Of course you can. (I mean many of us can.) I've been doing it for years. I'm surprised that because you find it hard to "turn off" that part of your brain, it must be so for everyone else. It isn't. There are many of us who code for fun and do it with a totally different mindset with no "business thoughts" in mind.
Speaking for myself, the author's post resonated with me in two ways - both that it's hard to turn off the business side of the brain ("Could this side project be a startup? Should I build it this way just in case I decide to do that later?") but also that I find it hard to turn off the manager brain ("Is this really the right order to do things? Is this the most valuable thing I could be doing?"), too, other people in the thread are mentioning thinking about opportunity cost to be interfering with their ability to commit to side projects (and also to actually _enjoy_ doing them).
It's easy to switch for some of us because the last thing in the world we want is more work and a startup is a lot of work. When I'm making something for myself it never crosses my mind that I could commercialize my hobby project because I know that's the fastest way to ruin a hobby.
Which countries exactly? I've traveled in UK and France and in both countries when the online cash register was down, they opened their physical ledger, made an entry and gave me a physical handwritten paper receipt written with pen and ink. They said they would make enter the same data online when the online cash register comes back up.
My understanding is that this (NF525) only applies to computerised cash registers (software must be certified NF525 compliant), which there is no obligation to use in the first place.
So it is perfectly legal to use pen and paper and a cash box.
> This case highlights an interesting tension in web security: the balance between protection and usability.
But it doesn't. This case highlights a bug, a stupid bug. This case highlights that people who should know better, don't!
The tension between security and usability is real but this is not it. Tension between security and usability is usually a tradeoff. When you implement good security that inconveniences the user. From simple things like 2FA to locking out the user after 3 failed attempts. Rate limiting to prevent DoS. It's a tradeoff. You increase security to degrade user experience. Or you decrease security to increase user experience.
This is neither. This is both bad security and bad user experience. What's the tension?
I would say it’s a useful security practice in general to apply WAF as a blanket rule to all endpoints and then remove it selectively when issues like this occur. It’s much, much, harder to evaluate every single public facing endpoint especially when hosting third party software like Wordpress with plugins.
This also reminded me, I think in the PHP 3 era, PHP used to "sanitize" the contents of URL requests to blanket combat SQL injections, or perhaps, it was a configuration setting that would be frequently turned on in shared hosting services. This, of course, would've been very soon discovered by the authors of the PHP site and various techniques were employed to circumvent this restriction, overall giving probably even worse outcomes than if the "sanitation" wasn't there to begin with.
The article starts out with an assertion right in the title and does not do enough to justify it. The title is just wrong. Saying pixels are like metres is like saying metres are like apples.
When you multiply 3 meter by 4 meter, you do not get 12 meters. You get 12 meter squared. Because "meter" is not a discrete object. It's a measurement.
When you have points A, B, C. And you create 3 new "copies" of those points (by geometric manipulation like translating or rotating vectors to those points), you now have 12 points: A, B, C, A1, B1, C1, A2, B2, C2, A3, B3, C3. You don't get "12 points squared". (What would that even mean?) Because points are discrete objects.
When you have 3 apples in a row and you add 3 more such rows, you get 4 rows of 3 apples each. You now have 12 apples. You don't have "12 apples squared". Because apples are discrete objects.
When you have 3 pixels in a row and you add 3 more such rows of pixels, you get 4 rows of 3 pixels each. You now have 12 pixels. You don't get "12 pixels squared". Because pixels are discrete objects.
Pixels are like points and apples. Pixels are not like metres.
> When you multiply 3 meter by 4 meter, you do not get 12 meters. You get 12 meter squared.
"12 meter(s) squared" sounds like a square that is 12 meters on each side. On the other hand, "12 square meters" avoids this weirdness by sounding like 12 squares that are one meter on each side, which the area you're actually describing.
It's one that really bothers me because of the unnecessary confusion it adds.
As for the rest, see GGP's argument. px^2 doesn't make logical sense. When people are use pixels as length, it's in the same way as "I live 2 houses over" - taking a 2D or 3D object and using one of its dimensions as length/distance.
You can use Python or anything else you like to implement your code. The Java code he writes is simple, imperative code. But the OOP stuff might get in the way. If you've got programming experience, it isn't hard to read it and write your own in your preferred language.
