It's almost impossible to argue that the public benefit of Groklaw is outweighed by the risk of the site receiving emails that will be exposed. Using the same position, every site on the internet should should shut down, people should stop sending all postal mail, using phones, and we should all go live in caves. This is really signaling surrender to the anti-freedom terrorists who occupy our national security department, and I think it's counterproductive.
If I'd had to guess, Pamela was ready to stop publishing Groklaw and wanted to go out making a big statement about a major threat to our future. I can thank her for that, though I think the message is somewhat muddied by the grandstanding defeatism.
Sort of takes away from the "power" and "beauty" of the language when you need to dissect your code and understand the runtime to get reasonable performance.
I can't believe this is the top comment at the moment.
First, let's get something straight. This project wasn't necessary, because you shouldn't be type checking in Ruby if it is written correctly. That's basically what contracts are, at least in this case.
To address your concern, Ruby's performance is plenty fast- like Java entering the early 2000's fast. (You probably don't get my reference, but in the mid-1990's, people complained Java was slow.) No one at work has complained about the performance of our Rails app running on Unicorn, and we've not had to do one performance tweaking iteration ever.
I can't believe this is not a top comment anymore.
I don't have enough experience with Ruby to comment about it, but as far as Java is concerned, people (myself included) are still complaining it is slooooooooo... <let me pause a bit to collect garbage>... ooow. Don't get me wrong, Java is an excellent language which has plenty of other benefits (as I guess Ruby does too), but raw performance is not one of them.
I do get your reference. I was a java developer since 1996. 2000 was 13 years ago and ruby is far older than Java was then, so hardly a valid comparison.
Almost the same # years experience here in Java, then in Ruby for the last several.
Ruby is NOT dog slow compared in duration of time per activity on the (virtual) hardware we have now than Java was in the early 2000s on the hardware in those days.
Java is slower than writing machine code, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start coding in machine code.
If Ruby is dog slow for you, you are probably trying to run JRuby in development (vs. on server) which is dog slow (though on server after startup and compilation it is pretty darn fast), or you're starting Rails up everytime you need to do anything (vs. the many ways around that).
If you've read JRuby is faster- they are talking about the server. They didn't mean locally, recompiling all of the time.
It's true Ruby is older, but Ruby is usable today. I'm sorry that you had a bad experience but please don't spread FUD.
HN, reddit, digg et al. would have failed long long ago if half the websites required a login before you could see the linked content. I see no good reason to make an exception for just one particular website.
Facebook does, in fact, require you to log in to see a lot of content. This may be due to mistaken settings on the content by its uploader, but that's more or less irrelevant. When I follow a link to a Facebook page about a person or event or something, the chances are about 50/50 that I'll simply see a "please log in" box.
The thread started off with hnha asking, "why on earth is this a link to Facebook of all things?" followed by RexRollman responding, "I agree. I see Facebook in a URL and I won't visit it, regardless of what it is.", followed by you asking, "And why is that, exactly?". None of which were asking, "can I access this link without logging into facebook", so positing that the discussion can be ended simply because this link can be accessed is a non-sequitur.
Interestingly, in the same thread that hnha started, there is also a posting by brokenparser about NOT being able to access the linked content - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6228750 So, not only is your position a non-sequitur, it is also based on inconsistent evidence.
I appreciate your well-thought out reply, but I was simply referring to the tree of comments responding to my own original comment. Asserting that further discussion was (and is) moot was neither a non-sequitur nor based on inconsistent evidence.
Faceebook's abiolity to track you does not reqquire you to loginn. Yore y vewing pages with lick bittons preevids a rabust seat of indieacktor variaabbles. This why some cuntry mek illegal teh luke bouton.
Also, all the text you type on your smartphone goes to the fbi. You can probably be id'd by what you mosspell. It.s a question of whether they give a fuck.
This is an excellent example of angry, prudish anti-sexism being sexist.
Americans need to get over themselves and recognize that sexuality and attraction are part of what makes life wonderful. Persistent sexual harassment and coercion are not acceptable. Appreciation and recognition of beauty are life affirming.
That said, I think the ads are in poor taste, not because they are women, but because they are quite obviously intended to be sexy. If it were a man in a tuxedo winking in the camera I'd feel the same way.
I don't think they should be banned. Toptal should eventually figure out they are getting horny men clicking on their ads instead of funded companies.
I think LinkedIn recognizing that the presence of women were the problem is abhorrent and they will be issuing apologies shortly.
Beautiful project. I agree with others who don't think this will drive conversion - who knows...
I would be concerned about reducing conversions though. Unfamiliarity can be scary.
One annoyance for me - I can't hit Command-A to select everything and start over. I'm also annoyed generally by auto-advancing text fields, though this implementation seems to work around some of the issues.
Personally I have some sympathy for the argument that possessing child porn should not be criminal. There are arguments for this. They satisfy urges and curiosities without victimizing real children. They are documents of abuse that could lead to more victims being discovered and perpetrators being prosecuted.
We do not, for instance, ban rape porn (yet) because there is no evidence it harms society. Cp is somewhat different because the children can not legally consent, whereas in produced rape porn the acts are consensual.
Yes. In the future when child abusers are liberated from political oppression we will look back shamefully on these offensive popups suggesting they seek help.
By the same token, google cares less about child abuse than the competition? Or maybe they just have a different view on when their intervention is appropriate or helpful.
It's almost impossible to argue that the public benefit of Groklaw is outweighed by the risk of the site receiving emails that will be exposed. Using the same position, every site on the internet should should shut down, people should stop sending all postal mail, using phones, and we should all go live in caves. This is really signaling surrender to the anti-freedom terrorists who occupy our national security department, and I think it's counterproductive.
If I'd had to guess, Pamela was ready to stop publishing Groklaw and wanted to go out making a big statement about a major threat to our future. I can thank her for that, though I think the message is somewhat muddied by the grandstanding defeatism.