He was the only beta test user, but the product is successfully continuing to answer e-mails for him.
He was the only beta test user, but the product is successfully continuing to answer e-mails for him.
Huh? I think if you read that program and don't know that `C++ > C` == false, you don't know how the post-increment operator works and you're not much of a C programmer.
"This time will be different."
"A rewrite will fix everything."
"This will make it future-proof."
"I'll go to bed after I write this last part."
Well, I'm a bit confused by that. I hear people say that, and then I see stuff like this: https://www.informationliberat...
In this case, a user tested Twitter's consistency by reporting two posts from two different accounts. The first said, "I fucking hate white people and their inconsiderate asses for voting for Trump. Fuck you." The second post changed two words: "I fucking hate black people and their inconsiderate asses for voting for Clinton. Fuck you."
Twitter "carefully reviewed" the anti-white post, and determined that it did not violate their rules. The anti-black was found to be a rule violation, and the account was suspended. Why should I not take that to be a clear example of bias?
Twitter wants to have it both ways: it wants to have a big room where they can put in all the liberals and conservatives, all the Islamists and Zionists, and have them talk about whatever is happening in their world... and then it wants them all to get along. It doesn't work that way.
To put it more technically, Twitter's problem is that, as a social network, it reflects a connected graph of hundreds of millions of people. A lot of those people aren't going to like each other very much. Now they're making themselves responsible for the safety of their users, and that does two really bad things:
1) It announces that Twitter is presently an unsafe platform, and
2) It puts them in the middle of whatever fight any two people might have, equipped with no tools to resolve the underlying conflicts that drive those fights, and only their own subjective morals (with all the attendant biases those bring) to resolve them.
Twitter is at war with itself here.
I don't believe that's true at all. The Y2K bug was an example of a problem that was foreseeable in the requirements of the program. Scientists in 1980 actually predicted that the year 2000 might happen in as little as 20 years.
But if I have a problem where the upper bound on the number of calls to my recursive function that is much lower than the very large number of calls it would take to actually run out the stack, then there's no point in worrying about a stack overflow that is simply never going to happen. I'm not gonna buy 50 pounds of steak for a dinner party where I only invited 8 people.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "you run out of stack pretty quickly." You run out of space in an 8-bit int "pretty quickly," but I still use those when the situation calls for it and I know I'm never going to need that much range. I don't get to use recursion often, but when I do, it improves readability and elegance. In most cases, I value those more than execution time or a restriction on domain that I was never going to exceed in the first place.
Obviously, data loss is embarrassing. I think we all appreciate the importance of not only having multiple backups, but testing to ensure that your backups work, and are sufficient to fully restore operations. GitLab is just the latest in a long tradition of sites and services that have found themselves facing the consequences of not regularly testing their recovery plans.
But I do respect their response. They quickly recognized what had happened, and they diagnosed what went wrong with their backups. They did not try to use PR-speak to conceal their mistake -- they publicly copped to it, in plain industry-standard language that their users would understand, and even offered a livestream of their team resolving the issue. I think this has been a masterclass in how to recover from a blunder. I bet you that this is not a mistake GitLab will be repeating anytime soon.
Also, I think it's very fortunate that they're in the git repo business, and presumably users who had data that was affected by the loss still have a copy in their own local repos. Thank god for distributed SCM.
I wouldn't mind if, after some time in jail, they are given supervised release during which their phone numbers are published so that the rest of the country can call them during dinner.
Gamergate was when a bunch of gamers discovered that the biggest, most brutal and highest-stakes eSport in the world is social media. Unfortunately for them, the ultra-left had figured that out way earlier and were way better at it. So then the ultra-left people kept writing kooky leftist shit and calling gamers racist, and gamers kept going nuts over it, and then eventually the rest of the world figured out what was going on with social media too. Then all sense of order or meaning disintegrated, and now Pepe the frog is the face of white nationalism and Donald Trump is President.
I think that should catch you up.
What makes a country "legitimate?"
You said he talked about a national Muslim registry before the election; you showed me a video of someone else asking him about it after the election. That video simply does not show Trump advocating for a national Muslim registry. I explained why, and I showed you links to two articles that agree with me. So unless you seriously believe The Guardian is stumping for Trump now, you need to check your read of the situation.
