thsealienbstrds

Nice! I like that basically now you have an e-mail interface to Evernote. What I like about that is that you get all operating systems for free and crazy robustness in terms of forwards compatibility (at least, on the client-side).

I've been working on `moncat`, a tool that concatenates e-mails.

It's very 'Unix-y' in the sense that it's supposed to do this and only this.

I created it because I wanted to have a way to make notes without being dependent on apps. With moncat, I can use any e-mail client to incrementally create larger text files.

Currently, I'm using it to write a journal in Markdown that is automatically converted to HTML. How that works: I e-mail journal entries to myself, put them in a mailbox folder, and periodically compile the journal using a cronjob.

moncat accepts some basic commands that you can put in the subject line of the e-mail. For example, you can reorder items to be concatenated. It also handles attachments and nested folders.

...

Yeah.. so there is no documentation and the code is pretty shit, since I'm the only one using it. The upside is that the code is also pretty small (around 350 LOC Python in total).

So, just in case anyone is looking for a tool like this... here you go! ;)

https://www.pastery.net/xysbyq+juprcp/#xysbyq

In spirit of findings new paths, just an idea (and I'm not sure at all that this is a practical solution):

fail2ban---a tool commonly used in servers to automatically block remote attackers such as spammers---can be configured to automatically send an attack report to some e-mail address when it detects an attack.

A browser extension, such as PrivacyBadger, could do a similar thing when it detects a tracker. Let the report be sent to a law enforcement agency that is setup to deal with this kind of problem. If this agency collects enough data, then it can do some data mining to find, for example, the most violent trackers. If that works, maybe such a tool can be used to give law enforcement some actual power to punish these companies.

Just a couple of thoughts.

Is the market really so bad that Google needs to invade people's privacy to this extent in order to grow?

I bet Google's CEO will not use the products himself. Google is almost behaving like a pusher, promising people comfort at the expense of their livelihood (the chilling effect).

Perhaps this should simply be illegal. If people want a personalized AI assistant, why not train the AI on the user's device? I seriously doubt that it has to know everything about everybody's behavior in order to know some things about the user's behavior.

I don't think you can really conclude that it works based on the linked research data. I'm assuming you're referring to table 12, where they compare the percentages of incidents with the pre-Nordic model study. I think you cannot compare the percentages (something that the author acknowledges) because in the 2012 study a time limitation was set when reporting on the occurrence of an incident (only report it if it occurred since introduction of Nordic model), but this time limitation was not set in the other study (report it if it happened at any point in time in the past). You cannot compare victim-percentages of incidents that happened over a period of three years with victim-percentages of incidents that happened over an indefinite period of time. Claiming that the Nordic model works based on such a comparison is like claiming that the birth rate has dropped in the last three years because the total number of children born since 2013 is less than the total number of children born before 2013.

I am not a doctor but I suspect that it has a lot to do with our physical limitations.

I think a big impacting factor from the adjustments made to the program is the fact they created study groups.

Many students are socially isolated, that is by itself something that creates anxiety and depression. Being in a competitive environment without social supports doesn't help.

Human beings are social animals, we need physical touch and proximity to survive. Even just having a conversation with friends and family is something that generally relaxes people. Sure, it may not always be the case but if you ask me, human beings have evolved in a way that we have become very dependent on eachother's physical presence for our mental/physical well being.

I think that there are a significant number of men that are opposed to the idea, even among the men that concur. Plenty of men are afraid to voice their true opinion because they fear being shamed as being sexists or worse, cowards, not men. Seriously... consider this.

Do you think that the irrational behavior of the third group of your list is a good sign, or something that should be easily dismissed? Yet another demand is made from men to change the system to accommodate women. When is it ever enough? Never.

Why is it that we cannot expect more from women, instead of always expecting more from men? Why can we not demand that women, if they so badly want to be a part of a male dominated system, become more assertive, aggressive, learn how to deal? Why, in a society that believes in democracy, must the majority adapt to the minority? Because women are different, special beings that are in need of ubiquitous protection?

Codes of conduct are cop outs, we have laws already! Victims of sexual harassment need to call the police, like people should also do in any other case of injustice... This is a scare tactic that generalizes, therefore insults men who have done nothing wrong. What are we, dogs that need to be put on a leash? Sure, it's not in the wording but the intent is pretty clear. Another important reason why you go to the police for these matters is that the accused gets a fair chance to defend himself (ideally, because the law favors women..). Isn't that beautiful?

This article is heavily biased. Consider that the case of the other 59%(!) is not explored in the article even a little bit... You'd think a position paper that is proposing solutions would at least cover potentially existing solutions before concluding that the system needs an overhaul.

