msimpson
But I will not refrain from using such language in the future when I feel it's appropriate.
Although, if you want to declare I started what can hardly be described as a flame war just by stating an opinion, you should just delete my account now.
Seriously.
Last time I checked, I posted useful information in this thread and only noted my opinion of Schneiderman after "josefresco" specifically named him in an attempt to divert the conversation. If I wanted to attack him specifically I would have picked a better forum than Hacker News where politically charged discourse is generally frowned upon. And moreover, I owe no one any further explanation of my opinion of Schneiderman; much less you in particular.
Do you understand correctly, now?
That isn't a prerequisite for opposing someone due to their views or opinions, regardless if their actions regarding this incident are agreeable.
I'm sure if Trump takes up this cause against Equifax as well you're going to support him in that effort too. Correct?
Some keep quoting this line from the terms of service:
> YOU MUST ACCEPT THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT CONTAINED IN SECTION 4 BELOW, BEFORE YOU WILL BE PERMITTED TO REGISTER FOR AND PURCHASE ANY PRODUCT FROM THIS SITE. BY REGISTERING ON THIS SITE AND SUBMITTING YOUR ORDER, YOU ARE ACKNOWLEDGING ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF, AND YOUR AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY, THIS AGREEMENT. YOU ALSO AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THIS AGREEMENT BY USING OR PAYING FOR OUR PRODUCTS OR TAKING OTHER ACTIONS THAT INDICATE ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT.
Whereas others have pointed to the Opt-Out:
> Right to Opt-Out of this Arbitration Provision. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BOUND BY THE ARBITRATION PROVISION, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE YOURSELF. Opting out of the arbitration provision will have no adverse effect on your relationship with Equifax or the delivery of Products to You by Equifax. In order to exclude Yourself from the arbitration provision, You must notify Equifax in writing within 30 days of the date that You first accept this Agreement on the Site (for Products purchased from Equifax on the Site). If You purchased Your Product other than on the Site, and thus this Agreement was mailed, emailed or otherwise delivered to You, then You must notify Equifax in writing within 30 days of the date that You receive this Agreement. To be effective, timely written notice of opt out must be delivered to Equifax Consumer Services LLC, Attn.: Arbitration Opt-Out, P.O. Box 105496, Atlanta, GA 30348, and must include Your name, address, and Equifax User ID, as well as a clear statement that You do not wish to resolve disputes with Equifax through arbitration. If You have previously notified Equifax that You wish to opt-out of arbitration, You are not required to do so again. Any opt-out request postmarked after the opt-out deadline or that fails to satisfy the other requirements above will not be valid, and You must pursue your Claim in arbitration or small claims court.
Therefore, I'd take everything with a grain of salt and/or read the full terms for yourself:
The great part is that I can keep branches for each computer which share my configuration. And being that I consistently use Arch, I also employ an install script with my common packages to speed up new installations.
In the end, it shaves a good hour or so off my installation process.
Upon first reading I thought that Unit needed to be behind NGINX to function. When actually it listens for requests as a separate server, entirely. It only provides an API for configuration purposes.
However, If you want to use the other features of NGINX, like providing static files, you will need to put it in front of Unit.
You can see the PHP configuration here:
http://unit.nginx.org/docs-configuration.html#php-applicatio...
And here's the configuration needed to integrate Unit with NGINX:
Here you can see the configuration of workers and user/group permissions for a Go application:
http://unit.nginx.org/docs-configuration.html#go-application
No, you said:
> There’s a time and a place for JavaScript frameworks, and whatever it is you’re building probably isn’t it.
Do tell us when a SPA structure is appropriate... Then, explain how that sentiment is any less "arrogant" than Ember.
> I wanted to add a full REST API to BugMuncher, even though no-one had asked for it.
> I committed to using Ember before I knew enough about it.
> I didn’t keep it simple, I was stupid.
> Web apps often look complicated from the outsite, but underneath most of what they do is simply Create Read Update Delete, and you really don’t need a fancy JavaScript framework to do that.
