pseudonym

I assume the larger portion of what's "untenable" is "short commutes"; spending multiple hours of unpaid personal time in a car per day just driving to and from work so that you can have the place you sleep be affordable is a huge downside of a lot of in-person jobs that used to be taken as more of a default pre-pandemic, before so many places showed "yeah we could let you work from home but we just don't want to".

The downsides of an open floor plan can be at least partially countered by headphones, but there's much less that you can do on an individual level to make up for having that much of your personal time locked up in pure transit.

For me personally, 90% of it boils down to "unix baseline". I do most of my development work remotely on linux servers of varying flavors, but OSX + homebrew means that I can pretty easily use the tools I write for one machine on my local systems as well.

Beyond that, I've just got a lot of random applications for streamlining my workflow and day-to-day usage that would take a long time to find equivalent tools for, and I'm long past the days when "spending a weekend fucking with settings" was something I want to do. OSX, I just back up my machines and if/when I need to replace them, it's just "plug the new one into the backup drive, restore from backup".

Maybe someday the year of the linux desktop will actually happen, but I'm not holding my breath either.

It's also slightly stricter with syntax; you can't have extra ending commas. {'foo' : 1, 'bar' : 2,} is valid Python but not valid json.

I use it for just about everything work-related, but given that my day job is literally "connect to sets of remote servers and bang out code" it'd be insane not to. Some of my coworkers still use screen, but tmux + wemux having the automatic "scale to the smallest attached screen" + "automatically follow the driver in pair mode" means there's a lot less "can you shrink your window"/"which window are you in now?" types of interruptions.

Apart from that, I've got a perpetual tmux running on my linode for irssi, and I've also got tmux running locally-- being able to set up multiple sessions connected to the same tmux server means that I can have a different tmux session per physical monitor, which means both a shared tmux copy/paste buffer and the ability to easily flip from window to window depending on what I want on which monitor. Ctrl+B for the local tmux, Ctrl+A for remote tmux means that there's no weird double-control-characters necessary. Add in some sneaky scripts to symlink login SSH agents to a known location that's exported to all tmux sessions for ease of git and you end up with a really clean overall workflow.

Honestly, I think that we're already moving that direction-- Patreon is comparatively recent, but more and more people are finding that it's actually a viable "microtransaction/subscription" model for online content. The idea of paying a subscription model for some of the things on Patreon would have seemed silly a couple years ago, but I think we're starting to hit the ads-to-content noise/ratio level where people are actually seeing what the alternative looks like.

Doesn't help in this situation-- you need to be able to install the base executable for the browser extensions to function.

I started with and loved Mercurial as a DVCS, and it still has some QoL commands that Git requires some hoop-jumping to get at, but ultimately the deciding factor was the inability to permanently delete branches. Since branched dev work would fairly regularly have generic names or the names of the developer working on it, it would always end up being forked and merged instead of branched and merged, which led to a ridiculous number of headaches in our build system.

We still use mercurial for most of our repositories just because they're dated and not likely to see more than a handful of commits a year, but most of our active development work has already converted to git.

If they have that much trouble taking the flags off of people's accounts, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that there's no codified correlation between "has the AP running" flag and the "is running a Comcast router+modem" flag.

>Malicious or Stupid?

Funny, for a second I couldn't tell if this was about Glassdoor itself or the people who browse it from work.

I find it interesting that you say that, because my first thought was that this would be a step down from git pulling my dotfiles. All you need is to have a simple script that goes ln -s .zshrc ../.zshrc in your .dotfiles repo and getting a new shell up and running is as simple as running git pull && .dotfiles/setup.sh.

I like the idea of this in theory if you have machines that are frequently touched/overwritten, though, if you just want to have a baseline of sanity on them automatically when you log in.

Is it still a social engineering hack if a well-known celebrity with their personal info broadcasted all over the internet decides to use that personal info to secure their account? Or rather, is that a social engineering hack on Apple, or the celebrity themselves?

And what should Apple do, in this situation? If your names show up in tabloids, don't allow you to answer certain security questions? Require 2FA if your name is mentioned on Google more than a certain number of times?

I don't feel this is an Apple problem any more than it would be if someone created their iCloud password and then posted it on their Twitter.

While I wouldn't disagree with the stupidity of "security questions" answered straight, I don't know if this is something to lay on Apple's doorstep, because anyone with a modicum of knowledge either lies or supplies "custom" security questions-- it's basically a "if you forget password A, remember password B" system. But explaining that to users who have issues with a password is a lot more far-reaching and widespread than any one company.

