owaty

No they don't.

Who do you think is killing Ukrainians?

It's not Putin himself, and it's not some kind of professional army.

Those are ordinary Russians who decided to join the occupational army, and who are launching drones and rockets at Ukraine every day.

> Your credit card number being stolen is a problem for your bank, not a problem for you.

Not necessarily, depending on where you're based.

I would find it quite annoying to get any of those emails.

When I give you my email, it's not because I actually want to hear from you; it's because you've made it the only — or the least shady — way to sign up. I do not want to hear from you or answer your questions, especially before I've decided that I like your product and care about it.

So any such email I immediately mark as junk, and the fact that you sent it to me will go the "cons" column when evaluating your product vs the competitors.

It's a quote from Hamilton, the musical.

I see where billme is coming from. I don't do it here (because I don't comment much, because I mostly use https://hackerweb.app for reading), but I do it on reddit.

Once you've left enough comments, a motivated party has a good chance of identifying you based on the intersection of your (relatively uncommon) interests, various bits and pieces of the personal info that you tend to drop in comments etc.

I don't see a single argument in the article why, conditional on:

1. Me deciding to send a given message

2. Me deciding to use email for that message

... I should send it over an unencrypted email rather than encrypted one.

I see arguments for using other systems like Signal. I see arguments for a false sense of security — i.e. if I didn't assume the email was secure, I'd write a different message.

But, again, for a given message being sent over an email, I just don't see any reason not to encrypt it if it provides at least some protection (and saying it doesn't would probably be too much hyperbole even for latacora). The authors sort of just declare out of nowhere:

> But email cannot promise security, and so shouldn’t pretend to offer it.

And if "pretending" meant rot13, I would agree. But even despite all its flaws, there's a sea of difference between rot13 and PGP. If I can publish the encrypted contents of my email publicly, and not even tptacek can decrypt it, then it's not pretending.

So, what is the downside of encrypting an email compared to not encrypting it? I can't think of any, and apparently the authors can't either, despite trying very hard.

Great, pubmed and other NCBI resources are long due for a redesign.

I also wish they got a shorter url.

> when you're down to guessing it's guaranteed to be safe

Sure. But, in a complex situation, it's rather hard to know whether "you're down to guessing". It seems like there's no more information to be extracted from the board, but you may be wrong. (At least I often am.) That said, you can cheat by pressing "Give me a hint", and it'll tell you whether it's safe to guess.

See also the author's blog post about how he built it: https://pwmarcz.pl/blog/kaboom/

> Spot them all: the URL, the problem, the browser, how many tabs are open on that browser, the fact that this person has an unusual number of Facebook tabs open and probably isn’t overly invested in their job, some other applications that are open, that they leave system credentials in text files on their desktop, the time, the operating system, that they have a serious investment in someone named Alex, and whether the wifi is connected.

And that is precisely why I would crop my screenshot to only the relevant part.

It is done using symbolic algebra, not just assigning specific coordinates if that's what you're asking.

Let's say you're given three parallel lines. You can put your x axis along the first line. Then its equation is y = 0. The other two lines necessarily have equations y = a and y = b for some reals a and b. Then you calculate the other quantities involved via a and b and other parameters you have to introduce. At the end you calculate the coordinates of your three points and verify, symbolically, that they lie on the same line.

It's not different from what pip install or gem install do by default.

A mature Haskell project such as hledger has probably a few hundred of transitive dependencies, so you won't be able to install them individually by hand. You might try to figure whether each of them is packaged by your distribution (unlikely, unless hledger itself is packaged), but that's not a typical path — just don't use make in that case.

Don't compete on the price then. Compete on something else, like the working conditions.

The author describes how they had to drive 50 miles every day, use the corporate laptop (or install shady software on their own one), not get a response for many days. Basically, their rate (and the total cost) covers not just the work they do, but all the frustration that comes with the work.

Now, if you treat your staff better than that — remove all the hurdles, answer their emails promptly etc. ­— then there will be many talented people who'd prefer it over a meaningless-but-highly-paid alternative.

Except that makes it super easy for anyone to fill that void. Someone who you've pissed off could write some trash about you and it would become the #1 result on google.

The article doesn't seem to mention this, but you can already disable popups for notifications in Firefox.

1. Go to Preferences, Privacy & Security

2. Scroll to Permissions > Notifications, click Settings...

3. At the bottom of the dialog window, check Block new requests asking to allow notifications

The permissions already granted will still work.

How are they going to afford the rent and salaries? Besides being very niche, their margins must be very low.

This one answers my question better: https://support.startpage.com/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Artic...

> Why does Google let Startpage access their search results?

> Startpage.com has a contract with Google that allows us to use their official "Syndicated Web Search" feed, so we have to pay them to get those results.

So what is their own business model? Do they show ads? (I disabled adblock but didn't see any.)

Do they have a contract with google? Or how do they get around captchas and cease and desists?

I've long been curious how exactly they determine the "registered domain", and your comment made me finally look for the answer. It looks like they use (and semi-manually maintain) a list of "effective TLDs": https://www.publicsuffix.org/

The maintenance process is described here: https://github.com/publicsuffix/list/wiki/Guidelines

> How many news organizations or writers or blogs or podcasts do you pay for every month?

Honestly, zero. There's just too much great free content. If a podcast I like to listen to or a blog I follow dies because they don't earn enough from it, fine, that'll free up the time to follow something else.

And I say it as someone who has their own blog and podcast and doesn't expect to be paid for it. The fact that someone spends their time listening to what I have to say is a sufficient reward for me.

> The document also discussed how the proposals could be best presented to employees to minimize frustration, according to one of the people. That caused the most anger among some staff after the document was circulated, said this person.

Not leaking this slide deck was rather important to minimize frustration.

Yes, but:

> Create a name and email — neither need to be real — to make this quiz seem more realistic. Don’t worry, this information won’t leave your device.

I'd trust this notice if I knew it came from Google, but since it was placed on a phishy-looking website, it really gave me pause.

To counter some of the comments here, I absolutely loved the book and went on to recommend it to all my scientist friends. While it may get a bit technical for the lay audience, it should be within reach for a typical scientist or IT person. I wish our society had a better understanding of causality—that would raise the level of many important discussions.

Being a long-time fan of Gelman (and having studied his Bayesian Data Analysis textbook), I am baffled and disappointed that he doesn't seem to understand Pearl's ideas. In his linked 2009 post[1], he wrote: "I’ve never been able to understand Pearl’s notation: notions such as a “collider of an M-structure” remain completely opaque to me." I wonder if, after reading this book accessible even to non-statisticans, he still doesn't understand it.

[1]: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2009/07/05/disputes_a...

I can see why you abandoned it, but I enjoyed the audiobook. It helped that I had a little bit of prior exposition to the subject, and there were quite a few places where I had to pause and wait until I can sit down with pen and paper and reproduce what Pearl was saying. But on the plus side, I finished the audiobook in under two months, whereas it'd take me ages to find the time to finish reading it on paper/kindle.

All this is to say, it was probably a mistake for the publisher to order the narration, but I am really glad they did.

pandoc can do pdfs too (via beamer)

Note: it's a gene expression pattern. It's not like there's a monogamy gene that you have or don't have; rather there are genes that are more active in monogamous species (or vice versa).

So it won't show up on your 23andme test. It's a completely different type of analysis called RNA-seq, and in order to perform it they had to obtain actual brain tissue samples (not blood or saliva), because gene expression is different in every tissue.

> If I only used grep, i would have to move my cursor which can get pretty annoying with a long file path.

You can also do it like this:

    < myfile grep mypattern