Can you elaborate on Square's gold-plated credentials? Most of the news / comments I've read about square post their IPO disclosure have been negative (or at least skeptical) - largely to do with the increasing loss rate and the state of the payments market.
There was a decent article (I think it was on HN) a while ago that argued against this type of generic error message. The basic idea is that you can very easily discover whether the email is valid or not by attempting to create an account with that email (in most cases). It's trivially easy to either verify that the email you are trying to use is valid, or even build a database of valid email addresses to crack by attempting to create accounts. So why bother with generic error messages at all. It is not really buying you anything on the security end and it seems like it is sacrificing some usability.
"its dead to us (as a means of expressing ourselves)" is how I read that particular quote, and it certainly resonates with me as a twenty something male. I'm sure it's even more true for younger people. It's necessary because of how ubiquitous it is but I'm not sure that (in the context of social media) is necessarily good news for Facebook.
That tweet irritates me. It doesn't make any sense. What King killed people at the red wedding? The only king there was the one getting stabbed. And none of the murdering at the Red Wedding required or featured any substantial display of 'balls'. It was actually quite a cowardly act. You would think an editor at a prestigious (I'm assuming from the article - I've never read TNR) magazine would either be aware of what actually happened in the fictional event he is referencing or be above shoehorning in pop culture references for their own sake.
I think the real benefit of that sort of solution would be to put the blame squarely upon the shoulders of the outdated sites in question without the browser vendors worrying about losing customers (A win/win?). It's an opportunity to inform users about the major security flaws on sites like Citibank and put some pressure on them to take this sort of security flaw seriously.
>You're asking other people to do your work for you.
Yes, I am.
>You are the one who's supposed to contribute your up/downvote.
But that's the problem. My upvote / downvote doesn't matter. If I'm in r/funny it doesn't matter how often I downvote unfunny things - the sub will still be inundated with garbage posts - subjectivity of humor aside. I don't mean "That joke didn't make me laugh", I mean there is nothing within the content of the post that indicates it's even an attempt at humor. The only thing left for me to do in the face of such a situation is to leave and go somewhere else. The only way for my vote (on posts themselves) to mean anything is moderator action.
I'm not (and I don't think anyone else is) arguing that every sub should have strict rules and moderation. But strict moderation is a necessary tool for many of the subreddits that I enjoy to exist. A lack of moderation would turn r/askHistorians into a swamp of ignorant hearsay, answers based solely on what one dude read on Wikipedia, and general misinformation in no time at all. The only vote that I have that matters on reddit is the vote for which subreddits I subscribe to, not the posts within those subreddits.