Additionally, making "security questions" passwords in and of themselves is going to tremendously increase the volume of your support tickets. At some point, you need to make a cost/benefit analysis and make a decision including that, not just looking at "what's more secure if we assume our users are stupid".

If you really want a niche market, though, "social media security consultant" for celebrities would probably make you a pretty penny nowadays...

>But if I lost connectivity - my SSH session won't be auto-resumed from local machine in first place, I think thats one of the things `mosh` solves.

While true, it just seems (to me) that if that's the only problem you're solving (which is to say, not needing to type the command "ssh host" and let your key log you in) and it's at the expense of not being able to properly ForwardAgent (which I require very heavily in my line of work), then it's a lot of work for negative return.

But, again, to each their own. As mentioned below, if your latency over a phone connection is so bad that this helps you, then by all means, use it. :) I'm just noting that for pretty much everyone I work with, this would be a step backwards.

You only make the initial instantiation once.

- SSH to remote

- on remote, run "screen"

- get disconnected from remote

- SSH to remote, .bashrc runs "screen -DR" and you resume from where you left off

You only have to create the initial screen session once, and it persists until you explicitly shut it down or restart the remote machine.

If your workflow doesn't include tmux or screen, then I feel like your problem's already been answered. If you really wanted to, you could just add a "/bin/screen -DR; exit" to your remote .bashrc and the screen integration would be completely invisible after the initial instantiation.

As far as mosh is concerned, it feels like it's an extremely overengineered solution to the "I wish I had started this process in a screen session" problem, except you need to be thinking even further ahead than you would normally (installing and connecting via a mosh service, as opposed to remembering to connect to a screen session that can be run with very little prior setup and no client modification).

Seems oddly backwards to me, but I'm sure I'm not the only one. If I've bought and am paying for a phone that costs a significant fraction of my computer, it seems like a waste not to use it for that purpose. You can make the argument that disconnecting to a point, or for a period of time, is a good thing, but intentionally crippling your hardware because you can't resist the temptation of having it there seems like it would be better solved by forming better habits in the first place.

It just seems like it would be on par with buying a brand new computer to get your writing done, then installing DOS because the web browser was just too alluring.

All that said, I ended up taking this to the opposite extreme: I've set up my phone to be cross-linked into as many work-related systems as possible, so that I can take better advantage of those little "in-between" moments during my work days. Build's compiling? Get an alert when it's done. Waiting for a coworker to get out of a meeting? Get an alert when they ping your name in IRC/Skype/GChat. Not having to sit in front of my computer waiting for asynchronous blockers to resolve means I can retreat to the porch, or the living room, or the park up the street, without having to worry about coming back to find something's on fire. Additional apps allow for limited on-the-go debugging, interfacing with systems and the like, so that I can continue being away from my computer if the situation isn't severe enough to require my actual physical presence at a keyboard and larger screen.

It depends on how "reasonably close" they end up coming. If it ends up being a xeno's paradox of issues where it can handle 90% of situations, then 99%, then 99.9%, then 99.99%, etc, but each of those incremental improvements prove harder and harder to achieve, how many lawmakers are going to say "Sure, only .001% of robot cars on the road get into catastrophic accidents in unhandled situations, that's fine, let's make these things legal"?

The problem with emergent technology is that it's what people tend to be most afraid of, and if there ends up being situations a robotic car absolutely cannot handle that's known about, how long will it take for people to start abusing it?

And for unhandled exceptions...awhile back I was driving up 280 and a police officer pulled out in front of traffic, flipped his lights on, and started weaving back and forth across all lanes of traffic. All the drivers slowed down and kept behind the officer, obviously not sure what was going on. The officer stopped weaving at a couple points along about a one-mile stretch to get out of his car and pick up an item off the freeway, then got back in and resumed weaving, until he got up to a previously-pulled-over car and parked behind another officer.

That's definitely not something they covered in driver's ed, apart from "if something unusual is happening, slow down". But how long would it take for it to make the news if a smart car in that situation passed the car on a weave and struck a drunk guy that was stumbling along the freeway at 85mph, do you think? And do you really think every possible situation that occurs during driving will eventually be able to be handled by a smart car?

Another example, any point you run into a car or random other vehicle that's double-parked in the city. If the car can only figure out that pedestrians are blobs of pixels, does it have sufficient resolution to figure out how far away that oncoming car is, or will it just patiently sit behind that moving truck until they're done and start moving again?

