Depends on whether you breath in and breath into the pipe (which is not ok), or just breath in from the pipe, and breath out elsewhere (you will need some valve that will regulate the flow here).
481 karma · joined October 28, 2013
First, it's high latency, not extremely high latency. Second, it has huge advantages: 1.) While latency (in terms of how quickly you finish task) will increase, your bandwidth will increase too. Everyone get more done. 2.) With asynchronous communication, you are not interrupted by communication, you can do it in bulk.
In case there is something urgent, you always can do a call, or synchronous chat.
That being said, not all of 20% needs ICU, and not all people will be infected at the same time (specially now since people are panicking). OTOH, if medical system will be DDOS'd, then also other people will die that need medical attention (so mortality for other illnesses will go up). So in theory it could be as bad as 20% if we would ignore the virus, let it spread to everyone as fast as possible and don't do anything. But that is not what is happening.
Here are pointers: This install fzf into your bash, and apply small patch on fzf scripts to use bash history: https://github.com/mic47/linux-configuration/blob/master/scr... Some more fzf stuff to put into your bashrc: https://github.com/mic47/linux-configuration/blob/master/bas... This is .super_history setup: https://github.com/mic47/linux-configuration/blob/master/bas... https://github.com/mic47/linux-configuration/blob/master/bas...
This reminds me that I should probably modularize my setup.
What I do is that I have custom bash history (with no limit on how many item there can be), that stores also an active directory, and id of the shell session. Then when I hit ctrl-R, it pipe that history into the fzf in special order: things from my current session history, then from the current directory, and then rest. This means, that if I come 2 months later to some older project and want to remember how to run tests / deploy, I just hit ctrl-r, and I find what I need.
If you are building right thing, but you are not aligned, then you will not build the right thing and you will fail. But if you are aligned, it's easier to steer the ship closer to the right thing.
Technical: This is actually what you want, as limiting scraping per user is easier than per IP, since IP can be shared by users, so your rate limits have to be higher for IP address than for individual user. Additionally, creating fake account is more work which will in the end making scraping more expensive.
What I would do on Linkedin side is:
1. Split public setting into 2 settings: public for everyone including scraping, and second choice that make it public for Linkedin users (aka banning scraping [1])
2. Everyone on Linkedin who have current setting public would go though dialog to choose which one, with default setting to ban scraping (which is hard to criticize, since that option is protecting privacy more).
3. If you allow scraping, the form should warn you about consequences, and make you to acknowledge them (which is again a good practice, if you want to expose your information to EVERYONE on the internet).
4. Now you have users consent to protect their data from scraping.
Sounds like dark pattern? Kind of yes, but for good thing and it's hard to argue against it, since it increases privacy.
[1] Idea here is that I can allow anyone on Linkedin to see my profile, whether it is potential employer, or someone who met me at the conference (i.e. to improve my Linkedin experience). But I do not want that data to be harvested, by third party for any reason (specially, because they would then use it to to send me spam / advertising / prefill my profile on different website / ...).
edit: formatting
If scraping on linked-in is banned (and linked-in is enforcing it), then I do have have control of my data, since I can change the setting, and it will no longer be public (It's not perfect, since some might already scraped it, but the extend would be much smaller). Also, if I decide to delete my data, linked can do that for data it control, but not for scraped data.
There is mess in these types. s9me libraries are using different types, so you might have to convert between those and it can be confusing, and the conversion apis are not unified. But if you manage in your project consistently use single type (say Text), then you'll actually have a great time working with strings. Its problem if you want to quickly mash together few libraries that does not use same types, since it get messy.
Reason for this is mostly historic.
I don't know like you, but Hitler's 'final solution' seems to be fitting the violence bucked, so should be taken down. So at least the title is not right.
No, this is not true. It's more like "Oh you want to to serve ads to individuals that shop at Uniqlo? Give us your ad creative and we will show you to the profiles that have checked into a Uniqlo three times in the past 6 weeks"
Additionally, at FB ads, often it's custom audience, and in that case it's "Oh you want to to serve ads to individuals that shop at Uniqlo? Give us your ad creative and list of email addresses of people you want to target and we show them your ads." (though you can actually do "similar audience" and so on.
And what does VP of integrity do? Manages organization that handles abuse on the platform.
I see that YouTube have following options: 1.) Show more ads elsewhere (so other people will pay the price). 2.) Terminate your account. 3.) Charge you money.
From those, actually 2/3 seems like the best (and being able to do #2 will give them leverage for you to pay #3).
Generally whenever journalist post sensational article, where they clearly didn't give other party enough time to respond, I see it more as an example of shitty journalism, because clearly journalist is more interested in flashy headline and breaking news, than the truth.
I.e. if you send eggplant to your GF via chat, and she does not report you, it's fine. But if she receives private eggplant sex message from some rando and she report him, that should count as violation.
I know 1 company where this happened, but there Haskell developers left because management decided to move to python (without them even knowing its under consideration).
There have been work on making haskell to have deterministic build to speed up compile time, and compare to scala, I find it way faster (in my current company, we use scala). But note that if you start using stuff like template haskell, your compilation will slow down.
It's all about how much do you isolate sideeffects from each other. If you go nuts with isolation, you loose flexibility. If you write all your code in IO monad (that means any code can have sideeffect), you are as in other languages where you can do sideeffect anywhere you want.
I wanted to make point that that #4 is not true.
Only if you choose to isolate all side effects from each other. Actually Haskell makes refactoring really easy, so you can adapt your implemention to changing requirements easily.
This is research. Currently it's unreliable (83% is super low) and convoluted, but with more research and investments, it is possible that they would be able to make it reliable and practical.
Though, your example still does not mean you lost. that 1/100 time is time that developer is not working on something else, that might be worth much more (though if ita 1%, its less likely. but my point is that developer time is more valuable than proportional amou t of his salary).