Or just don’t use gmail. Email is way too important to me (and most people) to risk losing because an automated system thought I broke the TOS of an unrelated Google product. Even if you keep separate accounts, there’s nothing to stop them correlating those accounts and banning you anyway.
I agree fully. There are plenty of competitors to choose from for a service so critical, and you’ll do even better if you buy your own domain and untie your email address from your email provider.
Most services ask for a confirmation via SMS. I have a few account in gmail (personal, work, another part of work, side project, ...). If they ban one of them, can they ban all of them?
Here’s one: The fact that contexts are used extensively in the standard library but that there’s still no way to cancel a write to an io.Writer. The only way to “cancel” a write on a TCP socket is to set the socket’s “deadline” to some time in the past from another goroutine.
I agree that this is a PITA, but this really is more of a growth pain than an initial design flaw. Contexts have appeared way after the Go 1.0, when the entire ecosystem has already gotten used to io.Reader and io.Writer.
If you want a much more annoying example of inconsistency in the initial language design, look at the behaviour of nil and closed channels:
- sending data to a nil channel blocks forever;
- receiving data from a nil channel blocks forever;
- sending data to a closed channel causes a panic;
- receiving data from a closed channel is fine: you receive the zero value, forever.
I can understand the logic behind the last two (sending to a closed channel is an error in program logic, and closing a channel is a common idiom for broadcasting completion of a task to several goroutines), but the first two are just a massive footgun, and, in my opinion, should cause panics instead.
Agreed on that one. Contexts definitely feel bolted on and unnatural. The sql libs for example all have 'Do' and 'DoContext', where 'Do' is any one of the operations you'd typically use.
Transmit a strong signal on the main GPS frequency (1575.42 MHz). Receivers get saturated and can't hear the real signal.
Medium Jamming:
Transmit the signal that a receiver would receive at a specific location loudly. GPS receivers will lock onto that signal, and report they are at the location you choose, rather than the real location they're at.
Advanced Jamming:
Pick a target, such as a VIP plane. Calculate the aggregate GPS signal that that plane is receiving right now from all the GPS satellites. Now start transmitting that same signal towards your target (you'll have to transmit ahead of time due to the speed of light delay, but that isn't an issue because GPS signals are fully predictable). Now gradually modify the signal to make the target think they're moving off their desired course, and to make them make corrections. Watch them in realtime, and adjust the signal so they correct in the direction you choose.
This is how Iran stole a drone[1].
Military GPS is encrypted (ie. XORed with a crypto-stream), which makes the signal not predictable ahead of time, which makes the advanced attack impossible. The basic and medium attacks are still possible though.
It is alleged that the RQ-170 was expressly designed for risky operations (where loosing it eventually is likely, and retrieval/destruction may not be possible) and so was created without sensitive technology.
The crypto for US military GPS uses the same keys worldwide, and rotated ~ weekly. That means if you capture any device which has the crypto keys, then you can spoof military GPS for the rest of the week, allowing you to do lots more damage.
Therefore, the military often doesn't even use the keys in their own devices.
The format of GPS civilian signal is public and you could just spoof it with any transmitter like a HackRF SDR box. There’s no cryptographic signature to verify or anything. The military code has had cryptographic anti-spoofing from the earliest days.
Or you could just send any super strong signal on the frequency to cover the satellite signal up. That can also work.
which uses she/her. I guess it has changed over time. In either case, male pronouns (or "this guy" in one still-extant comment) are incorrect and seem like the result of stereotyping or opposition to modern gender reality.
Your use of she/her seems like the result of stereotyping trans people.
Everybody loses when we play this game. You can’t expect people to hunt down the preferred pronouns of everyone that writes an article before discussing said article. Your comment is no more substantive than comments correcting spelling or grammar, it’s just noise and doesn’t contribute to the discussion.
> You can’t expect people to hunt down the preferred pronouns of everyone that writes
No, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect they'll look at the name at the bottom of the article and use the most likely matching pronouns instead of assuming male because it's tech. If that turns out to be incorrect at least it's an honest mistake, not a stereotype. "You can't expect" is just an excuse for not making any attempt to respect people's wishes in this regard, and IMO counts as transphobia.
This comes across as a bad faith interpretation of the comment you’re replying to. I read it as providing additional context and a (slightly?) different perspective, not as an attempt at misrepresenting the article to push an agenda.
I wrote the original comment, but I found that very difficult here. In my opinion, there are only 2 really strong statements in the letter.
