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.

Sure. I only wanted to point out that Rust doesn't seem any worse than other languages in that particular respect.

BTW, I looked at Ruby and thought: what an awful mess. It's the kind of language that allows you to do things too cleverly. Redefining what a declaration means by overriding functions, was that really necessary?

I'm not too positive about Rust, but I admire the attempt.

Yes, but you'll need 5 to 10 years of Rust experience. In a lead role.

> the remaining ones will be much more obscure

That is by itself not an argument. The same obscure errors can be present in code written in another language. Rust does not seem to induce code with subtle bugs.