maxheadroom

>Bring your own laptop set up to be able to code and debug

One of the best interviews that I've ever had was a screen-sharing session that was based around much the same mentality: "I have this problem. Script a solution in whichever language you choose in notepad. Now, here's sample data. Run it. O.k. It doesn't work as you intended, so start debugging it."

We (as an industry) focus on developing, when debugging is an equally desirable skill. If you can't understand why your code is breaking and need someone else to assist you, then it isn't - necessarily - a bad thing but you are consuming another resource that could be best devoted to other things during the time it takes to sort the problem that you created out.

When Google's internal turmoil surfaced about the work on Project Jedi, it did not ultimately kill the project[0].

As long as there's someone else still willing to compromise their moral grounds for the value returned, it's still going to get made. That's just how capitalist societies work: People need to make money and someone is going to fulfill that objectional need because they have a need to fill their own coffers.

One need only look at the fervor against Facebook and realise that they still employ over 35k people to understand that, at the end of the day, people are either willing to do the task or they're in a position that they have no other choice (considering that the US doesn't have much of a social safety net).

So, while "conscientious objectors" might be good for a single business direction, it - sadly - does nothing for the overall scheme of things.

...but even if all of the engineers organised in North America to create manifestos, under psuedo or actual unions, which dictated what the future of tech should be used for, this does nothing to dissuade the partners (e.g.: 5Is) from doing the same and then sharing that technology back to their own government.

I concede that maybe I'm misunderstanding the author's intent but to me, the posit seems too idyllic to be fruitful (overall) in modern society.

[0] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-23/pentagon-...

>...it seems a mix up occurred...

The "mix-up" occurred because there was an ID with no picture on it. So, Apple assumed it was him - with no corroborating evidence to that. They then flagged their AI to look for him, not comparing it to pictures/video of the actual perpetrator, and called the police when he came in.

>...and a little police work easily led to clearing the person's name of the charge

True but there's a couple of problems with this:

1) He can never answer "no" on a questionairre of whether or not he's been arrested before. Depending on how strict employers are, this could prevent him from even being considered for employment.

2) There's an actual potential he lost his car, job, place to live, etc. while waiting to be cleared. We don't have a time-frame for this, so it's anyone's guess, but it's a safe bet that his employment, alone, wouldn't have been safe (e.g.: no call, no show).

>I hope cameras make catching the correct person easier, to avoid this type of policing failures.

The policing failure,as you refer to it, was actually a failure on Apple's part and not the part of the police.

Aye, you would think that people would recognise that the value is directly proportional to the propensity of it being covered in news articles and, thus, starting discussions, such as this.

Aye, I concede that it probably also constitutes confusion around the definition of "use of internet". As another commenter pointed out, Thailand's statistics are askewed with 45% saying they use Facebook but only something like 36% saying that they have internet. Mobile Phone connectivity, for example, mightn't fall under people's definition of "using the internet"; so, there is that consideration to be made.

Because Ireland has no immigration and, therefore, everyone who lives and/or posts from Ireland is automatically Irish, yeah? /s

Intsead of assuming an amicable posit, say that I were an immigrant (hint: I am) or the like, you - instead - opt for the worst: That I must've come from the land of Eire and that I must, therefore, be talking out of my arse - because the ESRI doesn't constitute access to water as criteria for poverty and because we could only be talking about someone who grew-up and lived in Ireland their whole life, yeah?

So, pardon me for asking this question but does this not demonstrate the myopic view that the aforementioned privelege entails? In other words, just because you (as an overall whole) had this kind of access (e.g.: water, socialised medicine, etc.) your entire life, it doesn't equate to everyone having had the same, yeah?

Looking at the infographic[0], it appears be down to advantage/privilege. These people would have less capital resources to be able to afford service and, of course, those living in rural areas would have a much higher propensity to not have the utilities offered in their area(1).

(1) - Added to that should be the consideration that the current design of much of the internet infers that it would be futile to attempt to access it over dial-up.

[0] - https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/FT_19...

>Aren't most mental disorders just behaviors that differ from the norm and make it difficult for those people to function in everyday society?

(Story time.) I went to a presentation one time at work about mental health. (It was part of the government's mental health awareness campaign[0].) In this presentation, the presenter mentioned bathing/lack of changing clothes as a marker for possible mental health issues.

As someone who grew up in a very poor area, where the water came from wells (which oft could dry-up) or the folk couldn't afford but to wash their clothes once a month in the local washateria (if that), I took issue with this idea.

From a privileged, lower-middle class or above perspective, sure, you could say that it's a possible indicator of mental health issues; however, if this were a normalised version of someone's life, having growing up so poor/destitute, would it really be a sign of mental health issues or would it just be a byproduct of their lower social-class life?

So, I guess I have to say that the answer to your question is, "yes": Your "norm" could be vastly different from someone else's.

[0] - https://www.mentalhealthireland.ie/

5) Encrypt data at rest (where possible) and look to take advantage of AMD's[0] or Intel's[1] coming features for runtime.