1. She feels sexually harassed and is upset that HR apparently did not agree with her, or at the very least they did not take the action that she wanted them to take.
2. She has strong personal feelings about Elon Musk and is comparing him to her own past abusive relationship. She also has a history of very negative experience with family and relationships.
I'm guessing you would have wanted to hear "she was sexually harassed" but the entire point of my comment was to argue that the step from "she feels harassed but HR did not agree" to "she was harassed and HR didn't act" was not convincing to me. In my opinion, the letter contains many other complaints that to me appear unrelated (such as the "colonial past and incorporate indigenous expertise" plan) which gives me the impression that the person writing it is likely to complain in general.
Also, please consider that I originally wrote this as a reply to a comment which said "I already see comments downplaying this issue. [..] Quit systematically downplaying it. It's real and needs fixing.". That's why I finished my comment with agreeing in the abstract, but not the specific letter. So my intention wasn't to dismiss the letter, but to argue that if her goal is to improve the situation, then this specific letter and its phrasing might not work as well as a different way of reporting the same facts.
Establishing the argument is the role of the article being linked to, not a job for every single commenter wishing to express an opinion. A serious response can always criticise the weak parts of any argument without having to guess which parts are considered stronger by others.
Or in the alternative, perhaps we should not have any discussion on this topic at all until SpaceX offers a formal response, at which point you can chastise everyone for failing to acknowledge BOTH the strongest parts of this article and the strongest parts of SpaceX's response.
What you're saying would be fine if topics all came up in a vacuum with no priors and could be treated and dissected interchangeably. But that's very much not the case. In the real world we have to deal with, the topic of sexual harassment has a long history. In the context of that history, a comment responding to a claim of sexual harassment by dismissively belittling it is breaking the HN guidelines—not just the one I mentioned above, but others too, like this one:
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
Not to mention:
"Eschew flamebait."
And I think we could add this one too:
"Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine."
I'm not saying people have to accept everything that gets said in every such article, but there's an art to addressing these things without blowing up the thread. Many of the comments in this thread are on the wrong side of that line.
That's a fine standard. I would, with some trepidation, dare to say that the article being linked to here egregiously fails that standard on all counts.
He's describing the standard for HN, not for all writing everywhere. People on HN have a bad habit of forgetting that most things on the Internet weren't written for HN. Blog post authors aren't obligated to satisfy any of our rules, but if you want to talk about a blog post here, you're obligated to follow all of them.
I don't disagree with any of that and, for what it's worth, speaking for myself, is completely self-evident.
My original point (such as it is) is only to note that no debate is one-sided and that if we are setting a high standard of discussion in the Hacker News guidelines, it should be respectful of all, not just the views of the article being linked to. If we are obligated to acknowledge the strongest parts of the complaint, then it seems fair to obligate equal acknowledgement of the strongest parts of any response/rebuttal/defence.
Again I think you'd be making a good point there except that it leaves out externalities like flamebait which have the power to overwhelm and destroy good discussion. Imagine a public debate in a theater. Does it make sense to consider your opponent's strongest arguments? Sure it does—but not if the theater is on fire. The first priority has to be to put out the fire, or to try to prevent fires in the first place.
It's so much more complicated even than that because (1) the debaters are often themselves the ones setting the place on fire as they make their points; (2) they're most often doing it unintentionally; (3) there's no agreement about what the solid points are and what the flames are; (4) anyone in the audience is free to add any new point or any blast of flames at any moment.
Now try to be a theater operator with the goal of having good debates, a happy audience, and not burning down.
I was responding to what was said at the time, which was ONLY that the post failed in "acknowledging the strongest parts of the complaint." No accusation of flamebait was raised when I provided my original response.
(And for what it's worth, I don't agree that the post qualifies as flamebait.)
We can certainly disagree about particular calls because they're matters of interpretation. What I was trying to explain is why your argument doesn't work in the general case; that (for me) is the more important point.
Consistency is a red herring because it's outright impossible. We can't come close to seeing everything that gets posted here.
If you see a post that ought to have had some moderation but hasn't, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com.
Supply is so constrained now (and was even before the chip shortage) that it can take up to a year to get a new car delivered, this changes the depreciation curve a bit.
Imagine it was Verizon Music, Verizon News and Verizon TV+ that came pre-installed. Would you feel the same then? A big selling point of Apple products has been the lack of bloatware found in other platforms.
Don’t use gmail as your primary email provider.