> This is nonsense. I am very familiar with web browsers. Javascript is standardized as ECMAScript:
As I said, it is standardized as SQL is "standardized", but every browser implements their own flavor just like every database server. You aren't familiar with anything. That much is obvious.
> You're off your rocker.
It's funny how my comments are flagged but not yours when you've been spouting nonsense.
> Here is a direct quote from your comment:
That's right. It's a bit late to tell users to stop using bash. What's so confusing about that? My point is that a "strong use case" has to be introduced, not telling people to switch? Once again, if you learned to read rather than fanboying, you would have caught onto it. My point is that telling people to change isn't going to work when something is established. There has to be a serious use case to incentivize people to switch. Okay? No different than switching to powershell from cmd in windows or to python from perl in linux.
>Derp, I meant K&R C or pre-ANSI C. My mistake.
"Derp"? All your comments were "derp". But this being Hacker news, people providing factual and thorough responses get penalized why people spouting nonsense like "that is whack or "you're off your rocker" doesn't.
Maybe you should learn about C, Javascript, web development, browsers, internet or anything before spouting nonsense. Okay? And maybe you learned to read rather than jumping to conclusions. Because every single response of yours has been a result of you misreading my comment. Good day.
A german born professor with a thick accent to National Security Advisor and then Secretary of State overnight ( the third most powerful position in government )? How does that happen?
The guy is a war criminal but the media is in love with him.
> Javascript and C are both standardized and the former is the only option when using a web browser.
Javascript isn't the only option. It is the most popular by far and hence the "de facto" language of the web. And javascript certainly isn't "standardized" in the sense you are writing. Do you know anything about web development, browser implementation of javascript and javascript itself? Javascript is no more "standardized" than SQL is standardized. Every RDBMs implements their own flavor of SQL just like browsers do with javascript.
>It's never too late.
Did I say it was too late? Of course I didn't. Maybe if you took a step back from your fanboyism and read...
"It may change in the future, but bash is so entrenched, it's going to take an extraordinary use case for people to move from bash."
> We managed to get people off of ANSI C and there's a similar amount of difference between ANSI C and C89 as there is between bash and sh.
ANSI C and C89 are the same thing. ANSI C is just another name for C89... Sigh...
It's relevant because you want to limit the number of people who have access to your proprietary software. It's pretty straightforward.
> the more likely they will be able to make nefarious use of the stolen code.
The point is to limit the "surface area". There is absolutely no reason for QA to have access to the source code. Giving them access is simply opening up another security vulnerability. It's not even using the code for nefarious purposes. People can sell the code for money.
> and I've personally seen people who have never written production code review someone else's code and find where it didn't match their idea of what it should do.
What? That makes absolutely no sense. Are you talking about tech leads or managers? Who reviews code who has never written code? That's like saying someone who never learned chinese critiquing chinese literature. Makes absolutely no sense.
> I wish it were more common, but it requires both motivation (on the part of domain experts / non-SWEs) and trust (on the part of the tech folks).
It makes no sense to do so. Especially in terms of security. Especially when proprietary software is involved.
It's a bit too late for that. Bash is pretty much the de facto default shell for linux. Telling people not to use bash scripts is like telling web devs not to use javascript or OS devs not to use C.
It may change in the future, but bash is so entrenched, it's going to take an extraordinary use case for people to move from bash.
Of course. Especially when proprietary software/intellectual property is involved.
I don't know of any tech shop that makes the source code available to the QA. QA is normally a "black box" operation. It exists to test/use the software as your client/user would. So QA just tests the software/app and then signs off on it or if there is an error, they update the bug tracker and assign it to the relevant dev.
> I feel like the decline of traditional television is behind a lot of the push to destroy net neutrality.
It's the decline of TV, news and traditional media in general. Look at what the news industry has been able to do against social media/tech companies. Brow beat them into serving as spammers for their own news content so that news companies can make more money. The same thing is happening with TV. Youtube is now spamming traditional tv content at the expense of regular youtube content. I used to get variety of recommendations from programming to sports to "trending comedy". Now I get recommendations for things I've never watched on youtube - John Oliver, Late Night Shows, Saturday Night Live, CNN, etc.
They couldn't compete in the new internet/social media environment, so traditional media is forcing the environment to change for them. It's been working for them in the short term, but will it work in the long term? I hope not, but who knows.
The changes have been incremental, but people truly don't understand how much google search, youtube, reddit, facebook, etc has changed in the last 4 years.
The internet/social media has gone from local/non-traditional media content to predominantly corporate content. And it's a trend that's going to accelerate as tech/social media is pushed to favor corporate content over ordinary user content.