Is it? I love HN but if I can fault HN with something, it'd be that HN upvotes too many non-technical articles. Too many!
Every morning I come to HN to give me company for my morning coffee. And every morning I've to work hard to find the technical articles. The number of political articles, "feel good" articles, social issues stuff and other general non-tech stuff that people upvote makes looking for tech articles like searching needle in haystack. I wish HN had more technical articles.
> HN upvotes too many non-technical articles. Too many!
non-technical, and Non Technical are not the same thing here (i.e. you are describing topics that are not directly related to tech, whereas the article is about how Non Technical labels are applied to people within tech)
I couldn't make it. I gave up after 2 paragraphs. The random meandering from one thought to another without saying what the point of all this is got to me. I'm sure it's not a problem in the post. It's definitely a "me problem". Would someone be kind enough to post TL;DR of some sorts?
I had the same issue. I think that their point boils down to what we consider "technical" as a label on people. Basically that "technical" is more of an identity rather than someone having a specific skillset. Something the author feels excluded from, even though they do work that's relevant and impactful.
I think so anyway. As I said, I had the same issue as you having difficulty getting through it. The article takes a long time to actually get to a point, circling around things rather than concretely building towards something.
If I had to guess it is more of a flow of thoughts and not really a classical argument.
It also makes it hard to draw any conclusions about it. Because I think I sort of get where they are coming from, but at the same time I am not sure if I entirely agree. In my line of work technical just means "being skilled with IT related technical skills" without a judgement about other skill sets. It is just there to distinguish between people who can dive into systems hands-on and those who have other skills and bring value in other ways.
It seems to be about the way "technical" and "non-technical" are thrown around with implicit assumptions in conversations in places like this as hard categories. You're either technical, or what are you doing here? Are you lost? The door is over there.
A key paragraph:
>> "This is because Technical is a structural designation that operates outside of any actual problem-solving you and I are doing together. Being Technical is about being legitimate. Or to put it more simply: it’s because you are Technical that I can’t be. We have created the identities this way. A person with a PhD in human things and who deals in human problems and human solutions cannot ever be Technical no matter how dense her statistics are, how many conferences she speaks at, and how comprehensively she has given examples of generating outcomes that are often beyond engineering to generate (change over time; impacts on humans; making legible even an imperfect approximation of just one single emotion). These things can be useful, interesting, valuable, heartrending, inspiring and memorable to tech, but they cannot be legitimate."
I'm still reading but it does seem to be about gatekeeping while avoiding any language that would set off a Technical person.
The author just want a medal saying they're Technical. Whatever this means, it is important to them. Like a child and a sheriff medal. "Technical" is the current cool club to be in and they want in. I guess technical is "techbros and their salary", not your average electrician and even less a Toyota Hilux with a 50 cal. in the back.
I've noticed that a lot in discussions like this. Some people seem to have the impression that if you get the credentials or achieve a certain level of work, someone comes along and bestows a title of respect on you (here, "Technical") or welcomes you officially into that club. They seem to think that's how it works for everyone else (or some other group), and complain because that hasn't happened to them.
But I don't think that's really how it works for anyone. I've been doing "technical" work for three decades and no one's declared me Technical or anything else. Some may consider me that and others may not; it's never occurred to me to ask. How I feel about whether I deserve to claim that title is up to me, and shouldn't really depend on others.
> The author just want a medal saying they're Technical. Whatever this means, it is important to them.
I don't think that's quite it.
> I guess technical is "techbros and their salary"
That is it, from what I can tell. "Technical" is "you get US coastal techbro power and money". Which, most "technical" (lower-case) people working in computing also don't get, even in the US.
This author wants sciency work in fields with more women in them than computing has, to be valued in terms of pay and prestige as capital-T "Technical", and defines "Technical" such that people deciding who gets that pay are somehow within it (rather than very much not within it, as would be the case for most of the category I think the median HN user would call lower-case t "technical", which is part of why so much of the essay is hard to follow until you've figured that out)
This is why the piece is so hard to follow: this isn't made clear until way down near the bottom.
