The responses in that thread give me a headache, has the daily wtf forum always been such a wasteland? One of the replies is "someone posted your software to the daily wtf so there MUST be a problem with your software, you should just accept it and here's how you should respond". Maddening
And they even scold the author of the software for responding in an emotional tone, while the whole "wtf" rant was full of personal attacks (and misunderstanding C programming, not bothering with facts etc).
And thusly, a website originally created for people to point to actual coding WTFs by incompetent programmers is running posts by incompetent users, voted by other incompetent users.
Seriously?
The EFL author flatly denied to have "bitch" in the error message, posting even the grep results, while silently changing the error message from "bitch" to "complain" hoping that no one would notice it.
Obviously git history doesn't lie like him.
And he was the one that wrote that error message.
In the meantime he started attacking the author of the post on that forum with meaningless arguments.
And you have the courage to say that the incompetence is in the forum users rather than in such person that is so full of sh*t to just outrightly lie in front of everyone?
You can't just blame it all on the sickness. He's apparently an extreme racist, crazy or not. The way you put it sounds like he doesn't even exist and is all just the sickness.
Having read a lot of what he's said, he uses words and phrases in an idiosyncratic way that isn't the same as they would be used by, say, a politician. He may or may not be racist, but he's schizophrenic so we should probably chill out on him and go police someone who isn't schizophrenic instead.
Good job of convincing or educating me with that strong argument. How about you tell me how it works instead? Right now you're making it sound like a schizophrenic can do whatever they want, whenever they want because they are victims. Even if it's outside an episode.
I'm not someone who takes the mental illness excuse lightly, but I have from time to time had the privilege of catching Terry in a more lucid state and let me assure you the man you understand him to be is not who he is.
Would you accuse a person with tourette's syndrome of racism due to their outbursts? This disease is far more pervasive and systemic than that.
Vincent van Gogh was similarly mentally ill as a society we look past the things he could not control and instead focus on what he has created. I suggest the same course of action here as I believe the situations are uncannily similar. This is all I will say on the matter.
BSDs typically have all their userspace tools in the same tree as the kernel, it's easier for them to make these breaking changes than it is for linux where the kernel live in one place and the rest of the code is scattered far and wide
What a ridiculous comment, a gun's only purpose is to kill, and yes, incapacitated people should not be driving if they present a danger to other road users.
I didn't flag it, but I'd imagine a lot of people don't trust the source (any more).
Edit: Why the downvotes? I didn't indicate my position, I pointed out that some people don't trust WikiLeaks any more, which is obvious - go and look at the responses they get on twitter.
Getting dumps and sitting on them/grooming/timing releases during the election, their twitter jumping on the Sweden bashing bandwagon [1-3] (because Assange was accused of rape there?), linking back to old Prism dumps after Trump tweets about wiretapping after reading an Infowars "article" [4] and speculating about it [5], etc etc.
I'm not sure if he's buttering up the administration to get out of Ecuador, but regardless, I trusted Wikileaks when they were [input] -> check for mostly pertinent info/responsible leaking -> [output].
The concept of wikileaks is crucial to a democracy, I'm just not sure that Assange's current Wikileaks is that thing anymore.
> Wikileaks has done tireless work in this field and has largely been correct about its claims and the authenticity of its documents
I believe what people don't trust is their motivation. I've seen people argue that motivation doesn't matter; facts are facts. That's incorrect, as anyone who has listened to a skilled dissembler state facts leading to a conclusion at odds with reality knows.
There are other problems, including suspicion that it may be true that WL may be leaking exactly what they're given (modulo redaction and strategic withholding), what they're given may be tailored to the goals of those leaking. Assange's statements don't help dissipate that suspicion.
So in looking at their releases, you have to fact in not only their (Assange's) motivation, but that of the unknown people leaking documents.