Your response rebuts nothing. It doesn't disagree. It just says you think I'm wrong because you think you're right. Some people made you buy into a story that was bullshit, and I pointed that out, and that pisses you off -- but you don't want to admit that you got suckered, so it's my fault for not just going along with the spooky story about Orange Hitler and the Muslim Registry. And because I didn't go with the story, apparently, I'm one of The Bad Guys now.
I said it at the start: it all fits into a broader narrative in which Trump represents the second coming of Hitler, and everyone who does not unconditionally reject him is a neo-nazi.
"My ilk." Please. If you want to know why the new POTUS is a reality TV star whose press corps is a Twitter account, find a mirror. You already thwarted my "ilk" when you traded investigative journalists in for fucking BuzzFeed.
That's covered in both the articles I linked. They've written it up quite well, along with later comments Trump made about those questions, but the cliffnotes here is that the linked video does not show Trump explicitly calling for a national Muslim registry. A better analogy would be that the reporter said, "2+2?" and Trump said, "those are definitely numbers, yes, and numbers are key." The article itself has a bit of selective quoting, by the way:
When asked whether Muslims would be legally obligated to sign into the database, Trump responded, "They have to be — they have to be."
It fails to mention that the full quote is, "They have to be l-... They have to be... Let me tell you that, the KEY... People can come to the country, but they have to be here legally." It sounds much more like he is redirecting the question to immigration (which he'd done earlier). I've watched the video probably 10 times now, and it seems pretty clear to me that Trump is barely paying attention to what the guy is asking, and is replying with non-answers.
In any case, that's not even Trump talking about it -- it's a reporter asking him questions while he's signing stuff and mingling his way out of the room, and Trump gives very confusing responses. The Intercept says the transition team has floated the idea of a "national Muslim registry." You said he repeatedly talked about it in the election. Can you find one of those examples?
I paraphrased. I addressed the specific language earlier in the post. The question specifically describes a "national Muslim registry" as "a project which has been floated tentatively by the president-elect’s transition team." There is no support for that assertion, and in fact, I've linked several articles which acknowledge the lack of any statement by Trump that endorses a national Muslim registry.
I've gone looking myself, and while I can find sites like BuzzFeed claiming that he said it, they do not offer any quotes or any other evidence of what was actually said. I can find cases of people asking him if he would support it, and he dodges the question. While we can do plenty of speculation on that, it doesn't really show him proposing it or advocating for it in any meaningful way.
If you can link me to where Trump explicitly calls for a national Muslim registry, I would be very interested to see it. But if you can't find Trump saying he specifically wants a national Muslim registry, I ask that you consider whether articles like this one have helped you believe you heard something that you did not.
Here is the question from the article (https://theintercept.com/2016/12/02/of-8-tech-companies-only-twitter-says-it-would-refuse-to-help-build-muslim-registry-for-trump/):
“Would [name of company], if solicited by the Trump administration, sell any goods, services, information, or consulting of any kind to help facilitate the creation of a national Muslim registry, a project which has been floated tentatively by the president-elect’s transition team?”
The question is loaded, because it is founded on the premise that such registry has actually been proposed by Trump's transition team. It has not. The Intercept itself offers no support for this assertion. The closest it comes is a Reuters article from Kris Kobach, who says he would support re-instituting a special registration program that monitors immigrants coming from countries that have been designated high-risk. This program was originally created after 9/11, and although the countries affected are predominantly Muslim, the program does not specifically target Muslims, nor does it target ass predominantly Muslim countries. Even then, it is unclear to what degree Kobach's comments reflect the incoming Trump administration's actual agenda, since no official statement has been made. Above all, it certainly does not fit the criteria of a "national Muslim registry."
Here are a couple other articles that have attempted to tease out the Trump camp's position on Muslim registries:
These articles highlight comments Trump has made about Muslims and immigration in the past, and point out that he has refused to explicitly say he would never seek such a thing. Sitll, they make it clear that (at least to the best of the knowledge of the journalists writing these articles) at no point has Trump ever actually proposed a national Muslim registry (e.g., "Trump has not called for blanket registration of all Muslims in the US or those seeking to immigrate from other countries.", The Guardian).
So, it is my opinion that asking tech companies if they will support Trump's muslim registry plan is loaded, because Trump does not have a muslim registry plan. Despite that, any answer -- including no answer at all -- can be easily misconstrued as a political statement by the company. And that's exactly what The Intercept has done here.
If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.