> the paper has been in circulation for close to a 175 years
The NY Post has been in circulation for over 200 years. Not sure what your point is.
> is ranked as the most trusted journalistic publication
That isn't a good thing. Think about it.
> do yourself a favor, get the print edition convince yourself. I've been a reader for years and highly recommend it.
Does it seem like I've never read the economist to you? It's information pollution. You are dumber and more misinformed for having read it. The economist along with every other media publication should come with a warning like cigarettes.
> I am inherently suspicious of these types of nanny-tech initiatives.
As you should be. It just gives google more excuse to monitor you. They have justification for monitoring you more closely. To "help" you.
It's so funny to me how the HN crowd who attacked google,facebook, etc relentlessly for monitoring their users are now demanding google,facebook,etc monitor their users even more to manipulate their behavior.
What happened to individual responsibility? And why the focus solely on social media? Should ISPs do the same thing? What about 24/7 stores? What about TV? What about news organizations? Should we only allow news organizations to print on odd numbered days to help news junkies?
I know most of the anti-social media rhetoric is just paid propaganda funded by the elites who want control over social media. But I just don't understand the supposedly "independent minded free thinking" liberals on hacker news advocating for nanny-state and nanny-corporations.
Is this hacker news or geriatric news. It seems like most posters on here are bitter 50+ year olds who rail against technology. There is something so eerie and strange about the HN crowd lately. Is it that most HN are just old now?
I would never expected this type of thinking from developers, let alone "hackers" on "hacker" news.
> the economist publishes articles of extraordinary quality
No they don't. They offer fluff. This article is just fluff and years old news. Maybe because I work in the tech industry, but this article didn't offer anything of value. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that $100 billion dollar fund dedicated to tech investing ( especially in developing nations ) is going to have an impact.
> Frankly that's luck. No doubt he is smart and has smart people working for him but that's pure luck.
All investment is "luck" if you put it that way.
> All but one gone and that tiny $20 mil investment saves it all.
That investment didn't save it all. Softbank was a multibillion dollar company before and after their investment in alibaba. With or without alibaba, they would still be around.
Not sure where you are getting the idea that alibaba saved softbank. Softbank's Alibaba stake makes softbank very valuable, but it would be around without alibaba.
Because the guy was justifying taking and keeping the DNA material for perpetuity with his anecdote.
It's the quintessential example of authoritarianism defense. One instance of good justifies authoritarianism and violation of individual liberties and freedom.
> Both nationalism nor patriotism barely make sense any more. Time are changing.
People said the same thing in the late and early 20th century before ww1 and ww2. They were wrong.
> If you read it, you will realize that all of civilization is fundamentally based on global markets and the global shipping of crude oil and other resources.
Modern nations are dependent on oil for sure. That's what ww1 and ww2 was fought over.
> In the long run, all countries have to work together or modern society will fail.
That's fundamentally not true. Certain nations, like the US, don't have to work with anyone. We are one of the few nations who have enough resources ( including oil ) to keep our civilization running. If you expand the US to include the anglo-nations ( Canada, Australia, etc ), then we are more than able to keep our society running without the rest of the world.
> In a nutshell, we live in an essentially transnational society and this cannot change unless you're willing to give up almost all of modern technology.
What? Maybe if you are denmark or iceland, but that doesn't hold true for the US.
Also, your entire argument is about international trade, not transnationalism. You need nations to have international trade.
And as I said, your argument isn't new. It's been long debunked. The same argument was made in the midst of pax britannica before ww1 and ww2. People argued that nations were too dependent on each other for wars to break out. Hell, people argued that germany would never attack the soviet union since most of germany's oil/resources came from the soviet union.
The current international system will continue as long as nations deem it beneficial to themselves. If it ceases to be, then it will end.
There is nothing inherently good or bad about any system. And I highly doubt china, russia and much of the world will adhere to the US/European led international system for much longer.
Pax americana will come to an end like all "pax" in the past. Instead of clinging to silly utopian transnationalism, we should be preparing ourselves for a multipolar nationalistic world.
The post ww2 era is an anomaly in human history where one nation ruled the world. The only comparable situation in human history was the mongol empire where mongol's established direct or indirect control over pretty much all of eurasia. That system crumbled also.
Leverage the type system? Type systems exists to allow you catch errors at compile time. That is what it's there to do. It's like saying leveraging the compiler to compile or leveraging the cup to drink water.
It feels natural to anyone who understands binary numbers. Every odd number in binary will have the last bit as 1. Just like in the decimal system, every number that is a multiple of 10 will has the last digit as 0. If you want to see if a number is a multiple of ten, I guess you could do a mod 10 of the number and see if the remainder is 0. But if you understand the decimal system, you would just naturally check if the last digit is 0.