I'm in Europe too and at least obvious finance scams turn up on Instagram pretty regularly ("completely safe" investments with astronomical returns if you invest at least ~$10k, etc ...)
Maybe. But why should someone take the time to build a technolgoy intentionally without a practical use? With the same effort one can build a useful language, even adding new ideas that will advance development, which is also fun. But actually concluding from the article it seems the author was rather serious about his language; there is no indication he considered it not practical. But unfortunately there is no rationale or reference use case.
EDIT: I cannot believe my top comment was flagged. So have we already reached the point on HN where you are no longer even allowed to ask about the purpose of something or express an opinion?
Your definition of usefulness and mine differ. What you find useful, I find contrived. What I find useful, you find dull. The author was indeed serious about it, in the fact that it's a thing you can play with. Brainfuck doesn't need usefulness to exist. Typescript either. It doesn't always have to be advancing the art of programming. I'd say these fun projects advance the art of mankind.
Someone will attempt a Mozart-themed binary sort. It will cause them to either have profound insight into Mozart, or profound insight into programming. Possibly both. Paving the way for the next SoundCloud. You never know. Not everything seems as useless on the surface.
For the same effort you put into any piece of art, you could always do something more economical, and yet lots of people take their art very seriously.
It's a piece of technology, and it has function. It just hasn't an obvious use case. If someone publishes a programming language, usually they provide examples and a descripton on the purpose of the language, or in which way it improves over other existing languages. It doesnt make any sence to publish a technology which has no obvious use case without any explanation of its intended purpose.
Nobody is obligated to "advance development". Also many innovative ideas come from projects that are done without the expectation to get value out of it.
> it seems the author was rather serious about his language
You kind of have to be serious about something in order to invest many hours into creating and finishing it. It can still be fun.
I'm not the author. I thought you were asking the people of HN since you asked here rather than emailing the author. I've been interested in the esoteric programming language scene since 2009 and in my experience most of the work is done for the joy of it, and the joy of exploring intellectual curiosity. It's true that the author here could be an exception but, as I say, you should contact them directly if it's very important that you understand their motivation.
Well, it's posted here by someone for some reason. I didn't search for it, but was curious what the purpuse is of this idea, since I have a lot to do with MIDI, algorithmic composition and programming languages.
As absurd as it is, Apple forcing people to use Webkit/Safari is, at the moment, good for the browser landscape. You already have websites that say browsers that aren't chromium aren't supported, if iOS didn't force Safari on people this would be way more common as people would flock to chrome and websites decide it isn't worth it to support other browsers.
I use Firefox on my non-work machines ... in an ideal world, enough people would do that to prevent the "best in Internet Explorer" web of the dark ages, but I'll take getting forced to use Webkit on my phone over that, even if I'd prefer a "true" Firefox.
> You already have websites that say browsers that aren't chromium aren't supported
Is Webkit really so far diverged from Blink that the rendering result is different? I realize that Webkit doesn't support a bunch of stuff that Google pushed into Blink (like Web bluetooth, for instance), but I thought the end result wasn't that different.
Blink was forked 12 years ago, and the size of the team behind Chrome is probably at least ten times the size of the team behind Safari. So yes, there are major differences between two, and it's not just additional advanced APIs like Web Bluetooth. WebKit is lagging behind in all areas and ridden with bugs.
I doubt it's "at least 10 times the size" and probably somewhere closer to 5X tops with a 2X core that's the realistic measure since those are the non-rotating folks with real expertise who make things go. That team is probably about the same size as Mozilla's which is also non-rotating.
There are enough weird divergences to make targeting iOS annoying. Off the top of my head I can recall that Safari PWAs can't get callbacks from pages spawned in a new window. Things have a tendency to fail in strange and unexpected ways.
Worse yet, many people have older iPhones with outdated Safari. You can't tell them to just install another browser, because under the hood Apple mandates that all other browsers are still the same outdated Safari engine.
If you want to track these issues down, you need to invest in an Apple based set up. You can't run Safari outside of the Apple ecosystem to track these issues down. It is bad enough that people are now offering pay as you go Safari instances for testing. Apple gatekeeps, Apple invents problems and developers are stuck with the bag.
Apple banning browser engines is what has prevented the web from becoming relevant on mobile, and the reason why browsers like Firefox cannot distinguish themselves from Safari and end up becoming irrelevant.
So no, it is not in anyway good for the browser landscape or the web, it only serves the interest of one company: Apple.
Look at some overall browser/os usage stats and say again that the web isn't relevant on mobile, and look at browser usage stats for desktop and android and claim again that firefox would have a relevant market share on ios if browser choice was free. Those claims seem pretty disconnected from reality.