[0] - https://developer.amd.com/sev/

[1]- https://software.intel.com/en-us/sgx

Getting your password isn't as compromising as, say, getting a photo of you nude, in the security theatre-sense.

Think of the OPM hack[0] and the potential for a foreign entity to compromise someone (that they know has a security clearance) with blackmail. This has a much larger and potentially far longer ROI than a simple compromise of a password; which probably has to be changed every 'x' days, anyways.

You have to think of things like this in terms of long-term yield and not immediate results; unless we're talking crackers, then they're almost always after immediate results.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management...

I vouched for it and brought it back. (You could have, as well.)

One would think, given it's the NYT, that one would've read it before flagging but it seems that we no longer seem to live in those times.

This seems to rely heavily on social media, which most of us (understandably) shy away from.

Amsterdam-Schiphol has a library[0] and it's pretty awesome!

[0] - https://www.pri.org/stories/2011-02-16/library-amsterdam-air...

Non-Banner-Happy Version: https://www.thelocal.at/20190410/austria-mulls-user-registra...

For those of us facing the GDPR pay-wall:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190419064551/https://www.washi...

>That’s how Instagram describes a seemingly small design change test with massive potential impact on users’ well-being.

and

>Hiding Like counts could reduce herd mentality, where people just Like what’s already got tons of Likes. It could reduce the sense of competition on Instagram, since users won’t compare their own counts with those of more popular friends or superstar creators.

How sad it is that we've gotten to a point in society, where our valuations are determined by fake points on the internet.

>And it could encourage creators to post what feels most authentic rather than trying to rack of Likes for everyone to see.

How is that a bad thing? Am I missing something, here?

>Facebook says that it didn't mean to upload these contacts

How can you not mean to? It's one thing to say that, were it something tangible, like paper, "Sorry, mate. These pages snuck in with the others. Sorry about that. We'll pull it out. No worries."

Pulling contacts and uploading them is not a passive action but takes active action.

>and is now in the process of deleting them.

So, the question must then be asked: How do they differentiate the sources of contacts associated with an account, unless they're logging that, as well? If they're not logging that, then how are they, presumably, deleting those contacts?

Are we taking bets on Facebook being in the news again, in a months' or so time, for being found to not have deleted them? :)

I do know that you can create StyleCop rules to try to check for redundancy. For example, we had a type derived from System.DateTime in .NET that was to be used (instead of System.DateTime) and the smoketest builds would fail for the StyleCop violation.

So, using your version example, you could create a rule that checks if the method .ctor() has the word version in it and if it leverages any of the same single lines of code; however, I haven't the faintest idea of if I'm right in that it was StyleCop or how you would go about implementing it but I believe what you're looking for can be done.

Most companies don't go that route, though, unless there's security implications because the ROI is so high for the implementation.

IMPE, the most seasoned developers on the project (e.g.: ten years or more) had the experience, that comes with age in position, to know when redundant code was being made and they voiced such during code-reviews for pull-requests.

The intrinsic problem with this approach, of course, is that you need the people to stick around for this to work and to force code-reviews for check-ins.

>This is not a very convincing argument

I wasn't making an argument, I was redressing the logical fallacy of the parent comment.

>the public will say that they will trust their own judgement

The public trusted it's own judgement before, during, and after the civil rights movement and that didn't really work-out too well in the public's favour, did it?

>...and that they are simply not susceptible to lies by politicians...

(Since this is an American board.) Do they believe that they weren't susceptible to the lies about the Iran-Contra Affair, Watergate, McCarthyism, surveillence by the government, MK Ultra, etc., either?

>...especially if they don't match with what is said in mainstream media.

See: the Leave Bus in the Brexit Referendum.

Clearly, billions of pounds are not going to the NHS, now, correct? Just because you see it and it's spread across social media, it doesn't mean it is implicitly true. All of your points were met for this example; yet, it was resultantly found to be a total fabrication. How would they account for that? Instead, will your argument now amended to be "some of it doesn't match it with social media"...?

I was with it until the mention of the rebuilding of Louisiana's bayous. Humans are entirely why the area loses about a football (American) field sized amount of land per hour[0]. Treating a symptom does nothing about the cause, so the loss of the bayous will still continue - unimpeded.

Whilst this particular instance is a good use of appeal to emotion, it doesn't hold anything of value under scrutiny.

[0] - https://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/land-loss-in-louisiana/

>Candidates who meet individual voters on market squares and public places obviously try to find out which of the voter's wires are hot and try to deliberately connect on those levels that are meaningful to the potential voter.

That's becuase, in terms of consent, you're consenting to such actions by going out to the public square. You're not knowingly consenting to your life's history being sold and traded on a black market that's then used to target you for such speeches when browsing on the internet.

For your analogy to be comparative to what's going on, you should, instead, think of it in terms of a politician showing up to solely your house because you're the sole democrat in a republican city in, say, Texas. (This demonstration based on the fact that this is an American board.) This could be easily inferred from your social media, browsing history, metadata collected by the government, etc.