I actually read your comment while still around the halfway mark of the piece, and assumed it was reductive and way off the mark, but I think you've located the actual heart of it, now that I've finished reading it.
> Would someone be kind enough to post TL;DR of some sorts
I found o3 to have done a decent job of it:
- Technical as structural identity: Being "Technical" is a power‑laden designation that shapes reality and enforces belonging, not a neutral skill measure.
- Dehumanization paradox: The system prizes flat emotions yet sustains itself by choosing emotions over efficacy, repeatedly devaluing human needs.
- Excluded expertise: Human‑centered work — psychology, caregiving, storytelling — is repeatedly labeled illegitimate despite its practical and moral value.
- Boundary policing: The "Technical" boundary is preserved by rejecting both outsiders and insiders who push its limits.
- Caring as resistance: Genuine care, narrative, and solidarity with those left outside offer a path to rehumanize tech beyond mere "Technicality."
- Collective rebuild: A hopeful call to action—tech builders possess the capacity to dismantle and reassemble systems to include humanity at their core.
To be fair, the front page news section doesn't even have a date next to the 7.81 release entry. I clicked it to see if there was a date, but at first glance the page just looked like a time capsule. The title of this post doesn't even mention the release.
> a real risk of a lot of stress for 0 gain in actual safety, or worse.
Couldn't parse this part very well. Do you mean that there is a risk of taking stress but without getting any safety in return?
But if the OP decides not to travel, then they are eliminating stress, aren't they? So they are both benefiting from reduction of stress and the safety is definitely not becoming worse by taking this decision.
What I meant is, I think if 0 risk is your goal you're going to suddenly find non 0 risks everywhere. You won't find a 0 risk safe haven (if it isn't guns it will be a gas leak, accident of some sort), and that's a recipe for endless worry / lost life opportunities and so on.
Now picking a number is a little silly but OP picked 0, but if we did pick a non 0 number and did the math ... they might find the real risks far lower than they expect / find some piece of mind and operate a little more based on reality.
Risk is all about perception. I traveled in China, and felt completely safe. In Africa, in one place I see more armed guards, and I feel less safe than in another place where there are very few guards. At the same time I follow german news and not a day goes by where I don't read about some attack, people throwing rocks at trains, busy train stations that have a weapon free zone (which is really weird since you generally can't carry weapons anywhere in public) and I get the feeling that traveling in Germany is less safe than here in Africa.
The US doesn't have the best safety record. But I think it was always like that. I don't think it has gotten worse. Only the border controls feel more worrisome now.
I think this is kind of a tangent - surely we all understand that "I want zero risk" is technically an exaggeration. I think we can talk about the difference between "low" and "virtually zero" without getting into "there's always meteors" territory.
E.g. I'm an American, and I don't want to go anywhere (inside or outside my country) where my risk of being killed by malice or incompetence is "low", for most colloquial definitions of "low". I would like something lower than that. Feeling safe is a really big deal, especially when you have no agency. E.g. I'm happy to go on a, relatively speaking, "dangerous" hike.
I think realistic understanding of the numbers is a potential path for OP to really measure this. 0 being unrealistic ... from there you try to quantify what the other numbers mean for an individual and so on. So I think 0 is less of a tangent and IMO more of a pathway to being a bit more realistic / empowered to make the call.
I don't think 0 is unrealistic because I don't think they meant 0 mathematically, they meant 0 as when humans use the word to describe risk, which is near zero mathematically. I think it's a mistake to try to quantify this, as you suggest. That's not how humans work. I can't tell you what percentage, to two significant places, of risk I am willing to engage in for any given well-defined reward.
> Similar to other commenters I disagree. You can definitely read without parsing and just “move on”.
What do you disagree with? Nobody said that reading makes you immune to moving on without understanding.
What they said was that while reading it is possible to pause if you don't understand something and move on when you are ready to move on. That's harder to do in videos or lectures. Do you disagree with this?
I should have been more careful with my phrasing. What I meant is I am much more aware of my own understanding, gaps and shortcomings and more actively involved in learning and processing information when I am reading. And I honestly cannot think of even consuming certain books with audio medium. As I commented elsewhere, "Gravity's rainbow" is one such book, in which for me, even a single page cannot be consumed using audio medium.
reply