"He spread it to them" means that he physically transmitted it to them. He did not. Pointing out your misuse of the English language does not make me a sycophant.
This is some pretty heavy-duty obfuscation. What is the business case for this amount of work towards preventing reverse-engineering? Decent rate limiting should be much more effective than making such a herculean effort to obfuscate one's API.
Edit: another comment mentions that snap chat uses an existing solution, which makes more sense than the expense of developing this sort of obfuscation in-house: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23558784
It's definitely worth doing, if nothing else, for the experience. It's gotten harder to run one's own mail server due to aggressive IP reputation systems and because many ISPs block a large number of ports to prevent doing exactly this, but is still worth knowing how to do.
Shell scripts get a bad rap where they probably shouldn't. This stems mostly from people who write them as a quick hack and never replace them with something "more serious". It doesn't make shell script bad, it just means developers should remember there's a time and place for everything.
Other than consistency with coding style, I've never got the appeal of camel or pascal case. Is it a file size concern, maybe? I guess an underscore could take up additional space when used across a codebase, and maybe this has been held over?
Who cares who wrote it? Good code is good code, and Reiser is still often the best option for storing lots of small files.
I don't think it makes sense to change the name, but it's rude and vulgar to deliberately link to an old version of a page that makes fun of someone's murder.
> Women don't really need to do anywhere near as much housework as they do. The amount of hours worked by a homemaker has stayed steady at 60 hours per week for about 300 years while we have increasingly created household technology to make the job easier. Meanwhile, the demands on her have crept up to keep her working that many hours.
This is the story of every other job, too. Increased productivity doesn't really lead to shorter hours worked in any other field, either. Children today enjoy more opportunities and a higher standard of living, which necessitates some parental care (no one was driving kids to soccer a hundred years ago.)
> You can look up terms like "Pink Collar Ghetto" if you want to explore that further.
I did, and I noticed it uses the typical "men vs. women" stuff. "Men have/women have" statements, presenting them as diametrically-opposed factions. Your source has good stats, but I can't say I like this sort of rhetoric.
> Plenty of women find it soul crushing to be a homemaker.
I mean, lots of people hate their jobs. Change jobs. As you said, get a divorce. Maybe that wasn't acceptable a hundred years ago, but it is today.
> Trying to establish an adequate income after being a homemaker for years can be a very hard row to hoe.
Well, yeah. Those people have been out of whatever profession for usually between a dozen and two dozen years; I know others who've had medical absences of just a few years and had serious difficulty re-entering their professions. The people I know who had an easy time of going back to work stayed somewhat engaged with their professional communities. They attended some events, maybe did a little freelance work. Doesn't have to be much, just enough to remind people that you still exist and keep up-to-date on the happenings of the industry.
> Adult men (married with kids) typically choose colleges that serve their career goals and move the family there. Adult women (married with kids) typically attend whatever school happens to be conveniently nearby and not too expensive. Unsurprisingly, men tend to have better credentials that are more career enhancing.
Are you referring to going back to school? For young undergrads, they don't base their decisions on this as they aren't married and don't have kids. This was different with older generations (especially with, say, soldiers who came back, married, and went to school on the GI bill.) As far as I'm aware, most people who go back to school do so at either a local community college or online, often part-time, regardless of sex.
> Men who start businesses are much more likely to start as a full-time thing with adequate funding as their new career focus. Women who start businesses are much more likely to be starting "lifestyle businesses" that will accommodate the demands on their time as wives and moms, often because they have special needs kids or because the details of their husband's career make it impossible for them to pursue a serious career or regular job. Unsurprisingly, businesses founded by men tend to be much more financially successful than those founded by women.
You claim that, "Women who start businesses are much more likely to be starting lifestyle businesses" that will accommodate the demands on their time as wives and moms". While this is true, "lifestyle" businesses aren't the only available options. I know a guy whose wife has more "rigid" career. When they had kids, he quit his job and started a chemical import/export business. He makes good money, has lots of flexibility, but no "lifestyle" business. There's nothing that stops a lady from doing the same.
> While dismissive replies are par for the course on HN, it remains rather aggravating to have decades of reading up on the subject dismissed so casually and by a new account that was about two minutes old when you left the comment.
While dismissal is rude, account age is one hundred percent irrelevant.
I'd like to address your above comment:
> Women and men generally do not face the same options. They simply don't.
No one forced ladies to get married, have children, or stay home with them. At least, not in the past decades. What opportunities to men have that ladies do not?
Legislators tend to do a very bad job of creating technical standards. There is no constitutionally-enumerated power for Congress to regulate which character-encoding standard is used. On the other hand, updating all gov't and military systems to unicode-only would force the change pretty quickly, I'd guess.
You also can't outlaw a vulnerability. It's an honest development mistake.
I assume you're joking about emojis and other esoteric characters?
That story made a big splash but was never proven. Bloomberg claimed sources it conveniently couldn't reveal. I'm just as suspicious of China as the next guy, and they've probably got something in the supply chain, but probably not that. Besides, a ME or BMC 0day does the job just as well with very little risk.
Half the problem is that two parties have screwed up the nation, and no one lets third parties get a say. Remember they wouldn't even let Gary Johnson (libertarian candidate) debate back in 2016, even after he was polling widely at double digits? https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/let-gary-johnso...
Possible, but you'll end up in the same arms race you get with cheaters and on-line games. I.e. I could probably sniff the requests and responses coming off a phone and throw together a python script which would automatically "swipe right". They add a fake account, so I now parse for "Fake Account". It seems as though the model of having women initiate conversation makes more sense anyway, from what else I've read in this thread.
There are plenty of dangerous things we purchase. Imagine if there was a switch that could be flipped changing it from edible to inedible and dangerous.
Not cooking pork to 165 could kill you. I still think it's BS to sue a pork mfg.