owaty

No they don't.

Who do you think is killing Ukrainians?

It's not Putin himself, and it's not some kind of professional army.

Those are ordinary Russians who decided to join the occupational army, and who are launching drones and rockets at Ukraine every day.

> Your credit card number being stolen is a problem for your bank, not a problem for you.

Not necessarily, depending on where you're based.

I would find it quite annoying to get any of those emails.

When I give you my email, it's not because I actually want to hear from you; it's because you've made it the only — or the least shady — way to sign up. I do not want to hear from you or answer your questions, especially before I've decided that I like your product and care about it.

So any such email I immediately mark as junk, and the fact that you sent it to me will go the "cons" column when evaluating your product vs the competitors.

It's a quote from Hamilton, the musical.

I don't see a single argument in the article why, conditional on:

1. Me deciding to send a given message

2. Me deciding to use email for that message

... I should send it over an unencrypted email rather than encrypted one.

I see arguments for using other systems like Signal. I see arguments for a false sense of security — i.e. if I didn't assume the email was secure, I'd write a different message.

But, again, for a given message being sent over an email, I just don't see any reason not to encrypt it if it provides at least some protection (and saying it doesn't would probably be too much hyperbole even for latacora). The authors sort of just declare out of nowhere:

> But email cannot promise security, and so shouldn’t pretend to offer it.

And if "pretending" meant rot13, I would agree. But even despite all its flaws, there's a sea of difference between rot13 and PGP. If I can publish the encrypted contents of my email publicly, and not even tptacek can decrypt it, then it's not pretending.

So, what is the downside of encrypting an email compared to not encrypting it? I can't think of any, and apparently the authors can't either, despite trying very hard.

Great, pubmed and other NCBI resources are long due for a redesign.

I also wish they got a shorter url.

> when you're down to guessing it's guaranteed to be safe

Sure. But, in a complex situation, it's rather hard to know whether "you're down to guessing". It seems like there's no more information to be extracted from the board, but you may be wrong. (At least I often am.) That said, you can cheat by pressing "Give me a hint", and it'll tell you whether it's safe to guess.

> Spot them all: the URL, the problem, the browser, how many tabs are open on that browser, the fact that this person has an unusual number of Facebook tabs open and probably isn’t overly invested in their job, some other applications that are open, that they leave system credentials in text files on their desktop, the time, the operating system, that they have a serious investment in someone named Alex, and whether the wifi is connected.

And that is precisely why I would crop my screenshot to only the relevant part.

It is done using symbolic algebra, not just assigning specific coordinates if that's what you're asking.

Let's say you're given three parallel lines. You can put your x axis along the first line. Then its equation is y = 0. The other two lines necessarily have equations y = a and y = b for some reals a and b. Then you calculate the other quantities involved via a and b and other parameters you have to introduce. At the end you calculate the coordinates of your three points and verify, symbolically, that they lie on the same line.

It's not different from what pip install or gem install do by default.

A mature Haskell project such as hledger has probably a few hundred of transitive dependencies, so you won't be able to install them individually by hand. You might try to figure whether each of them is packaged by your distribution (unlikely, unless hledger itself is packaged), but that's not a typical path — just don't use make in that case.

Don't compete on the price then. Compete on something else, like the working conditions.

The author describes how they had to drive 50 miles every day, use the corporate laptop (or install shady software on their own one), not get a response for many days. Basically, their rate (and the total cost) covers not just the work they do, but all the frustration that comes with the work.

Now, if you treat your staff better than that — remove all the hurdles, answer their emails promptly etc. ­— then there will be many talented people who'd prefer it over a meaningless-but-highly-paid alternative.