jleader

I have a strong suspicion that doing pure keyword searches of job descriptions (or resumes, on the employers' side) probably has some pretty hard limits on how well it can work, especially in the presence of participants with incentives to spam.

Exactly. When I read "Amazon Unlimited FTP Server" i heard a modem handshake sound in my head.

They leak uninitialized memory contents into the HTML being served; that memory could (and did) contain data from any other traffic that passed through their hands.

So a request sent to Cloudflare customer A's site could return data from Cloudflare customer B, including data that B thought was only being served via https to authenticated users of B.

I'm a long ways from being a VC, but I see one reason they might prefer the larger, higher-burn-rate company. I think one of the hard jobs for a VC-funded startup is growing really fast (to become big enough to be worth-while when the VCs cash out). The company with more head count may have a head-start on that growth (assuming they actually hired the right people). So if you're a VC looking to place a bet on a company becoming huge enough to offset all your other failed bets, a company that's being very cautious about growth might not be what you're looking for.

Also, there's apparently evidence that prior trauma puts you at greater risk of PTSD from subsequent trauma. Which helps explain why different people in more or less the same situation can have very different responses, because of their different experiences earlier in life.

One of the biggest invisible biases is thinking you've managed to free yourself of invisible biases.

So you're advocating forgiving the educational loans of doctors who lose their license? Or do you leave them massively in debt, without the (relatively) lucrative profession they had assumed would allow them to pay off that debt?

I think that's a bit harsh; it's more like "If you know how to issue instructions to a computer, you can derive anything else about the world from first principles."

The author keeps talking about going through all possible proofs built from the axioms, as if that's a thing that obviously could be done. However, if your system is complicated enough to allow arbitrarily large combinations of axioms in your proofs, then I don't understand how you can expect enumeration of all proofs to be a finite process. Any statement that says "enumerate all possible proofs" followed by "and then do X" is meaningless, because you will never reach the "do X" step!

My understanding is that telephone, cable, and power providers share the poles. Don't the power companies usually own the poles? So if they added internet providers to the list of companies authorized to share the poles, AT&T wouldn't have grounds for complaint. Since internet providers (such as AT&T) already share the poles, this seems like a reasonable move.

In my neighborhood we had 2 competing cable providers for about a decade, and they managed to share the poles (along with the phone company and the power company) without any problems (or at least, any problems that made the news).

One obvious reason would be if they don't trust the book value. For example, if the assumptions made in computing the book value are systematically wrong in some way.