Is the passport number supposed to be secret? You show them when you buy alcohol in some countries as well to the police if they ask for it - all of these people can copy the number if they so wish.
If she could not do the job then she should have resigned.
Edit: there was another post by [redacted] but it disappeared, it does not even show as deleted, weird.
It said: "This isn't some ride along in a consumer grade EV. They were gathering data to program the car with. The emergency braking systems were not active. The person that was supposed to be monitoring the vehicle knew this."
When a commenter deletes their comment, it disappears.
It would probably be more respectful not to copy what they posted along with their username. Actually, I think we'd better redact the username from your quote. People sometimes have important personal reasons for deleting things. The odds aren't high that it matters but the impact could be high if it did.
It would be probably be more respectful if you would not mess with my posts, now even I do not know who made said comment. Guess I should start signing my posts and keep backups of them.
People sometimes have important personal reasons for deleting things but this does not mean anything. It is not as if "x posted y on twitter and deleted it afterwards" or "the page was edited/deleted, here is an archive.org link" is uncommon on HN, nor it is as if a stalker would not be able to scrap HN posts of someone instantly as they were posted.
> it disappears.
In my experience they show as [deleted] but I guess this is only for posts that have replies.
Obviously it's rare for us to intervene in a comment that way (and never without letting them know), but in this case it was the lesser evil compared to compromising another user's privacy. Copying what they posted along with their username is basically overriding their deletion, and that was their choice to make, not yours.
I'm sure it wasn't that big a deal and I'm sure your intentions were good, but I'm also pretty sure most HN users would want us to protect them in this way, if only for the rare occasion on which it actually is a big deal.
> In my experience they show as [deleted] but I guess this is only for posts that have replies.
Kind of. Technically, posts that have replies can't be deleted, so what sometimes happens is the poster edits their post and replaces all the text with "[deleted]".
>Technically, posts that have replies can't be deleted, so what sometimes happens is the poster edits their post and replaces all the text with "[deleted]".
Which should also be prohibited, because it's just as destructive. You shouldn't be able to edit a post with replies either.
I don't know, if my posts were locked after the first reply, my contributions to HN would be definitively worse. I almost always find confusing typos and grammar errors, and things that just could have been stated better, after initially posting a comment, and I use edits to fix those problems.
Yes, ideally I would just do more revising before posting a comment the first time, but I don't seem to work that way.
I think the two-hour window is a good compromise, and if anything I really wish it was longer. Yes it has downsides, but I really think they're outweighed by the good.
I generally support end-to-end encryption for everything, but I'm not sure that it makes sense in the context of IRC. IRC networks are usually public, so anyone could join your channel and listen in, even with end-to-end encryption. It seems like E2E would make for a lot of complexity and overhead without tangibly increasing the privacy of the users.
Before E2EE was used in IM clients, IRC already had IRC over TLS, and also OTR (which was also used in Gaim/Pidgin).
On IRC, IRC over TLS doesn't have the same threat model as E2EE. With IRC over TLS, the server(s) can read the data plaintext. With proper E2EE (not the marketing version) that's not the case; only clients can read the data. I'm talking about actual data/content here; not metadata.
Hence the "usually" public, I presume. While this doesn't invalidate your point that IRC could use E2E encryption, I personally only use IRC for communication on public channels, where it would be largely pointless, unless you're assuming a really paranoid threat model, in which case public group conversation is probably not a good idea anyway.
It certainly is free. The standards are generally backwards compatible and the changes are simple. You do not even need to be aware about the differences between C89 and C11 to contribute to a C11 project.
> or because the toolchain they use elsewhere (personal projects, embedded comes to mind, or work) hasn't updated to the new standard.
I fail to see how focusing on the americas "it hurt democratic movements in third world countries". Are you saying that it would have been better if they never published anything?
I would certainly like it if the published absolutely everything that they had (in fact, I would argue that not publishing them would be unethical unless if they use said information as an insurance in order to make sure that for example Assange gets free) but I would not go as far as to claim that they did any harm.
I do not understand. Why would him being pro-trump affect your sympathy regarding his prosecution due to revealing the Iraq war crimes? Surely it is possible to stand against unfair prosecution of people while also disagreeing with their personal opinions and beliefs. It is not like this court is trying to decide whether he is guilty of rape or not.
(note: I do not know whether Assange is pro-trump or not so I will take pjc50's word for it - seems weird though as Trump has been holding an anti-whistleblower position)
(note2: The allegations were not regarding rape but rather of intentionally breaking the condom while having an otherwise consensual sexual encounter - fun fact, this is legal in California although I personally think that it should not be)
Some quick google fu shows no hits before her paper, either for the virus name (RaTG13) or for chains of nucleotides.
Then another point that seems suspicious to me is that, in her interview with Nature, she states that RaTG13 was only found in 1 (one) bat poop sample, as in, ever, and that all of the sample was used, so there's no virus isolate available, which is too convenient.
Edit:
It was previously called RaBtCoV/4991, and only a single gene was published in 2016.
Just like the Internet Watch Foundation. Being a private charity does not mean much for the UK.