This amounts to copyright violation. CelebrityNetWorth went to great extent to organize this data and holds copyright on their site. Google is duplicating and redistributing this research without permission of the author.
What's worse is that Google essentially uses its monopoly (or at least extreme popularity) on search to essentially extort people into going along with stuff like this. If the site in question actually filed a DMCA notice or requested a takedown in a more tactful manner (assuming he could actually find someone to talk to about it) Google would probably just tell them to update their robots.txt file so that the site doesn't show up on the search result pages.
It's surprising that GitHub is significantly putting out much more innovation after the open-source repos moving to GitLab fiasco of a year or so ago. Are there any changes that can explain this besides more incentive?
- Out with flat org structure based purely on meritocracy, in with supervisors and middle managers. This has ticked off many people in the old guard.
- Its once famous remote-employee culture has been rolled back. Senior managers are no longer allowed to live afar and must report to the office. This was one reason why some senior execs departed or were asked to leave, one person close to the company told us.
- GitHub has hit "hypergrowth," growing from about 300 to nearly 500 employees in less than a year, with over 70 people joining last quarter alone.
The v2.6 open access issue in MongoDB is no new revelation, and has been rehashed over and over again. It's worth noting that this post comes from a company that profits from convincing its customers that the products they are using are insecure.
A programming language "is said to be Turing complete or computationally universal if it can be used to simulate any single-taped Turing machine" [1]. This author doesn't seem to understand this concept properly.
I'm pretty sure that if you understand both Turing completeness and the practice of actual programming, then you know that in most cases the one has virtually nothing to do with the other. (Which is not meant at all to imply that the author of linked article understands Turing completeness, just that even though he doesn't seem to he could still be excellent at teaching programming.)
I'm wondering that here. The whole article feels over-the-top, perhaps it's a well crafted parody, an extreme sense of sarcasm? May be he is a Python 3 lover after all.
In my experience a lot of the problems with automatically converting existing Python 2 code to Python 3 code is that the Python 2 code usually makes fundamentally broken assumptions when it comes to unicode and bytes.
This is what the author doesn't get- the fact that Python 2 makes no distinction between bytes-like objects and string-like objects is a bug, not a feature. He finds his code so awful to migrate because he has built it on a contrary assumption.
I was working on a side project and ended up upgrading because I could figure out how Python was encoding my data. I got so frustrated with the semantics I found it easier to jusy upgrade.
Definitely disagree. I am a literal genius, wrote compilers, learned a dozen programming languages for fun, but prefer to do hard things. Yes p2 handling of coding is broken, but p3 is much worse. Making a theoretical argument about a pragmatic problem is a category mistake. And it's not even the core of Zed's expressed concern, which is the arrogant and abusive manipulation of the user community in service of the interests of self-obsessed project.
such smart. impressed. "p2" "p3". knows unique terminology. literal genius. so smart. A dozen programming languages just for fun? You definitely know what you're talking about and have very worthwhile contributions. People should listen to you.
I like what you said about self-obsessed project. It's clear that you have a very well reasoned position, not just opinion. What you say makes irrefutable sense.
Perhaps because the community felt it did not produce an intellectually interesting discussion and that the odds of it producing one were significantly lower than the odds of it producing an unproductive one.
+ As a news item: While the topic may be intellectually interesting, the Hacker News community probably doesn't bring much specific informed expertise to the topic and no person's experience is going to stand out as more relevant to the point that anyone changes their opinions...Peter Norvig's opinion is no more informed than Marrissa Meyer's.
+ As a topic inspiring discussion: much of the discussion wound up being meta-discussion about Hacker News, e.g. this thread. As this comment demonstrates, that is a topic that leads to rather dull discussions.
"But the kinds of people who work at Google are often the ones who became software engineers because they wanted to avoid talking about feelings in the first place."
Problematic stab at engineers. I don't think people go into software because they prefer computers to humans.
It's a broad stereotype, but I don't think it's entirely wrong. My social awkwardness definitely contributed to my spending more time on the PC as a kid, and that got me excited about computers.
I've since improved my social skills a ton, but it's natural to expect different psychological trends in a population of engineers than in, say, people who go into sales.
Unfortunately this writer does not understand the boot loader security on iOS. Since Apple's signing key is burned into the device, Apple is the only one who can modify its functionality by loading new firmware. Even in that case, the only firmware that can be modified without unlocking the device is the lowest level boot loader, which likely has numerous size and functionality limitations, as all the device features probably are not enabled. I would not deem this a flaw in device design. If Apple creates a signed piece of software that allows for a brute force exploit, it is creating a backdoor for the FBI.
Does apple have firmware lock that requires user input/password for signed firmware/software updates?
If it has and it can be circumvented, there is fault somewhere. If it don't have it, Apple should have it.
>What is actually being asked for here is that Apple write custom code that allows the FBI to perform a brute-force attack against the iPhone without triggering the "10 strikes and the phone is wiped" protection mechanism. This is a completely different animal.
This is what I thought as well. I'd seen it yesterday, but couldn't correlate that this article would be talking about the same tool after seeing the headline. "Lets Coders Build Software Like Bridges" doesn't make it sound like a refactoring toolkit at all.
