What I don't understand is how exactly it is as you claim it is. My Reddits consist of programming, robotics, science, math, etc.t, and get nothing but positive, helpful feedback and meaningful discourse that DOESN'T (key word here) infuriate me. Not sure how it's a "circle jerk" at that point when I can ask questions and have them gasp answered in a timely manner.
Just because it has a "politics" Reddit doesn't mean the entire site sucks.
I come to HN for the simple reason that it's more about startups and programming than most anything else, and overall I am just as happy with its content. It's considerably more granular, and sometimes that's precisely what I want.
I read both sites and have for quite some time now (although mostly lurking). I get immensely good return on my time invested in both.
Well it is true I'm criticizing reddit as it is without any customization, but I don't think that makes my criticisms any less valid. r/politics, r/atheism, r/pics, r/askreddit, etc. are, like it or not, major parts of the site and generate the majority of the traffic (oh, r/barelylegal too). The subreddits I've subscribed to in the past, like r/ruby and r/web_design have been so sparsely active they're next to worthless. If you say to me, "sure, the site sucks if you focus on that 90% of it, but it can be great if you meticulously dig for the 10% that's worth something" I think you've proven my point for me.
Agreed. I'm pretty sure the message here was "hey you can enhance things and this is usually the most common surgically-enhanced body part," not "women are items and you should make sure to keep her in the kitchen lest she learn how to work a computer or something."
According to sources I can find that actually seem legitimate, we have a toss-up between liposuction and gasp breast enhancement.
What makes me really happy is that when me and my roommate discussed how this worked months ago, we eventually explained it exactly as he did in less-equation-y form.
Moral of the story: I don't fail completely at fluid dynamics.
While I see your point (I agree for the most part), I do hold that while it is being a bit... overconfident(?) I do see that is a problem sometimes in companies.
I think it's mostly a fault in recruiters as some of the more-technical positions are frankly over their heads, but nonetheless I myself have had a few failed interviews because the people weren't willing to take me on my word that if I am passionate enough about something, I WILL learn it and I will be GOOD at what I do. But that alone will not net you a job.
I think part of his problem is a lack of persistence. We are (for the most part) hackers of some flavour here, and hearing "we'll get back to you" when we know that's "you will never hear from us again" is unacceptable. So go hunt down the recruiting manager. If that fails, hunt down someone who likely holds a similar position and who you can impress to the point that they might vouch for you.
Take alternative routes, and be DAMN persistent and passionate about the job you are trying for, even if it may not be 'teh bestest job evar.' Make them believe that you think it is.
As someone commented below, they get tons of resumes (especially now). You've gotta stand out. If that means rolling up to some business in a suit and tie one day and wanting an interview so you can circumvent lackluster recruiters, so be it, or setting up an interview with (insert manager here) because you can Google things / social engineer a bit (obviously you don't want to lie, but you'd be surprised how few questions receptionists ask - usually just your name).
True fact - CoffeeScript did the same for me even though it was heavily frowned upon by others.
Typically I omit them if I can. And I have no reason to do so other than I think it makes the code look cleaner (I am often quite zealous on proper indentation / return lines).
I figure if using them works for you, rock on. If you hate them and don't use them, rock on. I really don't get bothered by debugging others' code either way as long as it is "readable-formatted" and works.
I've found that usually you fall into a situation where you have a company standard and have no choice in the matter though, and it doesn't even make a crap what your personal preference is.
Edit: To be fair though I only got "Eagle" on the test, but I chalk that up to only giving the test about 5 minutes of my time, too.
Claiming forgetfulness concerning the key would give you a way out unless they could manage to crack it - at that point you would have dodged the self-incrimination bullet but could not be legally bound to simply "decrypt it."
I agree though - the entire thing is an absurdly mucky business. Apparently however the English law doesn't have much like that in the way of loopholes, or he simply refused to decrypt it outright.
I believe there is a specific law in the UK that mandates key escrow -- the government must be able to decrypt anything.
