When you go Pro, it becomes all about the money and not about the spirit of the Zen. ZenAmateur may be less skilled, but more desirable.
> That said insulting people's children is never nice, but everyone is someone's child so sometimes it's a necessary evil.
Making broad prejudicial statements is never a necessary evil. There are plenty of ways to make accurate statements without insulting people or exaggerating their weaknesses.
You could use the monad to generate an embedded program that runs in constant time on a given class of problems. Then the challenge is smaller-- ensure that the program generator is not exposed to tainted inputs, and run the generated program in your request-handling loop.
^ This is a model HN post. Instead of contradicting and insulting the parent poster, it acknowledges the value in the contribution, and adds further clarifying information to correct minor errors.
FWIW, being crackable with extreme brute force (that only the best-funded attackers have) can be a reasonable compromise -- NSA can't crack everything, just the few pieces of data they are willing to spend compute on.
The part that I don't understand is Moore's law: if a government lab can crack 56-bits11 in 1979, surely my phone can crack it today?
The Korn Shell Story isn't an appeal to an authority, it's a punchline: Not only are you mistaken, the arrogance in your mistake is humorous to onlookers.
You can discuss whatever you like. What you can't do is make unsubtantiated claims about someone else's level of understanding, based on your inability to distinguish between what a specification says and what implementations do.
There are 2^32 strings of the form [0123]{16}. (16 base-4 digits) Does that mean that they are all valid IPv4 address? Can I type http://1230123012301230 into my browser and have it resolve?
And by the way, given the choice between "A investigated the phenomenon in detail recently" and "B has been interacting with the phenomenon for years without consideration for how it works", A is a more trustworthy source.
An admirable attempt to slow down the hype train which could derail his work, but weird to see him backpedaling against his own work, in the face of encouragement.
But, good for him, I suppose, that he got to write the inevitable highly-oupvoted contrarian post himself, instead of some random blogger taking a potshot.
"Devices" have been driving children to "epidemic" levels of ADHD for a decade or two at least, so it is hard to see the connection now.
I suspect it's more to do with general increase in wealth (at least as far as access to toys and kid-size luxuries, even though we lack overall real estate and retirement wealth for adults) and lower demands on our children in recent decades.
The Mathematica system makes some beautiful, informative graphs, and presumably users can make those graphs with a minimum of fuss and bother. It's technically very nice.
Yet, in the entire blog post, is there one insight that wasn't a priori obvious? Maybe the bits about migration.