Wow, the blog post was really well-written, containing lots of interesting points for non-physicists interested in learning quantum mechanics, and the game seems fun. And on HN the author encounters a bunch of dreary know-it-alls going on about how they don't like java applets for some reason (apparently it upsets their anal notions of security in their little laptop world.) Just open it in firefox, it works fine.
I accidentally had appletviewer.exe it from the JDK, however the applet is served over http. I do appreciate this because I'd accidentally turned off HTTPS Everywhere and hadn't noticed (in weeks I suppose).
I think I'm not the target audience, I hope OP finds some good physicists to show this to :)
I'm probably using the most aggressive blocking setup possible, though: I have a bunch of filter lists, I don't ever make exceptions to them, and instead deny all scripts and 3rd party resources, then graylist by hand (using the matrix).
Wouldn't really recommend this article, read this article by PG instead: http://paulgraham.com/ds.html ("Do Things that Don't Scale"). The PG article is a lot longer and has more substance.
I regret taking the time to unblock them in uBlock; had to unblock 3 domains just to get anything but a blank page, and usually it's just the one domain.
The link you posted is indeed a MITM proxy for SSL, but it will generate certificate errors, as my grandparent said. Users will know the MITM attack is going on (unless the website doesn't use HSTS and the attacker has stolen/bought a signing key from a CA registered in your device's trust store).
I'm proposing we write a simple canary spec, for canaries that are both human and machine readable. A format could be, for instance:
* canary.txt in the root of the site.
* Optional text introduction, describing the canary's purpose, the way rsync.com does.
* PGP signed message with expiration date; content optional.
* Replaced by either a 404 or a 451, the 451 for those who want to be more explicit and like to live dangerously.
You probably shouldn't state you're compliant with the spec if you implement it.
.
I'm personally very willing to run a replacement canary watch, I'll see what I can set up over the weekend. I'm thinking of writing it in PHP, so it's easy to copy for others.
I'm thinking it'd be nice to couple it with a spider that automatically indexes these canaries, and to also have captcha'd "add your own" option.
Could anyone point me to a guide to setting up a HN-proof PHP server?
It didn't work for me at all; the red dot never appeared on my screen, though the face-outline in the preview image did fit my face quite well (when it wasn't detecting my chin as my mouth).
Hi, one of the authors here. It was probably not very clear on our part, but it's meant to train the eye tracking model as naturally you use the website. So it takes advantage of your interactions over time, like if you're using Gmail.
So if you're doing the demo on the blank page, click in a couple of places around the screen (while looking there as you would normally), and you should start seeing the prediction.
What if you make your core competence as a programmer "gaining steady footing in new tech", along with basic like code structuring, version control and some automation (CI/testing etc.)?
That way you might not become "the greatest X86 assembly programmer" or whatever niche you like, but you might become a very proficient system integrator, which is useful in its own right.
Oh, that's me. I'm a mile wide and an inch deep. So I can do a lot of things, most of them not very well. My niche friends are much better than I am at anything I can do, but I can do a lot more things.
It's worked out kind of weird, pushing me (after a long career) into being a founder, and building a tool for generalizing common problems in systems integration. :) My desire to wear lots of hats finally works! But really? I'm more or less a specialist at being a generalist. And I've learned not to chase shiny new tools, because they're very distracting.
I'm the same way! I try to get good at something, and then immediately move on. I am the best at nothing, and better than almost no one. But I am the only person I know that can write code, swordfight, surf, use a ham radio, play a handful of instruments, build things out of electronics, draw and paint, shoot, blacksmith, and blow glass (all at the same time -- just kidding)! I make myself very happy by being able to try something and then practicing until I get "good" in my own opinion. It's absolutely true that up against pros I am pretty terrible! I have also come to understand over the years that this is a byproduct of having a hacker mentality. I am loathe to use that word in reference to anything I am or anything I do, but that's just what I see. Hackers are curious creatures, and so it follows that they can do a lot of things.
It's often really hard to judge how skilled you are at something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect is overblown, but being able to say do a crappy weld in 4 hours that a competent person can do better in 15 minutes is often just dangerous. Many a handyman has caused 20,000+$ worth of damages or gotten someone injured.
That said, hobbies don't need to be productive and half assing something is often good enough. Yes, a simple wedge doorstop may damage the door, but well sometimes that's just not an issue.
This is the direction I try to take. Every time I hear about a new technology I go and read the basics of it and try to understand where I might use it. Then when an opportunity comes up, I investigate and see if it's truly applicable and worth learning. In my experience, trying to dive right in to something you don't have a relatively immediate use for tends to produce a lot of wasted time and make learning slower and harder given the lack of direction.
My suspicion is that the answer is "learning isn't doing".
These are two different functional modes. The mastery of acting without conscious thought is very hard to attain. See also flow (Cziczentmihaly) and related topics.
Learning incrementally can help, and I'd structured my own career such that I was doing that. I ultimately opted out of it when that stopped being an option. I was simply spending all my time catching up, and not finding myself (nor, to a very large extent, any of my peers) actually proficient with the New Hawtness.
I've been in the industry 20+ years. The only technologies I've used consistently are Unix, and relational databases. The languages I work with, the frameworks, all of that stuff is new since I started, long ago. So yes, you have to keep learning.
