moonshinefe

I hate ads and they are often brain melting / malicious / resource hogging anyway. I also cannot afford to pay $5-10 for dozens of separate services a month at the moment. Guess I'll be listening to other sites if they ban me. You win Spotify.

Ridding the world of non-US viewers too apparently. ("Not available in your country")

That seems rather disingenuous. You don't know why people like to customize their music experience instead of listening to radio which they have no control over which songs play? Really?

I concur. Psychology isn't hard science by any mans, and extrapolating it to people outside your subjects' samples across the entire world into other cultures and things is obviously ridiculous. But we can still use tools and find patterns to help people.

Surely, the solution isn't to throw up our hands in the West and be like "we can't find any help for the mentally ill because some subject might not apply to our discoveries from around here!"--but of course, if they are extrapolating those results to other cultures, that's worrisome and inaccurate in many studies.

Human behavior has some universals, but a lot we figure are universal aren't.

Deception vs. honesty on certain questions in itself is a huge revealing factor in a person's personality.

It's accounted for in modern psychological tests.

Edit: to clarify, there are many other questions that will seemingly be somewhat related or unrelated that will infer later on in the test if you were lying. People who aren't familiar with the tests won't notice it in an honest testing.

These tests have other questions that intersect and determine how much you actually mean it by taking it from different angles. The MMPI-2 for example, may touch on the same subject from various degrees and angles to get the overall picture.

Not saying it's right, but not saying it's a singular question "do you believe X agree? slightly agree? etc." it's a bit more deep and nuanced than that. And the statistics tend to back it up.

Maybe we should start thinking for ourselves what is "fake" or not by, you know, independently thinking. Not relying on some "truth-o-meter" feeded to us by the browser by a bunch of people who we know little about.

This is not a good move and it's not the job of the web browser, as others have pointed out.

Are there any sites or resources in particular you used to find remote US tech jobs? I'm looking for something new but as this thread points to, the pay here in BC is pretty bad relative to the cost of living--remote would be great.

Why should anyone use it if they readily admit you should use Git instead? That seems like a pretty negative commentary to start the introduction off to your project.

I wouldn't read too much into that; the life of a wild dog is far more harsh and brutal than one that has a caring owner.

I think you're right. They massively over simplified the relationship between humans and dogs imo. Yeah, food is a huge part of it, but dogs even in my limited experience bond on way more levels than just that. Silly premise.

Some people use it. I think it's especially common on Ubuntu since they have it in their "Software center", whereas if you want to get Chrome proper you have to go to their website and get the .deb.

However, as you say, it's a very small % of people. I think most people don't even know Chromium exists, let alone what the differences are between it and Chrome. That might change though if Google starts abusing their position and doesn't get this ad blocker right.

I've been around long enough to know that no browser dominates forever, especially if companies start taking their users for granted. It happened to Netscape, IE, and Firefox. It could happen to Chrome too. If they screw this up I'm going to a Chromium fork + uBlock Origin. :)

Gee look, media leaving out key information in order to get a rise out of people and more clicks. This in a nutshell is why I try to avoid following US politics these days (I guess my bad for clicking on it this time heh).

Very interesting how Reuters doesn't mention this only affects 0.5% of people who apply and whose regular information is deemed to warrant further investigation. Doesn't sound as sensationalistic when you leave that little detail out.

"pull a few strings and get to the the first page on HN"

<citation needed>

Silently installing Win10 from Win7 at this point after the window has long closed would be a massive controversy and utterly unprecedented in the industry. Updates introducing bugs is always a possibility on any platform Windows or otherwise, so the suggestion is just to stop installing security updates? Please.

Scumbags will be scumbags and take advantage of these exploits--it's been proven over decades of internet malware history.

The NSA should be focused on protecting US interests by helping these things get patched ASAP, not sitting on a treasure trove of 0-days and then they get leaked and everyone has them whilst chaos ensues.

Microsoft should be focusing on providing less controversial updates, clearly categorizing essential security updates apart from new, often controversial features. What a mess Windows 10 roll out was.

They have billions of dollars and can throw legions of software engineers at this problem fairly easily with their resources, this isn't some minor company that can't handle this issue.

The window for the free 7 -> 10 update is long gone, turn your updates back on and install security updates until they run out in 2020.