You're missing a strategic consideration. If Wikileaks operates with ulterior motives, it could have an interest in dropping obsolete or even valid information for a variety of other reasons besides wanting people to be informed; to destabilize or distract, for example. Likewise, other parties could exploit Wikileaks to those ends, feeding low-level intelligence to Wikileaks for second-order purposes.
If not Wikileaks, whom do we trust for this sort of info?
Nobody. Open-source espionage means institutional reliability is a chimera. The more credibility you invest something with, the better of an attack vector it becomes.
Alright, I'll bite. Regardless of the who owns what, I'd be a hell of a lot more confident if some of the old regular PGP sigs started showing up again
Why trust any one source? Multiple sources is the way to go. And yes I am aware of what Wikileaks is and it's hard to find an alternative if there even is any. But my point is some day you'll be burned by relying only on a single source.
Anything that does significant work that would otherwise result in an unresponsive UI. For example code on the following page is compiled as you type, without a webworker this would give a very horrible user experience because compilation can take a long time for very large input - https://codemix.github.io/flow-runtime/#/try
"fuck you money" is something different - it's the amount of wealth you need (varying per individual) where you can comfortably say "fuck you" to a particular job or opportunity or proposal someone makes to you if you don't want to do it. I believe the term you're looking for is something like "chump change"
I have seen it used in that (to mean the same as chump change) in linkedin articles by random recruiters, so I guess it will suffer the fate of literally vs. figuratively. Terrible.. but use dictates meaning, if it goes mainstream.
Can you give an example? "Fuck you money" is pretty literal already, - the money required to be able to say "fuck you." I can't see how it can make any sense in any other context.
That is how twitter works - it doesn't show every tweet from everyone you follow in your timeline, it shows a subset based on what it considers most relevant.
It's a bigger problem in general with both Twitter/FB and how they filter the order content is displayed (sometimes called "the filter bubble") in order to drive up engagement and revenue.
The average person doesn't care about federated social networks and the average dev or admin doesn't have the time outside of work to setup and maintain one for his or herself.
It's interesting to me that you probably don't care that this isn't true, nor is it true that Twitter ever decides to not show your tweets to a subset of your followers through a "shadowban". You just say whatever. Doesn't affect you whether it's true or not and if other people believe you, hey that's pretty funny that people just believe things you make up or misunderstood.
That's why I almost never use the Twitter web site or their app. Too confusing. I stick with Tweetbot which still only shows the complete timeline in reversed chronological order.
> That is how twitter works - it doesn't show every tweet from everyone you follow in your timeline, it shows a subset based on what it considers most relevant.
If this is true, this is the same as Facebook does.
And for this reason I can't bother checking Facebook any more. Can't see what's in that for twitter?
Facebook is not showing me the posts from people I know, but instead advertisement and "reactions" it thinks I may like. Which I give a utter fuck about.
It's just another one of those things which just makes me stop caring.
If twitter knows what best for them, they should definitely not copy this UX anti-pattern of overruling the users explicit choice (about whose posts they want to follow).
And it would be convenient if Scott Adams' political tweets were considered "irrelevant" more often than others, wouldn't it?
There were also reports that followers would be automatically unfollowed. They wouldn't hear from Scott for a while, so they'd check and realize he was no longer followed. Maybe they slipped and accidentally hit "Unfollow" while scrolling through their feed one day. Maybe it was a one-time glitch. Or maybe it wasn't.
While it's true that such things could easily be imaginary, it's also true that they easily could not be. The idea behind these pseudo-bans is to discourage undesirable users from using the platform, and they do happen on many platforms (can't speak definitively for Twitter).
For example, my HN account was intentionally slowed by YC for years. Each page load would take several seconds. When I asked politely if they could lift it after putting up with it for a couple of years, they confirmed it had been intentionally slowed, but couldn't tell why, and graciously agreed to lift the punishment, which I'm still grateful for. :)
The flow parser is already available in js, it doesn't seem impossible to bring the rest of it to the browser but I'm not aware of anyone working on it
