I will not, beginners who want to build a web app should start with JS. Until Python is executed client-side as quickly as JS, "fullstack python" is a lie.
I think, in this context, "beginners" refers to new Python programmers who want to use Python to build a web app.
After all, the site's intro clearly states,
"You're knee deep in learning the Python programming language...Now you want to take your initial Python knowledge and make something real. A real web application that's available on the web"
I started with Flask because I knew some Python. I just moved to node.js / Meteor. I wish I had started with the latter. I wish someone had told me "Python is nice, I understand that you're enjoying it right now, but learn these JS web frameworks." Anything else is a real disservice to beginners.
This is just plain wrong to force someone with your new hype and vague idea of how a web application should be developed using only your new hipster framework of choice and nothing else.
There are tons of way you can write a web application, that's why open source is cool, chose the one that pleases you and have fun with it, but stop trying to prevent others using anything else but what you judge to be the best.
I'm the complete opposite you are entitled to your own opinion but I started with node.js / Meteor, I moved to Flask, and learned Python, and I've never looked back.
I have strong opinion (you might disagree with me) that Javascript should stay in the browser, like it was designed for, and inherited to browsers to this very day.
Javascript is not a beginner-friendly language, though lots of beginners manage to create things with it. It has quite a few rough edges and teaching Javascript can be rather annoying.
When a single PC circa 2014 is more powerful than the entire world's combined computing power circa 1990, and a smartphone is as powerful as an XBox, it's probably suboptimal to worry about execution performance. Generally, it's best to wait until a profiler indicates there's a performance problem before changing your coding habits.
I use GPGTools when sending sensitive client information, to avoid situations like this.
GS has zero excuses, they could very easily code a Microsoft Outlook version of it that is seamlessly integrated. Instead they fail at proper risk management and rely on government intervention, sound familiar?
Do you also use encryption when sending information internally to a colleague? That's the situation here: it was an internal email accidentally sent to GMail instead of Goldman Sachs.
I would be extremely surprised if GS didn't have a system like other investment banks that popped up an ugly and obvious "you are sending an external e-mail. Are you sure?" dialog when sending to non-internal e-mail addresses.
I've worked for two of GS's competitors. Any email with confidential information (internal or external) has to be encrypted and signed. Standard operating procedure. I assume it is at GS too and this fella, like most folks on the investment side, just didn't give a hoot about the SOP.
Some firms have email triggers that tell you when you're sending something outside the firm to minimize those accidents (and to make the employee carelessness associated with any remaining accidents clearer).
Not sure why this was downvoted. If you're in an outlook/exchange integrated environment, you only have to click "encrypt/sign this". It's almost transparent to the user and in addition it would raise an error for the original sender. (saying the key for user blah@gmail.com cannot be found)
And how would it help to automatically encrypt internal e-mails when an e-mail accidentally gets an external delivery address because someone fat-fingers?
You can set up the encryption so that it requires a verified public key. If you mistype an address, you won't have their public key, and can't encrypt the message to them.
Yes, I understand (on a superficial "don't actually use it on a day-to-day basis, but have encrypted e-mails before" level)
I am imagining this program that looks through your To: field for recipients in your address book that have shared their public key with you. If it finds any, those people get a copy sent to them which is encrypted and only they can read...
Now what happens if you accidentally try to send mail to someone not in your address book?
I guess hopefully you get a big popup that says "Warning: mail will not be encrypted!" Maybe not?
I've used the command-line tools to encrypt files and send encrypted attachments. It's nothing like "automatic" and it's certainly not an envelope for the whole message.
Nope, that's not the core issue. The core issue is what constitutes an "imminent threat".
If they are not an imminent threat then there is existing international and domestic laws that should be followed (i.e. arrest, extradition, trial, evidence, lawyers, etc).
If they are an imminent threat then there is existing international and domestic laws that should be followed (i.e. it's ok to shoot and kill someone who is trying to light your house on fire - it should be ok to drone them too).
The whole citizen/noncitizen debate was a rhetorical construct created by Rand Paul to show the moral outrage that is droning someone who is not an imminent threat.
"Taxi drivers protesting Uber aren’t saying that they want apps out of their cabs. They want leverage to negotiate wages and working conditions so they aren’t barely scraping by. The pushback is on exploitative business models, not technology."
I have been on the receiving end of exploitative business models. The answer is Exit, not Voice. Here's why: enough people exit -> wages go up and/or working conditions improve. Period. Yes, it's that simple. The problem is that we are creatures of habit, driving around is a relatively easy job, and the self-awareness necessary to change is scarce.
But wait, survival of the fittest and I don't give a shit. I really don't. These taxi/uber drivers will be replaced by driverless cars. We need a government program to retrain these people and employ them, just like we had for farmers and factory workers. Or not. Seeing people try to fend for themselves is more interesting than seeing them do make-work in a federal building - who knows, they might actually adapt, thrive, and makes something of themselves.
Or they get a gun and start robbing you and kidnapping your kids for ransom.
When people can't eat, they get desperate. When enough people can't eat... well, let's just say Egypt's government didn't fall because people wanted freedom.
Ehrm, no, obviously not. A marketing intern can be more productive than an engineering intern and make 1/2 as much. It's determined by supply and demand, nothing else.
"University endowments are all about good returns so no way."
You mean low volatility right? Because Bitcoin has had high returns and high Sharpe ratio (i.e. return compensated for volatility more than most investments), which is good, not bad.
Care to also post links to scientific evidence next to the reddit? Sure it has information, but from a quick glance it's information without much science/proof to back it up, from people who are already convinced. I think way more is needed to convince the rather critical spirits on HN :)
AFAIK, there are several experimental results supporting low carb diets, but all are refutable, as in someone can always come up with a counter-argument. Robert Lustig and his "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" lecture (available on youtube) is probably currently the best-supported argument.
There's an initiative called the "Nutrition Science Initiative" (nusi.org) that apparently attempts to put an end to the debate with irrefutable research, which will finally convince everyone one way or the other. They seem to be still in the early stages.
ultra-low to no carb on a daily basis has severe issues with it as well. Things like carb-cycling, or low (but not ultra-low) attempt to address those issues.
The main points being (1) brain needs glucose, can't fuel any other way (2) glucose is needed for maximum muscle response so if you are fit/athletic in any way you can be short-changing your performance if you have no glycogen stores to tap for "burst fuel"
Not so: the brain can be fueled by ketone bodies, which the liver can create from fat.
P.S. I agree with your larger point that avoiding all carbs for many days at a time should only be done by people who have informed themselves of the risks (acidosis and kidney stones).
What did humans do before large numbers of carbs were widely available? Die of kidney stones? Or perhaps this is because modern people have become accustomed to them being available?
If you are "tapping for burst fuel" why are you worrying about your diet (apart from the sensible am I having good things enough worry...) Surely these diets are aimed at people who need to loose >10% of body weight ?