There's a lot of edge cases for this tech, and most if not all of them have potentially fatal exception cases if you fail to handle them correctly.

It comes down, for me, to more a question of "how much external facetime do you have in your day-to-day job". Shared cultural displays are one thing, but forcing everyone into the "Least Comfortable Denominator" just because some subset of your culture does need to display that level of formality...

Even above the comfortable clothing aspect of it, inflexibility in a comparatively minor thing like "dress code in non-customer-facing positions" indicates potential inflexibility in far more important things (sick/maternity/bereavement time, butt-in-chair time, informal 1-on-1s with higher-ups, merit-based raises, etc) and would greatly negatively influence the likelihood of taking a job for me.

I still commute occasionally across the bridge. Getting people to zipper merge 4 to 2 lanes properly going onto the bridge almost never happens.

I typically have the best results by being rude.

"I'd like to cancel my service."

"But why w-"

"I'd like to cancel my service."

"Buy we co-"

"I'd like to cancel my service."

It's not something I particularly like to trot out, but if I have to spend more than 5 minutes on the phone for something like this, it's what I tend to trot out, and I don't have to repeat myself (and interrupt them) more than two or three times for them to get the point.

Unfortunately, "just find another ISP" is no longer an option for plenty of people. I can appreciate the sentiment, but the risk of being kicked off of your local internet mono/duopoly is a lot higher for a lot of people than it was in 2008.

I've always just relied on zsh to deal with my pushd stack automatically. I don't frequently need to pushd (thanks to tmux's vertical splits), but when I do, it's inevitably something I don't think about until after I've swapped directories.

Same. I have 4 adapters floating around right now (my laptop, wife's laptop, work-provided laptop and the spare 85 adapter I have kicking around) and none of them have had a single issue in the 1-3 years I've had them.

>Also it's going to be pretty difficult to prove that he suffered damages from the article.

It depends on what the fallout from it is, in terms of internet attention. If he's not "the real Satoshi" and he starts getting harassed because of this article, I'd say he has a pretty decent case: If the statement "is false, caused harm, and was made without adequate research", then most non-celebrity citizens have a pretty strong case.

Short answer, no.

Long answer: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2095060/apple-removes-blockch...

Actually, I don't know if you've caught the news, but they're in the process of implementing a "automatic level 90" token as an IAP, which will probably hit their store before their next expansion comes out.

I don't personally have an issue with it, but their IAP is encroaching subtly on the gameplay, and it might not stop there.

While that's true, that's only the case for sites you regularly visit. If you get linked to a random site or blog post from HN, Reddit, Digg, Facebook, or what have you, your first thought is not going to be "gosh, I really want to pay for a subscription to this site". In fact, if you run into a paywall, you'll probably just bounce back to the site that linked you to the article and ask for the article text or a non-paywalled version of the same.

It depends on how ads are blocked by the user, and it also depends on how you frame it. For example: I don't block advertising on Something Awful, because the ads there are both unobtrusive and occasionally quite relevant or interesting to me, even in terms of pointing me at things I didn't realize I had an interest in. I'll also usually unblock sites that detect that I'm running an adblocker and ask me politely to stop.

I will, however, make a point of blocking ads on any site that decides to drop full-screen overlays, modal dialogs, javascript popovers, or any of that other crap that ad agencies seem to love these days. If your ad is interfering with my browsing experience, I'm not going to waste my time even considering interacting with it.

Not to mention occasionally malicious. Of the people I've known who have gotten viruses in the last 5 years, a majority of them were from compromised ad hosts and/or malicious ads. In fact, there was one a week or two ago from Yahoo[1], of all places.

[1]http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57616617-83/yahoo-users-exp...

I think you're underestimating who's a "feminist" and who's not. It's not just a small cluster of women who say "all men are bad"; it's (finally) gaining the same sort of widespread acceptance that gay rights are. And there are quite a few indie developers who were either rejecting invitations or being on the fence about attending PAX even before this most recent "we regret taking the shirts down" thing.

Also worth noting is this isn't the only situation where Krahulik has shown off his ability to place his foot firmly in his mouth-- there's also things like his peculiar stance on transgender people[1], which is why people have such a hard time taking him at face value when he apologizes.

[1]http://thefullbrightcompany.com/2013/06/21/why-we-are-not-sh...