I'm in the same boat you are. I'm considering alternatives to Lastpass, mostly because the client has gotten worse over the past few years (since they were picked up by LogMeIn). I don't mind price hikes, but I don't feel as if I've gotten a commensurate increase in the utility or smoothness of the application (though I've certainly noticed an uptick in bugs).
My big thing is the integration of the Yubikey, which is almost mandatory. Bitwarden has this, but their recent security assessment had a showstopper, as far as I'm, concerned:
'BWN-01-010 – Changing the master password does not change encryption keys'
> An option to rotate the encryption key and mac key has been added to the change password operation. Rotating the keys will generate new, random key values and re-encrypt all vault data with these new keys.
Thanks for that. Some of the news sites I had been reading had neglected to mention this (and to be fair, I neglected to catch it) this, and I could swear some had reported that Bitwarden had claimed that this was a difficult issue to solve, and would likely not be implementing it in the near future. Information overload, I guess.
To add context, the original awarded amount was calculated to be the revenue of a single day of coffee sales for McDonald's. Stella Liebeck had originally sued for ~$50,000, to cover the cost of her medical bills, which McDonald's refused to do. Additionally, the award was calculated at that amount as a punitive measure, because McDonald's had received hundreds of complaints from customers of the coffee being too hot, which it summarily ignored. The coffee had been a problem; McDonald's just didn't care.
Unfortunately, the lawsuit, and the seemingly 'ridiculous-at-first-glance' nature of the headlines surrounding it, was used by several companies to push for specific tort reforms, which were mostly to the detriment of the average public.
There's more to this than "Dumbass sues company because hot coffee was hot".
McDonalds had received a few hundred complaints out of 10 billion cups of coffee served. The temperature of the coffee was not a problem; it was, and still is, the temperature at which all good coffee shops and restaurants serve coffee, including McDonalds. If you go get coffee at McDonalds (or Starbucks or pretty much anywhere else) it will be served to you at around 80 deg C, and sometimes even higher. This temperature is recommended by professional coffee associations [1], and it's the temperature at which any decent coffee machines holds your coffee.
It sucks that Stella Liebeck was injured. Nobody deserves that. But she was burned because she squeezed a cup of hot coffee between her legs while she messed with the lid. This is, by any reasonable criteria, an abuse of the product, and protecting a few people from such foolish choices would mean depriving everyone else of decent coffee. Fortunately that hasn't happened yet.
Forgive any ignorance on my part; I'm not a dev, just a lurker with a moderately above average familiarity with tech.
I mostly type with 6 - 8 fingers, with my attention split 50/50 between the keyboard and the screen. I can type around 50 wpm, more or less, though I probably average around 30. While I'll concede that typing faster would be a boon, how much faster can one realistically type before they start to outrun their inner voice? When I'm typing up emails or narrative reports for work, I regularly stop and consider what I'm going to write, with frequent revisions. Typing papers is just as start/stop, if not worse. I can think at a certain speed, but having my hands go much faster than that seems like wasted effort. What am I missing? Is it simply a RSI (repetitive strain injury; had to look it up) thing? I can see the obvious benefit if you do a lot of transcribing, but beyond that...I'm not entirely sure. Might someone help me out?
When I'm troubleshooting/explaining something over an IM chat, I'd estimate my inner voice is doing at least 200wpm. The faster I can type, then, the better. (Since I highly doubt I'll ever make it to 200wpm.)
I've noticed the similarity between speech writing/delivery and comedy as well, and find it quite fascinating.
The really compelling bit for me is watching a skilled comedian get a feel for the crowd. It's easier to spot with a comic you've seen more than once, but you can see this with others as well once you know to look - you'll see them go into a routine, and for some reason the jokes just aren't hitting with the expected force (the crowd seems into it from my perspective, but what do I know?). They'll then almost seamlessly pivot into another completely different bit, and NOW it almost audibly clicks, and the audience just swells and starts laughing with their whole being. It's difficult to describe, considering that much of it is a feeling in the air. An off-the-top example...a comic is doing political material, and it's not being totally received, so they'll segue into sex material, and it pops with this crowd, so they'll continue from there. Considering that even within the same town, an 8:00 crowd and an 11:00 crowd may differ wildly in their tastes, to the point where the 8 crowd wants politics, and the 11 crowd wants sex. Geography plays a factor, too. It's an incredibly complex skill to master, and generally takes several years of road work to get down. Some of the hardcore touring comics are on the road for 250 - 300 days a year, which is insane to me.
It's easier to get a feel for these moments if you watch a lot of amateur comedy (not open mic beginners, though, as that's another beast), where the comedians are working on material or honing their chops - they're not as skilled as the headliners, usually, in mastering the pivot, so you see them successfully feel out the crowd dynamic, but not necessarily execute completely, so the struggle is much more obvious.
It's incredibly difficult work. Weeks of writing and 20 pages of notes might lead to 3 minutes of actual, usable material (likely less), if you're lucky. All respect to these professionals.
