anabranch

I'm surprised that it's 45%. Might go down (?) with longer context answers but still surprising. It can be more than 2x for small prompts.

The relentless creation of new javascript frameworks never ceases to amaze. They're all over the place and every one of them claims to be a magic bullet.

My recommendation would be to choose one that is extremely stable that underlies a lot of the core principles of other systems. Backbone comes to mind because it's fairly unopinionated about how the system should be built - this makes you understand how data can be tied together, how systems can be structured (because you have to make your own choices) and which ones seems to make the most sense to you. Couple that with something like react and I, personally, think that you've covered a lot of the front-end principles.

http://yeoman.io/ is a popular flow that's much more plug and play than writing your own gruntfiles/gulpfiles.

They just rehashed the website @ developer.linkedin.com

Works well. It cannot be turned off and you can set it for a specific amount of time. You choose the websites you would like to block.

Your phone is obviously a weak point, but it's a start.

https://gist.github.com/anabranch/09c421e3ff13e1245316

This basically just splits it on ```code``` blocks and only supports python at the moment, but could be a resource for others.

edit: good work btw, I'm not completely sold on this solution but I do think there's a problem here. I'm pretty invested in evernote but think this has potential.

That sets a good precedent but gets destroyed in Smith v Maryland

"Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does, in fact, record it for various legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone, rather than some other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information" https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/735/case.htm...

That's where things get fucked up.

Simply because you use a service means that you assume the risk that the company would reveal that information. Privacy is not guaranteed as soon as you use a service - setting the precedence for NSA mass surveillance. Unfortunately, these laws were passed when the fact that everyone you know, interact with, and communicate with is in your pocket all the time.

Different laws for different times...

Instantaneous photographs and newspaper enterprise have invaded the sacred precincts of private and domestic life; and numerous mechanical devices threaten to make good the prediction that "what is whispered in the closet shall be proclaimed from the house-tops."

124 years later, still relevant.