Big employers (at least the ones I know) aren't regarding work, I guess with smaller ones it maybe is, especially with BYOD?
I think the issue probably isn't uncommon for freelancers/contractors too.
Hobby and personal stuff I think a lot of people mix, I don't use the machine where I do bank/tax/etc stuff for hobby work, but I'm not sure that's common.
> We expanded the M1 money supply from $4T to $18T and largely handed it out in a diffuse way.
This is often quoted and either comes out of ignorance or is intentionally misleading. Assuming it's the former, M1 in the US is not a good measure over the time span you are quoting, because there has been an accounting change that significantly expands of what kind of accounts are considered to be in M1.
Agreed, but this is such a red flag that a commenter is not thinking critically. Do they really think we quadrupled the money supply in a short time? And the only effect was 10% inflation? Usually that would disprove all of their other assumptions about the relationship between the money printer and inflation.
Fortunately, the result was "asset inflation", i.e. most of that money went to stock market raising stock prices. That's why consumer goods inflation was so low.
This is false, and is explained by the block of text below that chart. The definition of M1 was changed. Notice the addition of savings and money market accounts.
Thank you for demonstrating the lack of critical thinking I was describing.
> Before May 2020, M1 consists of (1) currency outside the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve Banks, and the vaults of depository institutions; (2) demand deposits at commercial banks (excluding those amounts held by depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign banks and official institutions) less cash items in the process of collection and Federal Reserve float; and (3) other checkable deposits (OCDs), consisting of negotiable order of withdrawal, or NOW, and automatic transfer service, or ATS, accounts at depository institutions, share draft accounts at credit unions, and demand deposits at thrift institutions.
> Beginning May 2020, M1 consists of (1) currency outside the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve Banks, and the vaults of depository institutions; (2) demand deposits at commercial banks (excluding those amounts held by depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign banks and official institutions) less cash items in the process of collection and Federal Reserve float; and (3) other liquid deposits, consisting of OCDs and savings deposits (including money market deposit accounts). Seasonally adjusted M1 is constructed by summing currency, demand deposits, and OCDs (before May 2020) or other liquid deposits (beginning May 2020), each seasonally adjusted separately.
That is a questionable statement, as there were phones with removable batteries and phones without them on the market for quite some time and the phones with removable batteries were simply not successful enough.
That is not the only time you use passwords over ssh, e.g. I don't use a password to remote into my desktop from my laptop, but I do use one when using sudo on the desktop.
Actually this is something that is relevant to my interests.
I prefer to have sudo ask for a password when I'm physically in front of the machine, but not if it's a remote session (e.g. SSH from my laptop to my desktop).
Maybe the SSH agent on the client can re-authenticate to the server when requested?
Note that this is a bad idea from the security standpoint, as it requires SSH agent forwarding. Which means that, if the remote server is compromised, the attacker can use your SSH agent to log into other servers as you.
I was talking about the GPG agent, so that the key on the smart card can be used to for sudo elevation on the remote host. This usually requires user interaction with the key, so just having access to the agent wouldn't do much. I don't think the ssh agent would help with this.
To your point, I wonder whether that consideration holds when the private key is held on an external device, like is the case with a YubiKey. I use that setup, and I can't add the key to the ssh agent.
$ ssh-add .ssh/id_yubikey_gpg.pub
Error loading key ".ssh/id_yubikey_gpg.pub": error in libcrypto
Don't these apps just use PAM? Since the initial complaint was about sudo, I'd figure pam / polkit would handle this, and apps would call those to obtain privilege elevation.
FWIW, you can probably configure sudo to use something other than passwords. On a Mac you can use the fingerprint reader for example, it's just disabled by default.
And your terminal may come with a password manager too, which would be unlocked with whatever means.
Again, on a Mac with iTerm you can do this with a fingerprint.
If the company is big enough (e.g. not using whatsapp is not an option for a lot of people), or if the app comes from a state that can force you to install it by law, yes it can be.
As opposed to Apple being big enough that they can bully developers into both building for their platform and distributing through the channels they christen?
Don’t worry, you can bet Apple is going to make sideloading as awkward as possible within the bounds of the law. It’s not like Apple woke up one day and decided they don’t like money. It will only be useful for hobbyists.
If you own the rights to software, you previously releasing something under the GPL does not mean you have to make derived versions of the thing you released under the GPL available under the GPL too. If you take someone else's code under the terms of the GPL you have to do that, but that does not seem to have happened here.
It only assumes that there were no copyrightable contributions that weren't replaced as before the license change. Not all code changes meet the criteria for copyright.
