Come on. This kind of front page publicity is very, very rare. Two days, no less. And this research has been done before. And in general, one or two experiments are not going to reveal the ultimate truth, so why the sudden interest in this?

> Because this research is interesting for humans who reproduce and attempt to teach their offspring to act like adult human beings in 18 years or so.

So because the staff is interested in it personally? Then just write so upfront. "I'm personally interested in this."

Why is Slashdot posting this run-of-the-mill type of research that cannot get normal funding on its front page, two days in a row? Cui bono? To whose benefit?

Don't crowdfund research. It's bad for publicly funded research. As soon as the government, the universities and the grant organizations find out that crowdfunding works, they'll cut budgets or make their funding dependent on privately acquired money. That means only public darlings will get funded, or projects with corporate backing, and that the research results can end up in a drawer if there are larger backers that have made such provisions. In short, by funding research, you're killing it. Instead, write your congressman or member of parliament.

You're right. Number of files? Comment language? Size? History length? Just a few parameters that seem to influence the likelihood with which "Ugly hack" appears. Nope, first a good model, then the analysis.

Of course, that hadn't crossed my mind. My enemy's enemy, that sort of stuff.

I don't understand it either, but people seem to be voluntarily sucking up to Über, probably blinded by the thought that anything big must be good. They are just a taxi service, dammit. Oh yeah, they have an app. That must be it.

Closer to 300,000, I think.

> as far as valuation.

Ah, you a worthy of front page attention by being the visionless CEO of some unimportant and technologically totally uninteresting company as long as enough drool comes from the mouth of Goldman-Sachs analysts?

At least you're honest, I suppose.

I'm an Apple fan (well, 80%), and I would mod it up. It's important information. It's at +5 now, but I can't understand why anyone would want to mod it down, except for a malicious hacker.

Wow, I did not believe this. I skimmed the article, and that's quite impressive. I don't see how to could do anything more nefarious than some observations on user activity with just Javascript, but thanks for pointing it out.

But Javascript?

Your view on this is quite absurd. No-one should get fired for occasionally "pissing off" a manager or trying an ambitious project. If you get fired over this, and find that acceptable, I suggest you look up the definition of Stockholm Syndrome.

You mean some bystander picked it up and made it public? Possible. The story itself doesn't tell.

Anyway, it seems the ministry offers to send it well after the exams, and he would have to pay for printing and shipping.

So he made this request, haha, but who informed all the numerous reporters, and to what end?

> If she doesn't understand the internet, that's a serious problem.

You're basically saying that every member of congress in the oversight committee should have a deep understanding of how internet works. Well, that's absurd, for two reasons.

1. They share tasks. Not everyone can overlook everything. And they surely will have staff for these matters, too. Otherwise there wouldn't be any oversight at all.
2. There is a lot more in this world to worry about than Internet.

> there are many very good reasons people are upset with her.

Possibly, but lack of knowledge on one of many possible topics shouldn't be one.