You can't do anything. The future is one where everyone is soulless and dead and life goes on in a mechanical and unfriendly way, for example a cafe of people staring at their laptops.
Your best bet is to leave, because if you stick around and disturb the peace you're likely to find yourself in a bad way.
Seriously tho, people work in cafes to escape the idiotic banter of their offices. Let them have their peace. They're paying you aren't they?
Maybe this is the problem, people expect Quantum Computers to be powerful evolutions of standard computers, perhaps "computer" is the wrong term because all they really do is flip bits back and forth.
Quantum computers are clearly not a good way to flip bits to 1 or 0 but perhaps they would be useful in abstract projects, such as searching for the "creative spark" in machine learning that would differentiate between Artificial Intelligence and Yet Another Program. Maybe the emergent 'corruption' could enlighten scientists in other ways.
I think Quantum Computers are hype, just like AI, but just because it's useless for doing your taxes doesn't mean it's useless.
Who built that? That's a real easy way to get blacklisted.
When your response to disagreements with your customers is to act in an unprofessional and childish manner you make everyone look bad. I've worked with lots of people like that during my career and frankly you should be able to get employed with that kind of "king of the world" attitude. Go flip burgers or something. I'm not kidding.
"How Long is Long Enough?" is an incorrect way to think about password security. In 2018 64 characters is a completely reasonable minimum standard. Nobody should be remembering their passwords anymore so why does it matter how long it is? 128 characters is reasonable. 256 characters is reasonable. 1,024 characters is reasonable. It's all handled by the password manager and typed in for you.
Allowing shorter passwords has the effect of throwing foolish people under the bus for the benefit of increased entropy.
I would have posted this on Troy Hunt's blog but he banned me for disagreeing with him in the past. Because he's an entertainer in a technology show business and not the amazing genius expert that people seem to think he is.
It's weird that its' 2018 and humans still haven't learned the dangers of moving too quickly to bring new technologies to market. One might think them all fools.
1. Hash passwords
2. Allow third party identi-... WAIT, STOP. WHAT?!
Allowing third party authentication in your software is not a "best practice". The blog is some corporate advertising bullshit that Google is trying to shove down your throats under the guise of a public service thing.
Jesus Christ why is evil tolerated? Entertainment value?
"Third-party identity providers enable you to rely on a trusted external service to authenticate a user's identity."
Anyone who trusts Google or Twitter or Facebook, the three listed, is an idiot and doesn't know anything about internet security and has no place writing authentication schemes or working at that level of I.T.
full disclosure, I allow social logins on my personal blog. Because it's just a blog and who cares. If it were a sensitive system for example, a bank or a credit agency, then under no circumstances would a third party authorization be allowed.
This is bullshit. All they need to do is create means to prevent bulk scanning of whois databases.
WHOIS information is absolutely vital to the proper operation of the internet. It has to be possible for _regular people_, not special boards or committees with super access, to be able to find the contact information for the owners of a domain name.
This is a much bigger problem than anyone has really appreciated. Frankly I expect the worst, because none of the people debating the issue are "regular people", they're all special people with special access and privileges and clout. How are they going to represent the needs of every day internet users.
WHOIS privacy works fine for non-organization consumers to protect their information from spammers. For organizations, spam is just part of their daily lives and it's not a legitimate reason to break the entire domain structure.
What is really going on here is registrars want to force you to use their brokerage agencies whenever you want to purchase a domain name that's already owned but not being used.
The domain name system is a racket, it's been a racket for decades, and if we don't fight them it will continue to be and will become more of a racket.
How many years of these warnings is it going to take before people actually take action? A couple of browser plugins and a change of search engines and social platforms will solve this problem entirely.
The article is idiotic. Bill Nye is crossing into enemy territory to build bridges so that everyone will be better off, and they have the gall to attack him for that.
When "Scientific American" is being written by idiots you know you're spending too little on education.
There are a whole lot of people who think that the web is the future of computers and that everything is going to run in your browser and everything on the internet is going to use the web.
Those people are _new to the game_, they don't understand the technology, or how it evolved, and they most definitely have no f'ing clue where it's going.
I laughed when he said Javascript, because I thought it was a joke. I can see what he means tho, at least in the limited context of this topic "For beginners", it's a fine way to teach basic programming concepts. But if you aren't building a website, you should not be writing in web languages.
You know what's a good teaching language for beginners? Anything they can actually use 5 or 10 years later so they haven't wasted months of their lives learning something with an incredibly limited practical scope.
Languages are not lessons. Hello World is a lesson, and it works in any language.
This article is garbage. It's a typical case of a complete outsider trying to analyze a scene he doesn't understand or know anything about based on "research", and trying to write for an audience that also doesn't understand the tech or scene or know anything about it.
There's not some "guy" responsible for online piracy, and there wasn't a "dawn". If Napster hadn't existed something else would have. Piracy existed outside of Napster. Napster did not give birth to piracy. Piracy has been huge since removable storage was invented, whether it was data cassettes or floppy disks. Piracy was in demand and Napster was the answer, not the inspiration.
Considering the source, The New Yorker, none of this comes as a surprise.
Your best bet is to leave, because if you stick around and disturb the peace you're likely to find yourself in a bad way.
Seriously tho, people work in cafes to escape the idiotic banter of their offices. Let them have their peace. They're paying you aren't they?