rk17's comments

The point Dijkstra was trying to make is that humans are inherently incapable of dealing with that kind of detailed complexity, and still reliably make useful programs. That's why he proposed that goto should be excluded from all higher-level programming languages.

In my comment structured programming refers to using structured syntax to generate goto statements, so you don't have to see them or implement them yourself. It should free the programmer of considering those alternative ways of controlling program flow. Presence of goto statement points to a flaw in the language design.

To answer your question: Because the basic language I'm referring to, was on my TI84-plus calculator, and it only had an if-statement (no if-else!).

Actually Goto doesn't have a problem; And it wouldn't matter in modern languages that deny access to that low-level instruction.

In basic you can use your labels and goto statements to create a hierarchy of dispatching routines. And if you're very disciplined about which global variables you use as flags to control the execution flow, i.e. which goto statement gets selected next, and which variables to hold return values, you could write a decent program.

The danger lies in that it allows the programmer too much range to produce low-quality code. The negative effect includes too much attention to the implementation of abstractions, instead of its usage. The existence of the goto statements can undermine other abstractions offered by the programming language.

Goto doesn't break structure of the code, programmers do. (I guess that's the whole reason we stopped using it: reducing the risk of making crappy software)

Great comment. Off-topic: funny name.

Yeah, I should have included that example. Just adding that repression on that scale actually merits regime change more than finding a workaround. Although the workaround might be more feasible in most cases. So, it's a good initiative.

So what crypto needs is an easy-to-use plugin for developers, so more end-users can take advantage of this software.

Nice counter-argument, with the concession that this is more like git than it is github. It might really put crypto on the radars of, and make it accessible to, the developers involved in these cloud services - which would be the equivalent of github. A jquery plugin that simply allows developers to include a verify-identity-feature, would actually go a lot further in bringing the rewards of crypto services to the larger audience, imho.

I'd increase the time a little at least a couple of times during the week. Because learning to programming or playing an instrument is like learning a language, and it requires some extended time of immersion to really make significant progress. An hour of focused practice is the minimum I need to really have noticeable progress.

Nice analysis/strategy description. I just want to add that one of the primary reasons why saas companies increase in size, is because they provide convenience. It seems that the SEO strategy increases convenience by having a relevant guide/tutorial for each use case. Which makes it easier for the short-in-time managers making the decisions whether or not to use this or that saas company's services.

Maybe. But just consider that GitHub popularized git among professional developers. I don't think it's the audience this initiative has to reach. Though it will certainly make crypto more accessible, I doubt that doing the analogous thing to github will give keybase the userbase that would most benefit from their services (less tech savvy people).

The advantages of the anonymous marketplace only really apply to people who's work is being suppressed (activists/journalists) or who's work is rightfully being persecuted (criminals). Maybe there's a case to be made that a lot of people do want to know who they're dealing with, besides that the system (algorithm etc.) thinks they're thrust worthy.

You're making ad hominem attacks. Yes comparatively it is ridiculous to portray this as a major issue, but just because other people are less-off doesn't mean you should let yourself get screwed over. It's also worth considering that is a discussion on a tech-oriented website, so here it is important.

And you're basically right, it was a cost-benefit analyses. And it was illegal to act upon it the way they did, which is the whole point.

About your two first paragraphs: Over time that market-mechanic would also have as an effect that all engineers have capped wages, because the cause for wage increases - negotiations - would significantly decline; Everybody, almost by definition, accepts the same wage-ranges.

It also introduces systemic risk for engineers, because then the wages could only go down over time. Because any attempt to look for a wage increase would be stopped short by the don't-share-employees-agreement. I also want to note that the companies in the best position to offer you a wage increase are the top-tech companies like Google and Apple.

And yes, compared to other people engineers have little reason to complain. But I still think this incident is a valid reason for complaint.

I also think you have a misunderstanding. Adam Smith is clearly explaining the reason for the more liberal wages from the perspective of the one who is to commence the study, and his likelihood of succeeding. Smith is pointing to the fact that liberal professions are inherently more difficult to master, and often provide a value that is more rare (and therefore worth more money).

You cannot turn this quote into a formula, because it's a description of how wages ought to be, and the reasons therefore. And it is completely irrelevant to discussion, as I'm sure if Smith were alive today, he would count the art of programming among the liberal professions. There is more to making a useful application than to be able to think mechanically. Because programmers create and shoemakers copy.

In theory at least, wage should reflect responsibility and liability within the company. If you go over those of the CEO, you see why they make so much more money. They should be held accountable for the wealth of the entire company.

As far as lawyers are concerned, their wages just reflect the fact that they (should) have been trained as A-list negotiators, and it is common practice for lawyers to have a fee based on a percentage of the deal they negotiated.

There is a corollary for programmers for the above: start-ups. Though not trained negotiators, skill and work ethic can get you far enough. And it is common practice to receive a percentage of the reward.

The grass always looks greener on the other side.

One could make the argument that amount of information to be exchanged in order to get a good assessment really is that small. If they mostly look at how you behave under pressure and whether or not you can still tell a consistent story (pitch your start-up), then you only need a couple of minutes. From what I've read, they judge team dynamic and character for the most part, only checking if you're able to think of a good idea because it would most likely change anyway.

In my honest opinion, they should just re-apply afterwards. It's impossible for investors to see if those red flags will or will not disappear during development. They are quite explicit that the pitch is paramount and why it so.

I basically disagree with the article, here is why:

Although it's true that disruption is not always caused by technology - you could argue that the Sears mail-order catalogue system was a disruption through the business/distribution model -, many disruptions like the radio, the internet, the smartphone etc. have been made possible by technology.

There is also a third area of disruption; namely in product design. Simply making a new consumption paradigm feasible (lack of frustration in use) for the majority of people can cause a shift in the market. Which is very profitable. Ask the guys at Apple.

I really still do like my Ipod, even though I don't have it anymore.

So I think the article paints a misleadingly simplified picture.

In my opinion, it's usually a sign of decline when a company has to purchase added value where it failed to gather or create it herself. Forty-two dollars for your phone book!?

I think it's really neat how the author conjectured what this means for other kinds of big data and industries, like medical records and the pharmaceutical industry.

Good read, thanks for the post (^-^)

How about simply adding an additional certificate - e.g. random string of specified length - held by your webapp in closure? And then configure your server to only respond to requests that have the "secure" httpOnly cookies and the certificate included using the POST method. The certificate was originally sent by the server using https protocol during document load, is stored in closure, and can be dynamically updated asynchronously over https connection.

This limits all requests to ajax requests since inclusion of this additional certificate is needed from javascript memory, but it does side-step the problem.

Ps: I know this is a dated article, I'm just curious what you guys think of this work-around. I think it's more secure and flexible than the work-arounds suggested in the article, since this does allow you to use the array notation.

Noob's mistake: I noticed you are the author of the article (#^-^#), I'll read it again after you've updated it.