chbrown's comments

iTerm2 3.0's tmux integrations take a little bit of work to set up locally, but you only have to do that once, and as long as your remote servers have a reasonably recent version of tmux (1.8, I believe), just replace filippo's `mosh HOST -- tmux a` with `ssh HOST -t 'tmux -CC new -A -s main'` (no mosh required).

After frustratedly fixing an unsolvable Rubik's cube over Christmas break (my dad thought it'd be funny to "solve" it by peeling off the labels and putting them back on, but got tired halfway through and left it in an unsolvable configuration), I'd love to see what their robot does if you give it an unsolvable cube.

Every time there's a minor version update I have to remind myself the sequence of upgrade incantations. It's pretty simple, but here's a gist that might help anyone upgrading from 9.4 to 9.5 with Homebrew:

https://gist.github.com/chbrown/647a54dc3e1c2e8c7395

Another paywall workaround is to use/spoof Google search as your referrer.

In Chrome, for example, install the "Referer Control" extension and add an entry for "ft.com", select the "Custom" referer setting, and paste "https://www.google.com/" (without quotes) into the textbox for that entry.

Interesting proposition though; can Google's search algorithm's ranking be construed as libel or something legal like that? Has anyone ever sued Google for lost business, and won?

I'm sure they did a lot of user testing and decided that their Javascript-powered scrolling mechanism was a better user experience than the default browser behavior of just moving up and down proportionally to your mouse wheel.

You can also request that the Web Archive fetch a URL from their homepage: https://archive.org/web/ ("Save Page Now" in the bottom right). I triggered the 7:09 copy this way; whether or not the other four fetches yesterday were also manual, I don't know.

It said that before, too — I was paraphrasing. "humb.ly" is a more trustable name than, say, "Megaupload", but they can say whatever they want.

What I want is some assurance like "The EFF has complete read-access to our platform and maintains a continuous independent audit of these services to verify that we comply with our own privacy assurances." The EFF is probably not the organization to do such a thing, but that's kind of what I'm looking for.

Okay, but then the receiver has to know how to decrypt. Kind of narrows down who I can realistically send files to.

tl;dr from the FAQ:

Q: "Why should I trust you?" A: "Because you should! We're good people! Honest!"

I'd love to trust a service like this, but there's no credible effort to actually establish that trust.

Maybe they are really short. 30 seconds * 20 => 10 minutes, which seems reasonable.

I'm kind of surprised that Linus uses Gmail.

It's likely that he'll actually catch a Googler's attention, but for many of us, user feedback is not an option.

@jacquesm's http://jacquesmattheij.com/ham-or-spam-gmail-not-to-be-trust... is another recent instance — but again, there's no call to action.

Gmail is great for some people, but I prefer having more control, and I highly recommend https://FastMail.com if Gmail is failing to meet your needs.

I guess this means that regular expressions are Turing complete, at least until a patch arrives?

Also on github: https://github.com/ivan-tkatchev/yalz77

Is it ironic that this guy bought a domain name specifically for this? or does he just know his audience.

I do. I block Flash in Firefox (v33.1), and it works in Firefox. Chrome (v38.0...) might have some Flash on it somewhere, but it's mostly HTML.

My institution subscribes to Nature, and using my library's proxy to access the Nature website, I can use the "Share/bookmark" menu to generate links like http://rdcu.be/bKk4, http://rdcu.be/bKlc, http://rdcu.be/bKld, and http://rdcu.be/bKli, which can be viewed in the browser (or maybe only because I also just installed the ReadCube app?).

The articles linked to above span several months, but it's generating serial links, so I can only assume that it's able to track visits back to the subscriber and/or my university account.

The ReadCube HTML5 reader looks nice, but does not work with JavaScript disabled (no surprise there). It uses JavaScript to override text selection (disabling copy&paste), but after a little meddling with the developer tools and element inspector, you can find a decently near ancestor to the text and copy the DOM as html. Stick that into a new file and you can select (and copy) the text without too much further hassle.

The DOM is awkward and split up kind of like a PDF (selecting a range of text goes haywire in unpredictable cases), but in comparing the HTML DOM hierarchy to the text object structure in the original PDF (which, as a subscriber, I can download), I found no obvious similarities, so I'm guessing they aren't translating the PDF to HTML directly.

It makes me sad that asking Google to fix their problem is the best solution Goldman Sachs can come up with. A few other options off the top of my head:

* DDoS the gmail account in question with spam, particularly spam that looks like it contains confidential information.

* Create a clever job ad on reddit, advertising a GS position in IT Security division by tracking down an email user supposedly played by a GS confederate, and then provide the gmail account in the ad

* Blackmail the unintended recipient, perhaps by sending the sort of data it's illegal in the U.S. to even own

* Mock the "From" header for thousand of typical spam messages with the gmail account address, send them to destinations that are sure to pass through Spamhaus & co.'s filters

* Fill the user's inbox to capacity; e.g., sign up for Quora with the gmail address in question

Certainly on the gray hat side of things, but asking Google to delete an email isn't exactly kosher to begin with.

I've heard that before.

* Library of Congress: http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2013/01/update-on-the-twitter-archi...

* Twitter Data grants: https://blog.twitter.com/2014/introducing-twitter-data-grant...

I'll admit, I haven't applied for access through either one, but neither have I seen any papers cite access through those venues—and I read quite a few NLP + Twitter papers.

Could be part of the game. Bughouse = chess + chess, inb.tw = chess + XSS.