minopret

I wouldn't overlook the distinctions between them. This kind of policy against Jews was a "quota", specifically "numerus clausus". Participation from a specific minority is prohibited once it reaches a specific number.

Let's consider which are the hard parts of verifying that remote code is safe.

Useful verifiers exist. Coq is a state-of-the-art verifier for a large class of propositions. It hasn't been easy to create. Its design is not frozen.

We need to create a specification for safe remote code that is trustworthy. This seems difficult when permitting all the remote code capabilities that we want.

We need to demonstrate constructing specification-compliant code for a nontrivial algorithm with a proof of compliance. This seems costly but feasible.

Which wiki engine do you have in mind? There certainly is revision control in MediaWiki, Confluence, and others. Granted, I wouldn't use those in place of a source code revision control system such as git. There are generally no "annotate"/"blame" or "pickaxe" features. I would agree with writing something code-friendly in the first place, examples of which would include DocBook and Restructured Text.

> Who would have guessed

Except for not being a dog, such a spider is anticipated in Goethe's little poem «Annonce» (Advertisement):

    A little dog is sought
    that never barked nor bit
    takes broken glass as feed
    leaves diamonds as - -

(my own translation, but wouldn't be surprised if it has appeared in these words before)

You can use 7zip to archive, compress, and AES-256 encrypt.

You can also use GnuPG or openssl to encrypt a file or a disk image.

Lately I took a look at actual filesystems for cross-platform use. I didn't find a great one, but depending on which OS you want to burden with an extra driver, pretty good ones include exFAT, NTFS, and UDF specifically version 2.01. Like you, I am curious whether better answers are available.

I agree. A counterargument is that you're inherently taking advantage of the processor(s) and the operating system, not to mention, ha ha, every single component and factor that you did not personally create, whether or not it is computational in nature...

Another route, my present hobby and something that I know many have done before: Take the Lisp program on page 10 of the Lisp 1.5 User Manual and translate it into C. Write a simple tokenizer/parser (read function) in C and translate that into Lisp. Once the C program can run the equivalent Lisp program, we're on our way.

At the outset I have no garbage collection. I just expect the memory space to fill up pretty soon. I could have `cons` compute a hash for each cell to eliminate common subexpressions, but for a while I suppose I won't bother at all. The C program has a loop to handle evcon (did I write cons? oops), eval, and apply as a trio of mutually tail-recursive operations. That's an obvious place to put a stop-the-world mark-and-sweep operation or some such thing.

To get the C tools out of the loop eventually, hand-disassemble the binary program (C compiler output) just to see what's there. Then write a Lisp program (compiler) that translates the Lisp 1.5 User Manual program into something pretty similar.

My bad. It's not a lawyer term. I really don't know enough to be clear and accurate about that point.

> has anybody with legal and/or HR credentials and some ethical sense written any definitive guide what is OK and what is not specifically in the context of the modern office?

Yes, they have. I am NOT one of them. I don't have one of those guides. But I've received enough mandatory training to have a layperson's understanding of the baseline in my national jurisdiction which is USA. The baseline is twofold, it is fairly clear, and it is worth reviewing. Don't take my word for it, but I think if you check your authorities you may get confirmation.

First, no "quid pro quo." That is, you should steer clear of even the appearance that you will provide business advantage in exchange for affectionate acts from a person who is sexually attractive to you. This principle is an excellent reason not to ask an interviewee to go out on a date (slightly simplifying an example from elsewhere in recent Hacker News).

Second, no "hostile environment." That is, you should steer clear of even the appearance that you are making the workplace uncomfortable for people who are sexually attractive to you. Decorating your desk with a calendar featuring glamour photos of models, unless that is your duty in your occupation, is not a very good idea.

I applaud your point that harassment is largely a clear violation of norms, not a gradation on a spectrum of relaxed behavior.

May I respectfully take issue though with the turn of phrase "we shouldn't need women to tell us"? Does that wording illustrate a problem by assuming that women are outsiders?

I write "illustrate" because I doubt that you really make that assumption. I don't really mean to single you out. I just felt that this language throws light on one of the problems facing women in our computing workplaces.

I like Common Sense Media. I didn't think I would like any media monitor for parents, but I think this one provides enough depth of information to put decisions into parents' hands. They rate and discuss several factors including not only sex and violence, but also consumerism, "is it any good," and "will kids want it." On the other hand, they also offer simple summaries. A parent who has specific criteria can generally just get a list of current products that meet those criteria.