This has been floated in the US before, but it has not gotten good PR. As it stands now, it is a Constitutional law issue -- does the fifth amendment mean that you can't be compelled to get up in the witness box and talk, or does it mean that you don't have to assist the prosecution in any way? Right now, the courts seem to be split 50/50, but I feel that practicality dictates that you don't have to give up your key. First they have to accuse you of a crime and bring it to trial, then you have to refuse to decrypt the key, then the first trial has to stop, then the government has to prove that you know the key, then you have to be convicted and sentenced, then you can go back to the original trial after analyzing all of the decrypted "evidence". If encryption becomes widespread, this just isn't practical. It's easy to prove that you sell drugs; someone goes up to you and buys them. It's not easy to prove that you didn't forget your encryption key, because we have no way to observe someone's mind. Laws that prohibit crimes that can't be proved tend not to do well.
I believe the law in the UK allows for a jail sentence of up to two years for not revealing a password or encryption key.
While it's a dubious law in may ways, when you hear a UK politician calling for longer detention without trial and stating needing to break encryption you can at least point to this law and say that their claims about longer detention are nonsense.
Forcing me to be okay with everyone and their dog seeing what I do on my own time and on a completely different site is unacceptable, and frankly just lazy on their part. That has nothing to do with "commitment." I as a consumer get nothing out of it other than a lack of privacy and the heavy-handed assumption that some startup's "service" outweighs that.
No thanks, and the fact that I'm not the only one means that if you're using FB to authenticate as a startup (IE need to get as many PURCHASING customers as possible), you're doing it wrong.
If I like your service enough, I will make sure to tell people about it. You do not need to try to do that job for me. That's insulting.
Edit: Please note that I realise that you may be an exception if it is something whose market IS a Facebook user (apps, etc), and I am simply addressing the issue as a whole as I have seen completely disparate sites that require a FB login for no reason that I can fathom.
I think you may misunderstand what signing in with Facebook does.
1) It could, potentially, provide some value to you as a user. Quora gets to suggest people to follow for you based on your Facebook friends, so your experience on there is seeded with relevant information.
2) Nothing you do on the site you signed in with is published to your Facebook profile, without your explicit consent on a dialog box.
Nothing you do on the site you signed in with is published to your Facebook profile, without your explicit consent on a dialog box
The trouble with this statement is that some users (myself included) don't believe (a) this is true even when they say it's true, or (b) that if it's true today it will still be true tomorrow.
Such paranoid users are worried that FB will make a privacy policy change that turns the privacy off "as a benefit to users," and the opt-out checkbox will be buried seven links deep. I try to use FB's controls to make my FB stuff fairly private, but I still operate on the assumption that one day FB will break my assumptions about what is or isn't shared.
The recent "Places" launch confirmed it for me. If I hadn't read someone else's blog post, I wouldn't have known that simply refusing to opt into places wasn't enough, I also had to explicitly block friends from checking me into locations.
I don't mean to personally call you out but this mindset is entirely flawed for this argument. If you're so worried about keeping your private things private, don't put anything you're not completely fine with being public on facebook. According to your logic they don't owe you any real promise of privacy, right?
I don't know what they owe me, but I do know what I do and do not trust them to do. And on that basis I decide what I will and will not share with them.
Which brings us full-circle back tot the point of the post:
When a third-party application uses FB as its authentication mechanism, it gives the appearance of asking its users to trust FB with everything they do on that application.
So yeah, I don't put anything on FB that I can't handle becoming public some day. That doesn't mean I want it to be public, but I wouldn't knowingly put something private on there.
And that extends to third-party apps using FB for anything at all. I can't ever imagine using a linked-in kind of application that uses FB authentication. I'm not going to put certain business contacts and my business relationship with them where FB might be able to scrape the data.
I'm not dating, but if I did I wouldn't use a service that used FB for authentication. Or a personal money management application.
And my message to third party apps using FB for authentication is to take this into account. I won't say "don't," you know your market, maybe they don't care. But at least have your eyes open to people who might think twice if whatever you're managing for them might be sensitive.
