jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
> Oh look, a big angry reaction to a simple assertion that you should try to look at code and criticisms about code objectively.

Oh look, an emotional (childishly sarcastic, in this case) reaction demonstrating that offense is, well, an emotional, not logical, reaction. Which was my point. Thank you for playing along.

In case you still don't get it, there's a distinction between honest-but-rude and honest-but-nice. My original comment was deliberately constructed to be rude, not nice, as an illustration of that. Your response is very helpful because that's the response people have when you provide unfriendly, non-collegial criticism. Even from people (like you, I'd presume, since you advocated for it) who want to practice egoless programming.

Hell, you can even be nice and still get an offended reaction from people, and have to backtrack (if you want to avoid unnecessary drama) a bit and work back to the point. Because egoless programming isn't just a declared mode of working, it's a process that all participants work toward. The one who is speaking and criticizing should take a "nice" approach if they want to be well-received, even if it's less straightforward than they want to be.

TL;DR: Egoless programming isn't an excuse to be unfriendly or rude.
luckily neither party in this story is asking for sympathy, only money.
FYI, "yield" has been a reserved word since ES5 and "await" is becoming reserved in ES6 (for eventual use in ES7): https://mathiasbynens.be/notes/reserved-keywords

It seems like a word must be reserved for at least one ES version prior to it being used.
Yes, you're right. But this is assuming a lot of things which are still really hard:

* The person would've had to retrieved the private key before. This private key is only ephemerally written to disk to `ssh` and is deleted after, otherwise being stored in memory only a brief period of time. Additionally, when it is sent down over the network, it is done so over a TLS connection. So this means they would've had to somehow intercept that.

* The person, as you said, would have to brute force the password. PERHAPS the easiest part if people are using easy passwords (we can assume they are, for this comment).

* A subsequent share name with SSH enabled. The share names created (happy-panda-1234) are in a set of 40,000,000 possibilities (for now). They probably won't guess that, especially since shares are only active 1 hour. They could try to intercept the share name, but we send it down over TLS, so they'd have to do a MITM there somehow. Unless the person is running OS X 10.9.{0,1}, not easy.

* And, if the sharer is using --ssh-once, they'd have to do all the above and connect in before the intended connector is in.

This is all to say that while you're correct, I imagine there are much easier ways to attack someone.

And this is just the state of things as Vagrant Share is right now! We already are working on and completed many additional features that we're simply not launching Vagrant 1.5 enabled with:

* You'll be able to restrict access to a share based on organization or username. In this case, to retrieve the private key, you'd need to have an API token for the user in question.

* We're adding detailed audit logs of connections, connection attempts, and more. The person sharing will be able to see who connects and when.

* You'll be able to run a private installation of the server-side component. In this case, you'll be able to run it within a firewall that requires perhaps a corporate VPN to access. Another layer to the onion.

And that is just changes that affect the SSH portion. We have more coming for HTTP and others.

Again, I want to say that given all the right prerequisites, you're right. But we did a lot to thwart this sort of thing, and we're not stopping there. Sharing anything over the internet always has a risk attached to it, and we're trying to mitigate any potential threats as best we can.
'junk bonds' are bonds with a high interest rate because of poor credit quality.

convertible bonds basically have an equity option attached, so the interest rate paid by the issue is lower than what it would be otherwise (because the buyer is getting an option).

Often it is low grade companies that issue convertible bonds (to keep the interest expense they pay down), but it doesn't have to be. Investment grade companies can issue converts as well.
"zen" bowman vs "cs" meder. coincidence?
Doesn't that assume meditation is just about achieving focus?
That would be sweet but I can't see that dealership law standing indefinitely either way. I don't think Texas should get the plant unless they are truly the best place for it.
Ah okay. (I was on a mobile connection, didnt wanna load the vid).
Someone developed that technique.
In warfare, they say that the same army can behave radically differently under different types of leadership. The philosophy tends to percolate down the hierarchy pretty fast. I'm reminded of how Orson Scott Card said that part of Ender's Game was inspired by the struggle to find a general who could lead the Union army during the civil war (not sure why I mentioned that -- it felt relevant).
This is the one I got just recently. You have one min draw me Twitter architecture ... GO!
Yep, the market is $12 million. Good luck running a successful phone manufacturing company with that bottomless expanse of willing customers. ;)
> how on Earth they tracked all these down

I don't know that work done by a famous, and Nobel prize-winning, author really qualifies as "tracking down."

This is a superficial article and I have not read the underlying paper, but in the article it is unclear how wide was the literature search.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-05/cablefree-...
Maybe that's why "classier" is in quotes in the title.
Sure, it's not literally "apple is doomed" right in the title, but exactly the same kind of FUD

BUT IT ISN'T FUD AT ALL. To make it even more comical, several of those posts are from serious Apple boosters (Philip Elmer-DeWitt might as well wear pom-poms while he writes about Apple). Apple software has had serious quality issues, and it is "FUD" to talk about it?

This is just broken thinking. You, in this conversation, are the problem. This notion that any criticism of Apple (such as the fact that they've let quality seriously decline) becomes "FUD" because there is so much defensiveness about Apple.

Not one of those demonstrate what he is talking about. None of them are attacks on Apple. None posit that Apple is doomed. They're tech articles, appealing to a tech crowd, that note that software quality has wavered, which is something that is utterly indisputable.
Doesn't every company do that? I.e. Apple put many applications' features into default iOS apps.
IIRC the major challenges was brain plasticity itself. Brain signals changed over time and the device needed new calibration.