That's a load of horseshit. I've been seeing ads for things I will never, ever buy forever and apparently Hulu thinks they're going to change that. The advertisers are wasting both their money and my time. I do not gamble and I do not drink. Ain't no amount of playing the same damn ad every break in Hulu that isn't going to make me not hate your company.
> I do not gamble and I do not drink. Ain't no amount of playing the same damn ad...
so if you were chatting with a friend, and the topic of drinking or gambling came up, wouldn't this ad turn up as part of the conversation? wouldn't the image of the company/brand be on your mind, and so you'd speak about it? Even if you don't personally transact with the company, branding is hugely important to these companies that mainly produce a commodity, but differentiate using branding. Classic example is nike, or fashion labels.
That's just statistics. Some percentage of customers who view an ad -- generally a very large percentage -- will never be swayed by it. But they don't have to be. You don't have to convince very many customers to buy your car instead of the next guy's car, or to switch to your brand of shampoo for the rest of their lives, and you're ahead. Even if 95% of the other people you've paid to put ads in front of never give you a penny.
Contradictory docs, ECB in filename encryption, sounds like nobody has even looked at this before... though maybe it doesn't have that many safe applications even from conceptual PoV, since all metadata is leaked.
What evidence is there that there actually were "many eyes" on this code? If anything this underscores the importance of license compatibility in order to maximize the utility of the "many eyes" resource. Honestly, GnuTLS seems to exist purely for ideological shim reasons, and it's not surprising that ideological shim reasons don't motivate "many eyes" to bother show up.
That's a No True Scotsman argument. The problem with the "many eyes bugs shallow" theory is that all eyes aren't created equally, and the valuable eyes aren't distributed uniformly across all software.
It would only be a No-True-Scotsman argument if the original statement of Linus' Law were, "In an open-source project, all bugs are shallow" and someone were now trying to claim that GnuTLS wasn't open-sourcey enough.
In reality, the law is about code that has many eyeballs on it, and it's a fair argument to point out that evidence suggests GnuTLS didn't have that many eyeballs on it.
That's part of the fallacy. In the OSS world it's assumed that when code passes through many hands, is depended upon by many projects, and is critical to the functioning of many systems used by many users then naturally the code in use will be seen by many eyes.
But this is anything but true. The reality is that code review is far less common than code use, with many defects impacting many users as the logical consequence.
> That's part of the fallacy. In the OSS world it's assumed that when code passes through many hands, is depended upon by many projects, and is critical to the functioning of many systems used by many users then naturally the code in use will be seen by many eyes.
Right and as you point out that's not true. What gets less attention is why. I know in my own code there are dependencies I know very, very well. Some of them I have helped to author. Some of them I have helped with regarding maintenance programming later. But there are many which I don't.
There are a bunch of reasons for this:
1. Code has varying degrees of readability and is easily comprehensible to various extents. Code which reads like a book gets more time than that which I have to figure out its structure first.
2. Code that is well maintained provides less necessity to add someone else. I tend to be more likely to read poorly maintained code than well maintained code, for example because bugs don't get fixed is a good reason to try to fix them myself....
To slightly nuance that, given the fact that he had already tried "talking to them" (to death actually, he's bent over graciously--first via support, escalating to discussions with the CEO and ultimately an unanswered demand letter)... in this case continuing to "talk to them" means "sue them", right?
I mean, that was his question. All he seems to have left is suing. He was asking if he had another option. And, of course the other option is "raise a stink on HN/interwebs". But that's a luxury reserved for "hackers"/VIPs, not lowly customers.
I suppose with an incrementing system, you could doll out the search space more efficiently. I imagine the more hash power you have, the more likely any two engines could randomly try the same nonce. (Assuming they were working off identical blocks). But it could be that there's a relationship between the way difficulty ratchets that keep the chances of testing the same nonces twice somewhat constant relative to the chance of finding a block.
That would have made a pretty funny punchline to a sketch. Suspicious looking guy (better band of suspicious looking guys) getting the full TSA workup/cavity search etc. Finally gets on board, everyone watching him suspiciously etc. Some sort of minor tussle with obvious plain clothes security who's reseated next to him by a concerned stewardess. Etc. When it's time to take of he fakes turning on airplane mode/powering down when placing it into the seat pocket. He smirks knowingly, closes his eyes and dreams about his field of virgins.
Isn't that a pretty broad brush you're using there? Not all comments are full of profanity and/or the names of reproductive organs. Wouldn't your approach to Safe Search be to not return any links (which could be full of profanity and/or the names of reproductive organs)?
Then wouldn't it make more sense to complain that Safety Mode should filter "bad" comments rather than all comments entirely than to complain that you want Safety Mode and Safe Search to be in different states?
I thought the point of these features was "think of the children" (and letting kids access comments that aren't moderated is a big no-no in online safety), but clearly there are use cases that aren't being captured here.
fluidcruft was right on the money. You're painting quite a broad stroke on the comments there. To elaborate, my use case is this:
On YouTube, the only channels I read comments on are the educational ones (Crash Course, Grey Explains, SciShow, etc.). For everything else, I don't care much for hearing what other people think. So in my use case, I honestly haven't seen much profanity or bad comments in my entire time using YouTube.
For Google, I use strict Safe Search because I don't care for NSFW content. I also work at a school and when I need to search for images to use on handouts, I don't want any NSFW content to appear.
> Then wouldn't it make more sense to complain that Safety Mode should filter "bad" comments rather than all comments entirely than to complain that you want Safety Mode and Safe Search to be in different states?
No, because prior to Google forcing my G+ account to merge with my legacy YouTube account, I was able to have these in different states. YouTube had Safety Mode off and Google had Safe Search on. If Google is going to force people to merge accounts, then they should not be removing functionality that existed when the accounts were separate. Complaining for a feature to change, when it was working perfectly fine on its own before, is far less productive than pointing out how two features worked separately before they were merged together. This also ties in with what theOnliest says below. There is a very distinct different between the two use cases (reading YouTube comments and using Google Search). It does not make sense to merge the two features; especially if you aren't going to rename then into a single feature (there is no indication on YouTube and Google Preferences that changing one will affect the other).