jwfxpr

The HN title needs to be corrected. The correct name is ʻOumuamua, including the first punctuation character (an ʻokina, representing a glottal stop).

> On the one hand it looks like relying on behaviour that is correct now but may not be so in the future.

> Use a decent IDE that looks out for it if you need reminding about this class of bug.

And when your next environment/plugin/employer's setup changes or doesn't offer this warning? Or the day that getting your critical system back up ASAP leaves you no choice but to SSH in from your phone and edit your source in Nano?

Learning and practicing defensive programming as a professional programmer is like defensive driving for a taxi driver, or survival skills for a long-distance hiker. It's a part of what someone who considers themselves a serious professional should maintain.

Relying on a 'decent IDE' to manage your code quality for you is an excellent way to blunt your skills. I'm not saying we should all throw IDEs away or turn off their warnings, but to rely on them is an awful substitute for maintaining good practice. Granted, crossing every t and dotting every i is much, much harder in C than most other languages, but every compiler warning you have to hunt down and fix is another little slice of your day shaved off and gone.

Published 2013.

Phonebooks are in alphabetical order. They are sorted into residential and business (white and yellow), then further sorted into business categories (or in some cases residential areas), and then ordered.

I think software development would work best if it focused on software, not jokes.

> I've not tried it, but they also suggest you can compile your own binaries from that source to get around the untrusted binary problem.

You could... Except that, if I'm not mistaken, "All Rights Reserved" doesn't allow you to compile and use the code in any way, including diffing.

IINAL, is that an incorrect reading?

> In any case; where can I view 1995 copies of NYT for free? :)

Every public library in the United States, if I'm not mistaken, and a large number of major libraries worldwide.

If the page that links to the login page hasn't proven it's secure, I shouldn't trust the links, and therefore shouldn't trust the destination. Hence why static landing pages need HTTPS just as much as login pages.

You're succumbing to the allure of what-aboutism here. Yes, granted, Mozilla aren't perfect and have made some significant missteps (not all of which they've suitably amended), and deserve criticism for them. But just because they're vulnerable to criticism doesn't invalidate what they're saying here, and doesn't make another entity who regularly handles more sensitive data in less private ways less vulnerable to criticism.

Should this message be coming from another source? Yes, but 'as well as', not 'instead of'. Is it good for user advocacy that a highly recognised source is promoting this message, even if the source is flawed? Yes, it is.