Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | tristanperry's comments login

Looks like a solid No victory - a 21% gap between no and yes.

Live results available at http://ekloges.ypes.gr/current/e/public/index.html#{%22cls%2...} (click on GB flag on bottom left to change to English)


Doesn't that depend on where the current results come from? If you watch the results of a US Presidential election on the county level, you can see much wider swings; the cities, which vote D, often turn in their results much later than the rural counties.

(Or maybe in this case, the results really are representative. I know nothing about Greek politics.)


The results are in real time and are representative. Each voting center sends its results via phone. The site has also an api http://ekloges.ypes.gr/current/more/customizer/paramsdoc.htm...


I think we're working from different definitions of "representative" The sense I mean it in is, "the election centers that have reported results are demographically representative, and therefore predictive, of countrywide results".

That might be the case, but you didn't provide any evidence to suggest it is, so the more likely explanation is that you thought I meant something else by the word.


The results are from all voting centers. Once a voting center finishes counting, it sends it to the data center. So the data are sent more or less randomly to the data center. You are right that this does not mean that are truly representative. But for the sake of simplicity we can call it "representative".


Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification!


The map on the Guardian page that this HN submission points to suggests otherwise re: it being a representative sample. The districts appear to be relatively large, and most districts are reporting 0% counted while others are at e.g. 50%. The districts with any votes reported at all are also strongly clustered.


The UK is a pretty extreme example of that (the other way round; urban areas tend to report first), so May saw Labour-party members discussing the unexpected scale of their defeat even whilst the actually announced results and counted votes put them some way ahead. Of course, in this case the analysts had plenty of past data to work with in being confident that narrow successes in urban areas and defeats in marginal areas meant little hope of any gains anywhere else.


I dunno either, really, but I've watched it go from 30% reporting to 40%, and the yes/no spread remained pretty much the same.

EDIT- Now 62%, still essentially unchanged. Remarkable consistency so far.


Clicking on the little Great Britain flag on the bottom left will change the webpage to English.


I do agree, however remember that you can get SSL certs from $9 (e.g. from NameCheap). You might be able to pay lower if you shop around too.

Also even if it was used as a fairly strong ranking signal, if Google still approach their rankings like they do now, spammers might still have sufficient ranking 'weight' to overcome a lack of SSL certificate.


Don't forget you have to manage your certs. It's an extra burden.

Let's say I am a freelancer, I make website for small restaurant. Until now I could make a website with frontpage, menu and gallery put it on a server and be done with it and collect a monthly fee.

Now, you have to manage the cert, that is say every year re-issue a new cert and invalidate the old. It adds costs. Without much if any benefits for some class of websites.


I'm a freelance web developer for dozens of restaurants. They pay for the site, then a yearly hosting fee every year after launch. They get a basic CMS so they can update their hours/menus/etc.

I host all their sites on a few VPS servers. Some of my contracts require support for IE 7 or IE 8 on Windows XP, and those browsers don't support SNI. So in addition to what you've mentioned - maintaining certificates and losing more of what little money I make on hosting (I basically charge a small % of the VPS cost plus a few hours' worth of work), I now will need to figure out another solution. It seems like a waste to spin up a new VPS for each site that requires XP support.

Clients look at the <10% of visitors coming from Safari and IE7+8 on XP and say "those are potential customers." It's difficult to argue with that.

For now though, I'm going to do nothing new. All indications are that HTTPS is going to be maybe 1% of the ranking, and I know my market well enough that the sites rank highly for local searches - which is the important part. They're responsive and they've all got social media presences, so until SSL is more important for PageRank, I'll wait it out.


A few people I've talked with told me the same. For now they won't care. But as told me a friend, if too much client start to ask for it will be troubles for him.

But that is to be kept in mind : "But over time, we may decide to strengthen it, because we’d like to encourage all website owners to switch from HTTP to HTTPS to keep everyone safe on the web."


[R]emember that you can get SSL certs from $9 (e.g. from NameCheap).

NameCheap provrides a wide range of certs. I'm sure this is true of other SSL-cert offerings.

Are they all at least adequate for Google's SEO purposes?


Yes, any certificate sold by them would trigger this "boost".


What might be nice as well is to put a Py3K alternative alongside any red libraries, where applicable.

I'm not sure how much work it'd be but it might be useful to see how much Py2k library functionality can already be achieved in Py3k.


Sounds like a great opportunity for personal relaxation & development :-)

Oh and I guess this means that Matt Cutts will be commenting in every HN thread from now on ^^


I had fun with this; definitely a good mini game to learn more about XSS, although it's a pitty that you can cheat-pass a level simply by appending '/record' to the end of the URL. (Granted it's just a game)

I.e. https://xss-game.appspot.com/level1/record allows you to go straight onto level 2.

Anywhoo, HackThisSite is similar & worth checking out (albeit it covers a wider range of web app security issues)


Hello there.

How can you solve level 2 ? I used next sentence, but, it don't work.

<img src=x onerror=prompt(/xD/)>

Any suggest ?


Not sure when the post was made, but ronnier later replied that it's http://www.softsyshosting.com.

I definitely agree though - they sound like a very poor host. One of my websites received an invalid DMCA via my host, and my host handled it well (i.e. listening to my side of the story, before deciding not to pursue the 'complaint').

Any host that handles DMCAs so poorly (i.e. threatening their customers without knowing the facts) doesn't deserve to be in business IMO.


A very good article; well written and explained.

For Java web development, it is worth re-considering Spring Boot though * (http://projects.spring.io/spring-boot/)

Spring MVC and Data (et al) powered entirely by annotations, and (e.g.) Thymeleaf for templating, can lead to some fairly powerful yet concise apps.

We just started using this where I work, and it's a great step forward compared to old style, XML driven Spring MVC and Hibernate.

Also Spring Boot does bring quite a lot of support for REST, via RestTemplate/RestOperations, along with support for consuming and producing JSON and/or XML at the controller levels.

* Edit: I say re-considering since the article only briefly mentions it.


Full JavaEE development is pretty analogous - POJOs and annotations. I almost gave up on enterprise Java when every EJB required multiple classes, interfaces and often XML configuration too.

Modern JavaEE isn't nearly as heavy as the article seems to think ... but I can't argue with the article's underlying pragmatism. Use the simplest set of tools that accomplish the task!


You might need to click "Search instead for" to trigger the 'correct' search.

It's also odd how:

<script[ \\to[^<](?:(?!<\\/script>)<[^<])<\\/script[ \\t]?>

runs in <0.5 seconds, whilst:

<script[ \\t]?\\b[^<](?:(?!<\\/script>)<[^<])<\\/script[ \\t]?>

runs in >2.5 seconds?


As patio11 says, the margin on domains are fairly small and so many domain companies survive on the upsells instead. Verisign's current .com price is $7.85 and for .net is $5.62. This is the minimum that the registrars (GoDaddy, NameCheap etc) need to pay - so when you think that NameCheap sometimes sell .coms for $8.95, the margin really is small... especially since I've left out the $0.25 ICANN transaction fee (many companies - GoDaddy aside - include this in the overall price). So a $8.95 .com sale leaves just $0.85.

So it does make sense for domain companies to market themselves as sellers of an online presence, instead of a sub-$10 domain name.

But having said that, the website seems a tad... boilerplate. I thought that big companies were done with rebranding to a Web 2.0 esque corporate web design?

Also the footer is 865 pixels tall on my 1920x1080p screen - does it really need to be that big?

I don't mean to be too critical - I do support the change to selling a 'story' instead of a domain name. But the design just seems... outdated?



Applications are open for YC Winter 2016

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact