boveus

> Cross-site scripting (XSS) safe front-end frameworks like React are good because they prevent XSS. XSS is bad because it allows an attacker to take over your active web session and do horrible things

What? React is not "Cross-site scripting safe"

Many security controls do require more than a 2-3 sentence explanation. Trying to condense your response in such a way strips out any sort of nuance such as examples of how react can be susceptible to XSS. Security is a subset of engineering and security decisions often require a trade off. React does protect against some classes of attacks, but also exposes applications to new ones.

> More lanes helps because now more people are able to get where they want to go!

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but no one wants to get to the 5 or 6 lane highway. They are using the highway to get to smaller 1-2 lane surface roads and parking areas with limited capacity. Eventually you will hit a bottleneck in surface roads or parking that you cannot improve easily or cheaply. The larger highways only serve to get people to the bottlenecks in the system faster.

People on HN have conversations about things they didn't read every day.

I have always struggled with just how difficult it is to retain long form text over HTML. Even if you block the ads, the hyperlinks and strange font choices can make it difficult.

The solution I figured out was to use a Kobo e-reader with Pocket. The integration with Firefox is actually quite seamless. You can basically just take a webpage, save it to pocket, and then sync it to your e-reader and read the article there. I have found this to be the best way to consume acoup's content.

You have a somewhat justifiable position, but you lost me when you started talking about social media posts. In your proposed rationing of "climate relief" it shouldn't be focused on people's thoughts. It should, instead, focus on specific actions people have taken or not taken that directly impact the client.

I could see something like a carbon credit for individuals based on their actions that impact the climate such as limiting their power use, not driving their car frequently, or not having pets. This type of rationing also has problems, though, as it starts to become effectively limiting things to wealthy people who can afford a lifestyle in which they can use a car less frequently or own an energy-efficient home for example.

I don't think there is a reasonable way of rationing climate relief in a morally justifiable way.

I assume there is some particular combination of factors at play here:

The US has a very advanced military and intelligence apparatus which operates globally.

The US has an enormous area that it operates in domestically (large areas of both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans).

The US also has a relatively open culture and emphasizes free speech.

When you look at all of these factors it seems that by having all of them it makes it a lot more likely for people to detect UAPs and then talk about them. The other thing that might be at play here is that, as an American, I have no idea what a credible news source would be from Botswana and it is unlikely to be in English even if I would consume it in the first place.

I would put my money on a junior enlisted / junior officer not paying attention when they type the email to book their hotel over a government conspiracy to generate a Casus Belli to invade Mali of all places.

XSS and SQLi can happen independently of the memory safety of your chosen programming language. You can use relatively safe frameworks or ORMs to generate HTML and interact with your DB, but there will sometimes be complex use cases that require you to extend or otherwise not use those safeguards.

Similarly, I imagine that there are cases where someone needs to do complex wood working tasks that involve dangers which are a less obvious than with a table saw.

It would be beneficial to your understanding if you read the article. The title is slightly misleading.

> Even though the dataset used for the unofficial record goes back only to 1979, Kapnick said that given other data, the world is likely seeing the hottest day in “several hundred years that we’ve experienced.”

>It encouraged workers to vacation with groups of relative strangers as opposed to their friends and families.

This can actually work out well. I experienced something similar in the US while on vacation. I was traveling with someone from Glenwood Springs, CO to Denver, CO via Amtrak. We went to the dining car for lunch an since there were two of us and space is at a premium, the Amtrak policy was to seat us with one or two random strangers. We sat and had lunch with an oil executive and someone's grandmother and it was quite an interesting experience and we got to meet two strangers. It was actually a highlight of that train trip.

I feel like the experience of having unplanned social interactions with strangers is often missing in modern American life. I don't know if the Soviet style of assigning vacation groups via a worker's committee would be pleasant, but I can't help but think things would be better if we had more situations where we are "forced" to engage with strangers.