But that doesn't mean you have to live on the bleeding edge, either! A tech that is proven out, used widely and stable, that's worth investing time to learn. In Crossing the Chasm terms (great book on marketing!), you need to learn early majority tech, not early adopter tech. You can be an early adopter for kicks, of course, but don't pretend it's to be more valuable.
Fair point, though many of the tools I've used tended toward evolutionary development. Came a point a bunch of stuff was being binned and/or wall-flung pasta-style.
Maybe you just aren't very good at picking languages? No offense but I have been using C, C++, C#, Python, and JavaScript for what - almost 15-20 years now?
More I hop jobs a lot. I was using C at the beginning of my career. Lately, I'm using C again (and more importantly, using arcane C skills that no one has anymore, doing a 32-64 bit port). I picked up Java in 2001. I've done a fair bit of Ruby, too. Doing Python in the current gig, which is mostly new to me but trivial to learn.
The point is, I haven't had to deal with C for a long time. It's odd to be doing it again.
The problem is you get stuck as a Junior developer in skill set if not job role. We regularly get collage interns who can often get productive in new technology in around 2 weeks of effort just like senior developers. It's the curse of specialization that the more people who can and will do something the less that thing pays.
It is pretty expensive for the amount of performance you get, but you are getting a fully documented, auditable and free product. It comes with instructions on how to update/build/flash/modify your firmware. You're also supporting the Libreboot project.
The model I got has 8gb ram, 240gb SSD, 1tb HDD, Core2Duo processor, and is upgradeable to a Core2Quad.
However, I'm strongly considering just keeping it as a backup. To me it represents the best possible backup computer, durable and auditable.
It's backup for when my current computer breaks down, but also for when new sinister surveillance and encryption laws are passed. Or for when the web turns into even more of a wild-west with hackers and nation-states doing whatever they feel like.
I kinda feel like it was a bad idea to even discuss my ordering of this on a non-throwaway, from an IP vaguely linked to me.
.
That went kinda dark. Guess I haven't been taking enough Soma.
I have never used the T400, but I am writing this comment on the similar X200 with Libreboot. It's a great little machine for basic tasks like coding and writing.
An atheist doesn't believe in the existence of god(s); a theist is the opposite and believes in the existence of god(s). The difference lies in lack of faith v. faith.
An agnostic believes it's not possible to be sure whether one or more gods exist.
Combinations are possibly; an agnostic theist believes in the existence of gods, but also thinks it's impossible to be sure.
There are also apathetic agnostics; they don't know nor care whether one or more gods exist. This usually seems to go with atheism.
I suppose there should also be a word like nontheists; those who have faith in the non-existence of gods.
>Rather, an atheist believes in the non-existence of gods. We don't need a word like non-theist because we already have a word for it.
No. That would be a gnostic atheist. One who claims to know and doesn't believe.
Nearly every single atheist I know, and it is generally a safe assumption to make [0], is an agnostic atheist. One who doesn't believe but claims to not know for sure.
If you ask me if gnomes exist, I will tell you I am a gnostic atheist. I am certain in my knowledge that gnomes do not exist, and thus I have no reason to believe in them. If you ask me if god(s) exists, I will tell you I am an agnostic atheist. I am uncertain in my knowledge that a god does or does not exist, but I have no reason to believe that one does.
And yes - there can be agnostic theists too! Although they are the minority as most theists claim to "know" and that knowledge is why they believe. So theists are assumed to be gnostic theists unless they state otherwise. My grandmother is the only person I've ever known to claim to be an agnostic theist. She claims to not know but finds comfort in believing. She doesn't follow any major world religion and her god is not a god of any scripture.
[0] It's the vast majority and so "agnostic" is usually superfluous and unnecessary in conversation. I only ever see it brought up when a theist tries to claim the Atheist is really just a Theist who "believes in some opposite thing". Then the difference has to be pointed out like I've done in this post.
If you ask me if gnomes exist, I will tell you I am a gnostic atheist
gnostic agnomist, I presume?
As for the rest, sorry, I don't subscribe to Smith's redefinitions as I'm not sure the distinctions make practical sense. More specifically, I don't support the definition of "agnostic theist" because in the context of religion, there is no distinction between "knowing" and "believing". An "agnostic theist" would be someone who still subscribes to the same religious identity and the distinction is therefore purely academic. Moreover, religions already have words to describe agnostics within their ranks: they're considered lost sheep, apostates or even heretics (depending on which religion and strength of its convictions).
Finally: the term "gnostic" has already been coined and does not mean the opposite of "agnostic". Gnosticism is a theist philosophy closely related to Christianity.
I have never known a self-proclaimed atheist to actually say as much. This is purely a line toted about by those who wish to paint "atheists" in a certain light ("they're just as irrational as we!").
Then again, do you know many Christians who explicitly signal their beliefs like that? I think they're much more likely to say "Jesus is the son of God" than "I believe Jesus is the son of God".
It's rather uncommon for any follower of faith to preface their beliefs with "I believe". If they preface them at all, they're much more likely to use "I know", or "$authority says".
>99% of atheists would choose the latter as better representing their personal stance on the matter. Further, almost all would additionally agree that if there were evidence for God's existence, they would believe.
The concept of "faith" is not one that resonates with atheists. Christians however, love to pretend that disbelieving requires just as much magical thinking as believing, and this is a classic example.