I can't help but think that the spirit of free software, namely control over your computing/computer, is more relevant today than it ever has been. Just that the problem doesn't really seem to be in any particular computer program... It's a shame that even the FSF has no solution for web services that make mass surveillance possible.

Sorry, I think this is not an argument for denying the existence of a by-men-for-men movement. Maybe it's current incarnation is fucked up but your argument is just fatalistic thinking. Besides, feminism is not immune to crazy people either and they do real damage too.

Cool, but your last sentence goes too far. There is politics to worry about. Hasn't feminism proven that a non-partisan stance (egalitarianism) is less effective politically than a partisan one? I can accuse you of the same 'vindictiveness' that feminists face when men say that feminism is wrong because it's all about women. It's not wrong, it's politics.

That's true, there are many legitimate reasons for women to be standing up for men in that way. Even so, a male centered movement is bound to stand up for men's rights in a more complete way, simply because then men have their own voice.

Regardless of club affiliation, generally speaking it makes no sense to have women stand up for men's rights. Men need to stand up for men's rights because then at least you can assume authenticity based on shared self-interest. In that respect, even MRA is, for men, an improvement on feminism.

The real reason is that the help command is 'man', you sexist nerds!

This is also the impression i get from the first chapter where his point seems to be that no amount of hip software methodologies can replace an intelligent, experienced software engineer.

I recently saw the documentary We're Not Broke about how most (if not every) multinational do tax evasion in America. It's being claimed that actually most politicians there know what's going on and know how to solve it (tax reform) but they simply can't (or don't) do it because "business doesn't want that". So, back to 'patrimonial capitalism' it is for the U.S.

I think the general concept is good, very good. This could be a huge factor in solving the problem of bullying. But I fear that this is also a program that goes to the extreme to 'fix boys'. For instance: notice that one of the arguments is about solving sexual health problems for women, while we started with solving sexual health problems for guys. It also appears the boys have a more 'positive' perception of sexual health, masculinity and homosexuality? Tell me who is anybody to judge what a positive perception of masculinity is? And if we're going that far: why is femininity not on that list as well? What, boys can't have perceptions of femininity while girls are free to define what parts of masculinity are toxic, even? Finally, that last paragraph is a bit cringe-worthy. They've successfully managed to make that boy believe that the end of his relationship is all his fault instead of, you know, teaching him 'relationships' just don't last when you're that young, regardless of how you behave.

What do you mean, women are under-represented in tech? As in: it needs to be 50/50 men and women? Or as in: the ratio of men/women working in tech should reflect the ratio of men/women who'd like to have a tech job?

Arithmetic has a uniform syntax. Here’s an argument for standardizing the syntax of well understood programming concepts:

"Node.js programs are developed using JavaScript, this means that the silos that existed between frontend developers and backend developers are now broken down, and this results in significant efficiencies in the development process. With Node.js it’s possible to merge web and backend teams into one unit which makes things much more efficient."

And maybe that is todays reality because JavaScript cant really do anything else. Give a kid a hammer and all problems become nails.

I ran the Quake 3 demo. It was frameskipping all over. Performance was not acceptable for even playing. I think 10-15 fps. No, its not my laptop. My laptop has no problems with real Quake 3. I want to ask you to take a step back and look at it purely from a black box perspective. Forget about JavaScript for a moment. Is it really your opinion this is reasonable performance?

True in the sense of multiple cores, instead of just asynchronous execution on a single thread. Anyhow, it was just an example... What I'm trying to say is that we want to really explore the capabilities of the web as a platform for computing, as much as possible. Therefore we need as much flexibility, tooling, languages, you name it, as possible. I'm actually suggesting the 'C++' way of creating a platform... i.e. stuff it with as much flexibility as you possibly (reasonably) can and then let natural selection do its work. JavaScript ain't it.

I think theres something to be said in favor of it. Not all programming languages have js execution model. Does js even support true concurrency already? Not last i checked: there goes a whole class of potentially useful applications. We really do want support for these things. It is good for creativity, therefore innovation, because we have more tools to work with.

Pretty neat that they have this now. When I was young I didn't have Mindstorms but there was the Lego that allowed you to create running electrical parts. Yeah... I sure played a lot with Lego. Now I play a lot with Haskell. Look mom, no state! Except the problem is I can't show this to my mother, she does not understand it. :(

Just to be sure, how is Google's OAuth2 implementation vulnerable to this?

As I understand it: the attacker exploits the fact that your application does not validate the redirect_uri parameter. Google's API keys all have whitelists for redirect_uri's. So those can't be exploited, right? Then the only problem is that those redirect_uri's themselves can perform redirects (in Google's case you can put arbitrary data in the 'state' get parameter so you could put another redirect_uri in there) but you can validate those too (on your whitelisted redirect_uri page... and you are advised to do CSRF checks anyway). So in this case, where is the vulnerability? I don't see it.