Comment Re:Uh huh (Score 5, Funny) 570
"Reports of my decline have been greatly exaggerated."
-- UNIX
"Reports of my decline have been greatly exaggerated."
-- UNIX
Definitely. But to be fair, we should make floating point operations like we make house-building operations, because the return values both have floors and ceilings.
I remember when we called this sort of thing "cowboy coding."
Now I feel so old, I'm imagining there were actual cowboys.
You may recall from last week the news item concerning FunnyJunk's extortion
Charles Carreon has filed suit in California court against Slashdot, alleging that an article appearing on the site defamed him by characterizing his lawsuit agains The Oatmeal as "extortion."
When reached for comment, Carreon stated, "They like to hide behind this claim that their content is all user-generated, but that certainly doesn't obviate their responsibility to... oh, fuck."
While the Dunning-Kruger effect may be thought of as related to the Peter Principle, I think Dunning-Kruger is more apt in describing this case.
While the Peter Principle is the observation that in hierarchical organizations, individuals tend to be promoted to the level of their own incompetence, Dunning-Kruger relates more broadly to the pattern that the less competent one is, the more likely one is to over-assess one's own level of knowledge or skill.
Sounds like Carreon to me.
Not that I would ever nitpick on
Neither can being an "Internet lawyer" with absolutely no understanding of the Streisand Effect.
I liked the one that was 'HideYourKids,HideYourWifi'.
Ironically, it was broadcasting hits SSID.
It's an extension to Ruby, written in C.
Often it's a "wrapper," in that it wraps a C function call. Either way, much safer (and far less idiotic) than shell invocations.
Nowadays we're using FFI more, though.
Fat models, skinny controllers, dumb views...
Oh, wait, are we not talking about code all of a sudden? Okay, in that case, dumb, skinny models, and no fat chicks.
In fact, forget I was here.
So what you're saying is that you rely on your own set of utilities developed in C, instead of using the tried-and-true, often secure and in some cases with more than one decade in deployment (as in -stable-) shell commands? And this is your counter-argument to why "rubyists" don't understand security?
No, that would be stupid. And we could do that in pure Ruby. The point of writing C extensions is to link the libraries and gain access to the function calls that the shell commands themselves invoke.
Are you even a programmer?
Maybe if ponies were the incentive offered, this would be a viable startup idea.
This was a system created by Rubyists. They don't understand security because that's a "low-level detail" they can't be arsed to learn.
Rubyists pay attention to low-level details. This is why we write C extensions rather than executing shell commands from web applications, which is asinine.
"Rails developers" are rarely Rubyists, properly speaking. This is one of the issues plaguing the Rails community. It could be worse, though. Rails developers can become Rubyists. In the PHP community, given that the preferred development methodology seems to be having two cats copulate on a keyboard, I don't hold much hope.
We're co-workers? Wow!
It's a small internet after all.
Cobol programmers are down in the dumps.