>Shouldnt public disclosure be the first thing which is protected?

Largely, this depends on your perspective of whether or not the entity (or government body) should be allowed to make a good-faith effort to rememdy/rectify/fix the egregious behaviour before you go running to the media. It's the same principle behind CVD (Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure).

The title of the article and the comments here show that most haven't read the actual text of the agreement[0]. This has nothing whatsoever to do with government whistleblowing but is about creating and safeguarding protections of whistleblowers under certain key aspects (e.g.: public health, corporate taxes, privacy/personal data, etc.).

[0] - https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0398-...

>Outlier humans who can work more won't waste their talent/superpower at an employer where their extra time isn't compensated.

Yes and no. Some might compromise the hourly rates for salary, if it comes with fringe benefits - say, having an FAANG on your resume, for example.

>I'm in one of the other OECD states and I'd pick American healthcare over mine most of the time.

I'm in one of the other OECD states and I'd prefer my health system to America's, any time.

A&E might be a pain the arse, sure, but an agonising life of medical debt - that I can't hope to pay-off any time in the near future - is a worse fate, I feel.

>I see that single sentence as the default starting point for any small group.

This is a valid point of view, in the sense of coming from the perspective of group ownership. "I own this thing and I decide what happens in it or will protect it or what happens to it or what direction it goes in or etc. ad infinum."

I think this is an entirely different notion than a community perspective, in which no one seeks flat-out ownership or determination (by and solely derived from themselves).

Whilst this latter posit might be hard (if not nigh impossible) to implement in small groups, I think it comes down to the approach: The dynamic changes determined upon if its of the individual's interest or if its of the group's interest.

This is because its recognised that the individual ego doesn't foster community growth - however subdued it might come across - because (in an actual community, such as here in HN) the group dynamic isn't interested in things like individual ownership and explicit individual control of anything.

For example, we do not come here (to HN) because one voice posts or one narrative predominantly prevails over another. In fact, some of us come here in lieu of other sites (such as /r/) precisely because we recognise that only being exposed to a single narrative that aligns with 'x' isn't conducive to any growth, in either the community or the individual.

In other words, I don't have to agree with you for us to exchange ideas and/or learn and grown from our differing perspectives. Couple that with the fact that your or my viewpoint isn't going to get the entire discussion thrown under the bus (as long as we're being civil about it).

>The preceding sentences serve as clarification and additional guidance/assurance of intent, but if in a small group (book club) setting you wish to explicitly disclaim the ability to boot anyone for any reason, you end up having to create a lengthy and still-gameable set of rules, itself a book-authoring exercise.

True but you're muddying the waters. The single sentence should be first and the rest should follow subsequently because that single sentence explicit infers that it can happen, even if the person in question is the embodiment of the Code of Conduct. All that has to happen is that the organiser has a valid reason (to themselves) to justify booting the person.

The community, as it were, can do nothing about it and it's tucked away in the Code of Conduct that they've all agreed to, yeah?

So, whilst it may come across as a surprise and/or the community might feel the exact opposite about what's happened, you start delineating the whole precept between individual wants versus group wants.

This is when you get off-shoot splinter groups because they don't agree with what 'x' group leader[s] did. It's a story as old as time and we keep repeating it because we fall into the same traps over and over and over and over and over again.

Put succinctly: If the individual supercedes the group (no matter who it is but, in this case, it's almost always the organiser), then what you have isn't a community in the true sense of the word. You've formed a group around an authoritative figure under the auspices of it being a community.

Take a look at any communities around the internet and you'll see the individual dies-away (in the authoritative sense) when true community is the first and foremost priority. Ubuntu's Code of Conduct[0] would be a good example of this. Their Appeals Process for IRC[1] also demonstrates that they're concerned with the community perspective over the individual. "Did Skyler eject you because you made in typo in English? Well, that's not quite fair..."

If you want to foster community (proper-like), you should start fostering the community for the sake of the community (and not the sake of the individual) from the onset.

Suffice to say, we will probably not agree on this and I'm sorry for typing a novel in response. I'll shut up, now. :)

[0] - https://www.ubuntu.com/community/code-of-conduct

[1] - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/AppealProcess

I was totally behind the premise until she referenced her Code of Conduct[0] and I saw this tucked-away in it: "I do reserve the right to boot anyone out for any reason"

That, to me, comes across as conducive to an authoritarian atmosphere and not a community atmosphere.

You can dress it however you wish but having a Code of Conduct and then saying it matters not, when you arbitrarily feel like it, is the antithesis of the entire premise of fostering a community atmosphere, in the first place, yeah?

Why not just be honest and have that single statement and be done with it? Afer all, you are the be-all and end-all of the group, it's code, the decision-making, and subsequent results, yeah?

[0] - https://pastebin.com/6kA93uPV

>The police should bear the consequences...

When, in the history of ever (in America), have the police borne the consequences for anything? It's always been either the taxpayer (in pay-outs) or no one (when the officer simply moves to another jurisdiction to keep on keeping on). Although, the premise is idyllic, it would never happen.