admyral

As someone who builds websites for money, I couldn't agree more. I rarely get to bill for making incremental changes, I get to bill for implementing features. Spending money to implement and log a properly restrictive Content-Security-Policy doesn't seem like wise use of my clients limited budget.

AMD should thank Nvidia for failing to produce enough cards to meet demand.

> Everybody knows the technology is not ready And by what standards are you gauging its not ready? My point was if you wait until it becomes "safe enough", you'll be waiting forever because Tesla would be forever at the mercy of whose rules govern what "safe" means. Roads are hazardous places and unfortunately accidents are going to happen.

What I do know is that the Autopilot system will never be distracted, will never fall asleep, will never drive intoxicated or recklessly, will never disobey traffic laws like humans do. Tesla also has a financial incentive to improve their technology to prevent this from happening. Unlike humans who, for the most part, have far less incentive to drive more carefully.

As good as a human at what? It's 100% better at not falling asleep behind the wheel or driving while under the influence which statistically are the most common cause of traffic accidents.

We don't yet have evidence that Tesla's using Autopilot are any less safe than human drivers. We do have plenty of examples of traditional auto makers negligently ignoring safety regulations, manufacturing faulty vehicles and also causing fatalities. But somehow we don't hear the same pleas for sympathy for those souls.

No offense but this is exactly the attitude that inhibits progress and led the auto industry to languish in mediocrity for years. If you wait until the technology would prevent all accidents, you'd be waiting forever.

I see little distinction between a shitcoin ICO and a fart app on the App Store. A fool and their money are easily parted.

I find nothing righteous about a system designed for a select few to profit from maintaining the illusion our money is safe and secure in a vault somewhere. That illusion has already cost people their life savings without any attacks or user error required. But the difference is they are deemed "too big to fail", so when they screw up, they get bailed out while everyone else loses it all.

More egregious is economists insistence that the continuous debasement of our currency combined with skyrocketing consumer debt and stagnant wages due to automation will not end badly. These are the same economists that couldn't possibly predict what would happen when bankers and creditors were allowed to produce billions in worthless financial derivatives and sell them as triple-A investments.

What's so righteous about the status quo that makes skeptics feel so compelled to defend it so vehemently by degrading Bitcoin?

But it seems we should be far beyond Denial and Anger stage and well into Bargaining and Guilt at this point. Don't worry, he'll join the chorus of "blockchain is good, Bitcoin is bad" rhetoric soon enough.

I'd personally much rather pay higher fees when there is a high network volume than constantly paying fees for the privilege of using an ATM, or servicing my online account, or processing a wire transfer, or reissuing me a debit card or checkbook, etc. For merchants, fees are outrageous indefinitely.

Here are a few recent articles on millenial interest in crypto [1] [2].

[1] https://www.finder.com/why-people-arent-buying-cryptocurrenc... [2] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/millennials-are-afraid-sto...

Initially I think due to disruption to banking and government monopolies. Outrageous fees, pitiful interest rates, and financial services only accessible Monday through Friday 9-5 and sometimes on Saturday seem pretty archaic today. People who never had access to a bank can send money to anyone peer-to-peer like cash. Millenials largely prefer to invest their money into cryptocurrencies over traditional assets, which I believe has largely been monopolized by a firmly established few.

Unpopular opinion around here, but Bitcoin. The idea that we have technology now which can help address global wealth inequality just makes me happy.

In my opinion, distributed ledgers and mutable blockchains based around trusted actors are business as usual and frankly not very interesting. Bitcoin could actually make everyone's life a little better. Isn't that what technology was meant to be?

Your perception of technology changes as you age. Anything new in your teens and 20s is hailed as a innovation sure to change the world in profound new ways. In your 30s-40s, weird and burdensome, no better than the traditional ways of doing things. Past that point, you'll view everything as borderline destructive and proof of society's decline.

Depending on where you live, house destroying disasters like earthquakes, floods, and storms have similarly fatal consequences but are statistically more likely to occur. My point is make reasonable preparations and insure any valuable belongings, but thinking about it too much doesn't make it any less likely its going to happen to you.

