You're a superficial carrier of American culture. Sure you speak English and consume American media, but you have socialist values which are not American. This is the land of the free, not the land of government-enforced equity and insanely high marginal taxes for the rich. Let me guess, you're anti 2nd amendment? If there were more people who thought like you in America, the country would indeed collapse in on itself.
No, I'm pro-Second Amendment. Probably more strongly than you: I believe the original purpose of the Second Amendment was to maintain a continuous threat of violent revolution against the government, not to let people hunt deer or whatever, and as a result I believe that the people have a right to own weapons sufficient to win a war against their own government—either by letting the people have a nuclear deterrent, or by disarming the government to the point of having no weapons the people can't have.
Not sure what that has to do with anything, though.
I don't get it, why don't poor communities build piping from their nearby water sources? People were able to do this 2000 years ago. Why do they need to invent a reverse-entropy machine?
Upvotes & downvotes are used in a specific way here. They aren't meant to show agreement or support, but rather to recognise that your comment holds some interesting value (or lack thereof) for other readers. A quick comment of excitement is low value to other readers, regardless of it being an authentic feeling. Hope that clarifies.
Probably downvoted because - with respect - your comment didn't really add anything interesting or insightful to the discourse here.
For the future it might be more interesting to state why are you excited about this? What's the reason that this is exciting? Are there interesting things about this that other readers might not have considered or that wasn't covered in the article?
Thoughtful and interesting comments that add to the article with extra content/context/objections/etc are usually what people want to see in the comments section. HN has a really wide and varied readership and there often are a lot of readers who have a lot of experience/qualifications or are experts/semi-experts in a subject so the comments are often extremely insightful and often provide another angle to the story. Probably best to save short comments about how you are feeling for twitter.
Thanks Matt, very appreciated. On the other hand I somewhat feel like if I had put forth my opinion on why I was excited, I would have been even more downvoted. I suppose no comment at all is really what they want.
Common question here - standard Economist policy is never to name their writers and correspondents, except very very rarely. Their content is published under the name of the newspaper, not the individual author.
Could you please identify the PR for me? I'm genuinely intrigued: all I see is an observation that different kind of bank has an audience outside of its intended audience, an explanation of how it operates differently, and criticism that it is not as different as it makes itself out to be.
“Sin stock” is a commonly-used phrase in finance and does not imply an ethical opinion on the topic by the user of the term, merely that ethical opinions are often held on the topic by the public/investors at large.
If I'm looking for a library and I find two that do what I need, I generally go with the one with the higher star count because it signals a larger community and therefore it's more likely to get some bug fixes and improvements.
I don't think GitHub stars a reliable indicator of community size. They are often an indicator of how much effort someone has put into promoting the library on social media. Some people have starred thousands of repos that they only ever looked at once when they saw it on the front page of HN (I know, because I'm one of them).
A quick read of the source, tests, documentation, issues etc provide better information than counting stars in my experience.
> Some people have starred thousands of repos that they only ever looked at once when they saw it on the front page of HN (I know, because I'm one of them).
If you ever want to process and try and extract some value from those, I recommend this: https://astralapp.com/
I have very little interest in most of the differences in features, and the cost of switching is low in the future. So I'll just go with node-portfinder because it has more stars. ( I also notice the forks count is higher)
People have a marked preference for popular open source software.
* It's a signal of quality even if it isn't always the best signal, and developers won't necessarily allocate the time to investigate the quality of a package on a deep level.
* CYA: more stars indicates more popularity which indicates that your choice to use XYZ with 1000 stars is more defensible than the ABC package with 5.
* It suggests that the package will be maintained and improved rather than abandoned.
Sometimes it gives you some motivation or moral support to keep developing the software. I often see people open feature requests but don't even bother to give a star. If I put a repository out there that just works for me, I'm less motivated to spend extra time to accommodate features for other people. It's free software, there's no monetization like the view count on youtube, the least you can do to support the developer is give a star.
The more stars your project has, the more likely people and companies are going to use it.
Stars represent trust. When it comes to adoption of an open source project, trust is everything.
Which is terrible. Some people think because a github repo has a certain amount of stars they don't have to actually think or look at the actual code in that repo. I've seen devs frowning at github repositories because they "only had x stars" or recommending to "pick the library one with most github stars" as if that would be the best fit for your need.
I agree but very large companies go to extreme lengths to minimize risk in their code so number of stars makes sense from that perspective. What annoys me more is when statups refuse to use a library because it's not being used by any well known company. Then the open source library never gets any opportunity at all to prove itself; not even in a niche of small startups... It's like being homeless; nobody will give you a job no matter how good you are because you stink like failure.
I think a more productive way of puting it is that using hackintosh makes it less urgent to build great mac os / iOS alternatives, while providing no solution to apple locking strategy in the long run.
As a cancer survivor, using the example of someone spying on your cancer.org visit as a motivation for encrypted SNI seems a bit excessive and insensitive. There are definitely more neutral ways of motivating eSNI than invoking the fear of a stranger finding out you or a loved one has cancer. Shame on Mozilla.
Cancer is something you may want to keep secret without being shameful.
In privacy discussions, such examples are rare.
Yet, those examples are useful because they prevent people dismissing the arguments because `people shouldn't be doing that anyway`.
That is, no-one wants to keep people from going to cancer-related websites. This is very different from e.g. porn or STDs. I guess perhaps the exception are the nut-cases that believe people getting cancer `deserve it` because otherwise it wouldn't be part of gods plan. But luckily very few people consider those opinions relevant.
I get you, but I suppose the most obvious alternative examples are things like porn or illegal sites, which they might not have wanted to use. What alternative examples would you have preferred?
Apple's contrived example from when they introduced private mode in Safari was shopping for presents and not wanting the recipient to find out, but that would be even less convincing when the person you're hiding your traffic from is the person next to you in the coffee shop.
The coffee shop being able to know all the domains you're visiting without your consent is already bad enough. I don't think they need to draw out a specific example. If the idea of the coffee shop knowing all the websites we visit is bad, we'll come up with our own examples, and that's something everyone can do. Almost no one researches cancer online.
That example does make a very strong case for the feature - which I guess was the point. But, the audience for the post already knows that encrypted SNI is and why it's important. And if they don't, a much more light-hearted example would do. And it's not like there is much of an anti-encrypted-SNI movement that warrants a powerful response.
So, yeah, I'd agree it seemed both jarring and unnecessary.
Probably because of the "Shame on Mozilla" bit, which is a trope of the online callout/shaming culture, which we're trying to avoid here. The rest of your comment looks fine to me, and you're obviously speaking from hard experience, which makes comments much more substantive.
Wow. That is technically a valid English phrase. What boggles the mind is that someone could be so out of touch with societal norms and basic human decency that they would actually use it.