So, to summarize, you failed at your first usage of a JavaScript framework due to your own bad decisions. Therefore, all the benefits SPA structure can offer the multitude of other projects is meaningless as, "...most of what they do is simply Create Read Update Delete." Honestly, you've just swapped the bandwagon effect for confirmation bias as you fell back to Rails.
Sure. It's not like the growing number of far-left anarcho-socialist and anarcho-communist groups haven't been shutting down non-violent right-wing freedom of speech events for the past two years. It's not like they haven't been broadly labeling anyone with a dissenting opinion a racist, sexist, etc. It's not like they haven't been using violence and black bloc tactics from the beginning.
No, that's all completely beside the point, and in no way does it alienate portions of the population creating more extremists on both sides.
Compilers employ multitudes of optimizations that will go overlooked in hand-written ASM unless you, as the author, are very knowledgeable. End of story.
1. That memo was not a manifesto, it was a memo...
2. That memo was not anti-diversity, it was pro-logic and pro-science with references.
3. This subject was a already major talking point, which is what provoked this memo and these discussions in the first place.
"A culture of harassment"
23% of respondents were outside the US, so I assume this is a world wide "culture of harassment".
"The findings echoed many of the anecdotes shared by women and minorities in the industry, with 53pc of women experiencing harassment compared to a meagre 16pc of men."
250% more women than men were surveyed.
"None of the male founders polled were propositioned for sex in exchange for business opportunities. Instead, most of the harassment directed at male founders was in relation to their professional character."
Probably because most investors are heterosexual males...
"Reporting this harassment to HR is seemingly a rarity, with only 16pc of women who experienced it doing so. 68pc of the women who filed reports were unhappy with how their workplace dealt with their issue, and, in 64pc of cases, the harasser in question faced no consequences for their unprofessional behaviour."
That 68% unhappy with the results of their reporting and the 64% of cases in which the harasser faced no consequences is actually a combination of both men and women who reported harassment...
I could go on, but this is sad.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
Subsection A specifically states, "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
So while I do not endorse the mechanism of paywalls: if Admirals narrative and claims hold true, this is in fact a correct application of the DMCA.
Exactly, and this is so obviously a troll.
Look at the original feature request to even add the mirror:
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/51870
You can see Pritz's hesitation at using "cuntflaps.me" as a mirror and his request to use a different name.
To which Alucard suggests "loli.forsale", instead.
So excuse the Arch maintainers for not allowing you to politicize their distribution, thereby polarizing their user base...
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Element/cla...
Property Accessors (Bracket Notation):
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...
Conditional (ternary) Operator:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...
It's just as if I were to write the following JavaScript:
node.classList[ isHidden ? 'add' : 'remove' ]( 'hide' );
There is no breakdown of such characters on a parenting vs. non-parenting basis.
So it could be 13% of "homeless" students are parenting vs. 1% who are non-parenting, the complete reversal, or anything in between.
As in_cahoots noted above, check out Table 3 of the data. It alone is much more clear on what's what.
Actually, no. For my interpretation to be absolutely correct it would need to be:
"63 percent of parenting community college students surveyed were food insecure and of those students almost 14 percent were homeless..."
So I see your point and I stand corrected, but I contest that the sentence in question was written very poorly--easily leading to this misinterpretation.
The subject of it is "parenting community college students", yet the context shifts regarding the 14% according to the table you mentioned.
There the 14% is representative of "Prevalence of Housing Insecurity, Homelessness, and Food Security Among Survey Respondents."
Therefore, the 14% is of the whole but that sentence alludes, incorrectly, to only the "parenting" subset.
Incorrect.
The study actually found that, "63 percent of parenting community college students surveyed were food insecure and almost 14 percent were homeless..."
That 14% is therefore a percentage of a percentage of a subset of those surveyed.
Meaning it only makes up 8.82% of "parenting" students, alone, and we are never given what percentage that the "parenting" subset comprises of the whole.
So the headline should really read, "Less than 8% of community college students surveyed are homeless."
Where homeless can mean thrown out or evicted from a previous residence, stayed in a shelter or abandon building, car, etc., or actually had no home or idea where to stay.
While the study is worthwhile, the USA TODAY article is worthless.