If you're going to be worried about everything that has a small chance of failing and injuring you, I'm sorry to say you're currently living in a minefield. But statistically you'd be more likely to break your toe on the coffee table than your laptop exploding and burning down your house.

It seems like America doesn't have an appetite for long term, sensible policies. We pass common sense legislation, fail to ever adjust them based on how they work in practice or when new information comes to light. Then as public outcry reaches its peak, a politician will come along to scrap the entire thing in favor of starting anew or propose some poorly conceived, overly broad solution to the problem.

America is great at throwing tons of cash, our vast technical and industrial infrastructure, or military might at the problem. Not so much at utilizing the scientific method to determine a sensible course of action as other nations do.

Most can get on board with recognizing the difference between someone who just recently came illegally who might have a criminal record versus someone who is law abiding, has been here for many years, and potentially who has legal family members here. The worry here is the current administration's policy does not distinguish between these two and the goal isn't so much about safety, but is to report high numbers of deportations at all cost.

My better half primarily watches E! (Keeping up with the Kardashians), HGTV, Food Network, etc. All have full episodes online, but require the cable subscription login dance. Even if I could get the live sports I wanted, I don't foresee these "middle America" networks and shows embracing cord cutting anytime soon.

The question is whether he was obliged to inform the congressional committee they were reopening the case. I would think they'd FIRST do a preliminary investigation to determine if the evidence warranted further investigation (ie. if it would change FBI's position on the DOJ charging Clinton). But I guess as informed voters, it's better to have more information than less, however untimely it is for Hillary.

Are you really blaming financial instability on "unsophisticated investors"? Not on automated, high speed traders able to liquidate stocks and topple markets in seconds? Not on reckless, fear-mongering media outlets competing for the most sensationalist headline? Not on government action/inaction affecting trillions in assets?

The buses in LA are awful. They're subject to the same traffic commuters deal with AND also makes stops every couple blocks. The questionable cleanliness and sharing tight quarters with unsavory people is to be expected in a city that doesn't consider mass transit an viable option.

Exactly. It's amazing such a beloved and iconic example of game design art began as merely an attempt to recreate a screenshot. No lengthy design documents, no big ideas, no gray box test "notes", no countless iterations. Great things can seem to just come into existence.

The subsidization by networks is key in keeping people in a short upgrade cycle, and reducing the likelihood of switching to a cheaper Android phones. It's no doubt Apple people would upgrade much less often if they to shell out $600+ for unlocked phones every couple years.

Command line is modern day voodoo. There are ton of commands, each with a specific use, each with own their specific incantation, which can mixed in extremely powerful ways. But my theory is the main reason people would prefer not use it, is that improper usage can be harmful and sometimes destructive.

The same reason people prefer to use garbage collected and dynamically typed programming languages.

The other downside is maintaining .vimrc and all the plugins and feeling utterly hamstrung without it.

This article was extremely depressing. Not for the author, but that sadly, this is the state of business done on the Internet. Never does anyone receive any tangible, lasting value. All of it relying on deceptive or coercive tactics, or rigging an otherwise legitimate system for individual gain. All of the tremendous effort that goes into attracting as many people as possible, in the hopes that a small subset of them are gullible enough to convert. "Communities" who don't exist to provide resources and support, but to share tales of their victories and conquests. All this done so they can collect their next commission check and blow it all on vodka and wild nights in Vegas. All of it done so they can move on to devising a new scheme to extract money from the next batch of suckers.

The original commenter asserts the DOM feels slow because we use bloated frameworks rather than pure JS. Sure, you certainly can use pure JS to target a select few modern browsers, but I've yet to see a practical story on how to build apps for the rest of the web at large this way.

Are we saying in order to go fast, we should eschew the progress we've made in compatibility to accomplish it?

I'd love to see some examples of non-trivial apps written in pure JavaScript which:

a) has decent browser compatibility b) is not a rat's nest of shims and polyfills c) could be maintained by more than one person

I think what the author was getting as was that apps like this turn normal human interactions, complete with nuance and imperfection, into systematic conversation streams which can be optimized. One is like more efficient, but it raises the question of whether this theoretical human interaction optimum is a good thing.