NoodleIncident

The action item isn't easy if everyone has to individually remember it going forward. An easy action item would be to add a lint rule to prevent the X function from getting checked in, even if the author never heard of this rule before.

I think the article handles both cases (timeouts and the first error) by cancelling the other running async operations as quickly as it can.

This article focuses entirely on people regulating their own decisions to share an article, not any attempt by a "tool wielder" to selectively block any content.

To put their study into context, it suggests that if Facebook asked users to rate whether an unrelated article was accurate before allowing you to share their own, many people would pay attention to whether their own articles were accurate, and less misinformation would be shared. This could be applied universally to any news article, both for detecting people sharing it, and populating the pre-share accuracy judgement. Instead, Facebook streamlines the process to increase engagement, and people blitz through it without stopping to consider the article's accuracy at all, distracted by thinking of all the likes they'll get for posting it. According to the study, when users are already primed to judge the accuracy of an article, they are more likely to self-regulate their own misinformation.

The allied forces did not storm Omaha beach on D-Day to openly discuss Nazism, in case you weren't aware

> This is just a few people explaining how they de-radicalized. Now imagine the opposite

How do you downplay "a few people" saying one thing, without giving even a single example of your imaginary opposite?

That's a circular argument. If journalists actually understood the distinction and explained it, more people would see the distinction after reading their articles.

> Some apps, like Facebook, allow for some data tracking to be manually disabled. But by default, it is turned on. That gives the company reams of personal data on who we are and what we are doing, which it then vacuums up, packages and sells.

Facebook would be giving away money if they ever actually sold your data. As everyone here knows, they use that data to target the ads that they sell.

Do journalists phrase it this way out of ignorance, or is it an intentional lie to make Facebook look even worse than it is?

Thank you!

> I'm so totally impressed at this Way New Development Paradigm. Let's call it the "Cascade of Attention-Deficit Teenagers" model, or "CADT" for short.

Sounds like the content is just as mature and insightful as the HN ddos redirect image. I see why objecting to being linked an image of a hairy ball in a 2011 image macro was wrong of me.

If the author complains about a HN ddos, then why does everyone suggest evading his ddos protection? It seems like reuploading the content works out better for everyone. It's just plain lazy to post a raw link to that site on this forum.

Please remove the link.

Criticizing jargon in the field of programming because it's not used in exactly the same sense as when it's jargon in mathematics is.. weird.

> "nothing more than the advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time"

So for this case, since there was a definite future time, it would indeed be imminent?