I'm not entirely certain you need to go that far. My issue is that most trailers, especially the ~two minute ones, show the majority of the story arc, and either contain spoilers, or hint heavily at those spoilers. That removes dramatic tension and any desire for me to watch.
A made up example, but I've seen similar: let's take an ensemble superhero action piece. You see a clip of a scene in the trailer where superhero A is in mortal peril, set against a desert backdrop. Compelling, but when I see the movie in theaters, there's an action set piece where superheroes A and B are fighting against villains C and D. B is temporarily incapacitated, and it looks like C and D have the drop on A. Unfortunately, this fight has an ocean backdrop. As such, all dramatic tension is gone, since I know A makes it to a desert I haven't seen yet.
I've had some success making a strict rule of watching only teasers (~30 seconds), or the first 30 seconds of a normal trailer, where they have time to set up the basics, but not enough to ruin anything. If I'm at a movie, I'll just close my eyes after that point, since I can't fast forward, and removing visuals is usually enough.
> You see a clip of a scene in the trailer where superhero A is in mortal peril, set against a desert backdrop. Compelling, but when I see the movie in theaters, there's an action set piece where superheroes A and B are fighting against villains C and D. B is temporarily incapacitated, and it looks like C and D have the drop on A. Unfortunately, this fight has an ocean backdrop. As such, all dramatic tension is gone, since I know A makes it to a desert I haven't seen yet.
I don't follow your logic. You already know A makes it out OK, because it's a superhero movie. Why doesn't that ruin the dramatic tension equally?
That's never how it works, though. Instead of offering a cheaper TV, they will instead offer a TV priced at what they can sell it for, and make money on the data sale as well. If they WERE to increase the price in exchange for not selling the data, someone would likely ask them why they weren't selling the data anyway, along with the price increase, if sales weren't negatively affected. To not do so would be leaving the money on the table, theoretically. The safest thing to do would be to not have the data at all, avoiding the temptation to sell.
I don't like not having an option either, but that's not a good argument since what they can sell it for is really what number of sales at what price. Presumably they would sell fewer at a higher, non-ad-subsidized price.
GP argues that they have no incentive to offer a non-ad-subsidized TV at a higher price, because consumers will for the large part not notice ad-(preference-)subsidization or otherwise consider it a factor in the decision to buy such a TV.
> Why is the campus divided by a highway to begin with?? But that's neither here nor there.
That's probably more circumstance than anything else. The area immediately north of the campus has a lot of residential housing, attractive to both students and employees, moreso because Miami's public transit is gawdawful; if you can walk to school/work, avoiding the traffic, that's a bonus.
Additionally, the campus wasn't always the behemoth it is now. The highway they speak of is SW 8th Street, or Tamiami Trail, if memory serves. It's a main road in the area The campus was always adjacent, but only semi-recently has it begun to truly crowd the road, likely a byproduct of all the insane construction going on in the school. FIU is far from the only school spending ridiculous money on infrastructure. The school was never really plopped down next to a major highway...they both just grew, and city planning has never been the area's strong point.
There are multiple positive and negative reports on Uber's financials in several publications, but the one(s) I've found most convincing are those put forth by Hubert Horan. He's written a 14+ part series [1] on both the financials and the general reporting surrounding Uber, along with an academic paper [2]. He makes compelling points, and is pretty damn thorough.
It's impossible to know for sure, but it may have swayed his decision.
I thought those were interesting articles (that coincide with my own heavy skepticism towards uber), but see you got heavily downvoted. Are you aware of/have links to criticisms of Horan?
Hubert has been wrong since the beginning, he’s never had detailed enough financials to support his wild conclusions. Buffets offerto invest is just more proof of how wrong the naked capitalism series has been.
Can you link to any rebuttals of Horan's argument? I found his articles to be pretty convincing, but am open to reading the other side.
I'm not a finance person, but it seems like how Buffett wanted to hedge his investment would mean that he isn't so rosy on Uber that he's willing to go in without guarantees.
The available financials (read them) don’t allow backing out Uber’s cost if investing in side businesses, or international customer acquisition costs, or per market profitability. Yet he made bold claims in all those areas.
>The company as whole will never say anything positive or negative for fear of legal reprisal.
It may depend on the field, yes, but this doesn't reflect what I've seen. From my view, unless you're on the lowest rungs of a monster field like retail, most fields tend to be small, and get smaller the longer you're in, as you're transitioning to being a long-timer. People know each other, and people talk. Even if the company itself will never say anything positive or negative, the people within talk to each other. It's incredibly easy to reach out on 'unofficial channels' to find some bits of information, and suddenly, a promising prospect never pans out. As for legal liability, all you know is that you were never hired; if you're lucky, you get a 'we found a more suitable candidate.' As far as liability is concerned, it's easy to sidestep.
That's a rather understated way of saying "She'll fly herself apart!"
I should be working, but your comment was enthralling.