupid then it wouldn't be immoral.

What I meant is that it's immoral to make decisions based on ideas you have of people that have not been proven. (It does not matter if it's driven by brain chemistry.)

Doing those things is not immoral per se, but if you do it by thinking that those things are natural to the gender, the become immoral.

In this case I think it's quite complex, like you point out with your questions. I do not think that Lego's action are immoral because of their ideals, but because they are propagating stereotypes and sexism that worsens, at least in my opinion, the lives of many men and women in this society. For example, because there are still separating women with pink and dolls, and men with blue and robots, girls who like robots may be bullied, as well as men who likes dolls.

Yeah, it can be useful. I just posted the comment so as to avoid anyone else the confusion.

OK. Until now it's has been a discussion. Now instead of discussing my arguments, you are just attacking me and what I say. I thought you had a better understanding of fallacies.

Oh, I'm sorry, when you said "only" on your first post I thought you meant "only", not "more". But of course people are more interested on getting children interested in engineering. I don't see your point. Do you want your kids to be plumbers making a minimum salary and having unstable jobs?

I thought that we had already beaten biology in many aspects. In fact, biology has changed because of how we act. As we began to use tools, evolution-wise, we began to develop more traits relating to using tools.

If you think that we should only do or act as biology dictates us, and that trying to change biology doesn't lead us anywhere, you should probably stay away from medical research and sociological studies. Those are two areas where although biology is important, changes in them are also important too.

Really? I haven't seen a study that have proven this. Please, citation needed. In fact, most of the studies that have been mentioned here point to the difference in IQ and math related skills. But none of them, and I repeat, none, have shown that likes and dislikes are cause by this difference in biology.

Please if you are going to say that girls are "wired" differently and that's what causes the different likes and dislikes of children, back that up with articles. I have yet to see a study where this had been shown. In fact, I think you are also falling prey to "post hoc ergo propter hoc", in that although women and men's brain are different, that does not mean that they like different toys biologically.

I'm sorry that you group all feminists together, but if you had bother to search for women in plumbing you would have found a lot of women and men who call for more women in that area. For example: http://www.my-plumber.co.uk/userfiles/file/Winter%20Newslett...

It's not that doing action to a person of certain demographics makes the action immoral. What makes it immoral is the idea behind those actions. For example, there's no problem in saying all people are stupid, but saying all black people are stupid IS immoral, and doing actions based on that thought is also immoral. In that way, the "plough the fields" was a reference to black people being slaves and by selling Legos in that way, you are propagating the almost dead idea that black people should be slaves.

I was not referring to men and women being equal to the law, but being equal as humans. Black people and white people are biologically different too, but no one says that black people eat fried chicken because their brains are different. So, until a scientific study proves that women's brain account for them liking dolls instead of Lego, I will still think that's society that makes them that way. In fact, I think many sociological studies have proven that differences between men and women are different between different cultures, but I have not seen one article that stated that women tend to like accessories because of their brain.

Would you be OK if Lego targeted toy for black kids so they can learn how to plough the fields?

The situation here is similar. It's not exactly wrong that a company decides to sell two different kinds of toy. What's wrong is the cultural mindset that dictates that girls should be more interested in fashion and beauty than engineering (for example).

The moral principle being violated is that men and women are equal. That girls and boy can grow to be whatever they like. Because when you build different toys for girls and boys, you are clearly stating otherwise.

I don't think that's the biggest picture. I think that's important too, but it's another problem in a different subset.

I thought it was going to be a comparison of the different arguments, but it's a list of links of different articles saying "learn to code" or "don't learn to code".

Maybe the title was edited after the post on HN... I don't know, just guessing.

Edit: Doesn't make sense, the link contains on-verizon.

How do we start doing this? Is anyone willing to put some time to build this? Of course this would be non-profit. Maybe if we get enough people interested, we can start pressuring different organization to help us (Wikimedia comes to mind).

There would be a need for people writing the laws into text and coders for implementing different aspects. Maybe crowdfunded. I don't know, just throwing ideas to see if anyone is interested.

We don't need the government to do this. We have the data (or most of it). We need to start changing it from the outside.

It may certainly not be their goal, but they should know better.