Mostly books from the library (or buying them, but that was fairly rare when a teen + broke), experimenting yourself and also being very fortunate to befriend some established programmers who were willing to take me under their wing.

I'm very glad that learning programming is much easier these days (especially at my job where I can just google most issues now :)).

I hope Cloudflare wins this one because screw patent trolls.

I have to say though, a company that's looking at massive patent fees vs. the paltry $50k offered for someone to play lawyer for them, and the fact their security bug bounty program gets you a whole 1 year's free service + a limited edition t-shirt (!!) + on some website hall of fame...

I don't understand why their policy is literally "Let's toss 1 dollar bills at people and hopefully someone will go to bat for us!" instead of paying regular fees for real lawyers or anywhere near industry standards for bounties. It seems almost insulting.

they're still better than most big news organizations, but they're massively scewed toward a certain type of left wing echo chamber at this point. I loved reading the publication for years; the Snowden revelations were the high point.

Now you'll get a massive dosage of anti-Sanders, anti-Corbyn hit pieces and similar along that political vein. You'll get a solid 70% of opinion articles pushing extreme feminism. If that's your cup of tea, all the power to you. But I don't think they're remotely impartial for a second anymore.

Comments sections strategically opened or closed or moderated depending on the subject.

Good on them for pulling out of Facebook I guess, but that definitely doesn't mean they're remotely objective at this point in my experience.

I'm usually on the side of rationality and not judging a book by its cover, but I have to agree here. That name is extremely unfortunate.

First impressions actually matter in human interactions, and when you're named after one of the most disgusting pests known to man, that's definitely not helping your case.

Sorry, not everyone (especially management and others you have to explain it to who aren't rational super-men) get a good impression on a technology you're peddling... it's associated literally with cockroaches. Good luck selling that to them. What's next, "Cancer-DB"?

If they've got the evidence, legitimately charge him then? If it's sufficient, let a jury of his peers convict him then.

How is this any more complicated than that, no matter how you frame it? We have laws as a check and balance system for a reason, apparently the US courts are slowly forgetting it or something...

Not as compelling when it's a candidate that has a history of being a war hawk and is in bed with Wallstreet vs. Sanders, perhaps.

This article is very scant on details and seems to muddy the waters by comparing things like cholesterol and smoking to genetic screening which doesn't seem to help things.

If how they've framed it is true however, and this may become law, that's the final nail in the coffin for the GOP isn't it? What an absolutely nasty piece of legislation. I feel like the GOP got so much power since it's the usual "sick of the last 8 years" thing--but I think that may reverse fast if laws such as this start hitting people.

Then again, I've unfortunately overestimated the US voters in the past. Please don't let it happen.

If your beliefs are correct, you should be able to have a rational debate against someone from the other side and prove your position is correct.

If they won't rationally debate you, sinking to their level and shouting them down / using underhanded means to "win" just puts you on their level and gains sympathy for the other side & hurts your reputation.

Unfortunately, I think that's the main issue that the author is getting at; it's gotten to the point where I can barely tell the far left from the far right anymore in terms of how irrational and sometimes violent they are. It's slogans, it's shouting down, it's even threats or actual violence.

When you disregard civility and resort to those tactics, it's tribalism.

Shhh, look over there. Russians and Julian Assange's agenda! You don't want to weaken the US do you?

Nice, I didn't know there was actually a name for it. My 15 years of coding experience has just taught me it's the far better way to code.

It's one of my peeves to be following code paths and oh look, now we're in a situation where it's if (OK) { if (OK) { if (OK) { if (OK) { ... } } } } and I'm trying to remember what all the conditions were to get here since it's long since scrolled off the page. I always find myself thinking "why, why didn't you just return way up there!?"

Thanks for the first hand account. I'm not from the US and was just mainly pointing out that a lot of details are clearly left out on news site articles when they try to sensationalize this stuff.

I guess at the end of the day the entire situation is very complicated and can't be summed up in a small article. I still don't think it's very accurate how they're portraying it though, nonetheless. The article doesn't mention your situation really at all, it just makes a generalization and moves on.

I don't believe so, my last sentence mentions I acknowledge filing forms to a different country is annoying and an additional burden. It's certainly not the US only who penalizes people for not filing legally required tax forms on time.