Professor Carson if you're in the comments I just wanted to say from the bottom of my heart thank you for everything you've contributed. I didn't understand why we were learning HTMX in college and why you were so pumped about it, but many years later I now get it. HTML over the wire is everything.

I've seen your work in Hotwire in my role as a Staff Ruby on Rails Engineer. It's the coolest thing to see you pop up in Hacker News every now and then and also see you talking with the Hotwire devs in GitHub.

Thanks for being a light in the programming community. You're greatly respected and appreciated.

i'm not crying your crying

Wait… you’ve clearly never used The Silk Road, have you?

You don't have to answer that question.

I thought this article was going to be like "YouTube restricted one teenager's access to fitness videos"... but yeah, this is a pretty sane move on YouTube's part.

"Sane" or "Insane"?

Human society has always been glorifying certain body types and physical violence all the way back to ancient Greek and very likely way earlier. There is nothing wrong with admiring and chasing after a fitness ideal.

To make a steelman out of this case, I guess we can argue overexposure and extreme promotions of unrealistic ideals can warp impressionable young minds. But even then I disagree that Youtube alone has the moral standard and authority to regulate and censor this. They are a corporation, one of the least moral entities currently around in modern time. They have no right to pick and choose what kids can and cannot watch.

They're not picking and choosing. YouTube didn't wake up one morning and say we should stop recommending fitness videos to teens. They are responding to massive social pressure from parents who for the most part are very sick of fighting their kids on one hand and rapacious enterprises determined to exploit those kids on the other hand.

Please note that Youtube is not preventing teenagers from watching fitness content. Rather, they are simply not recommending it as much in the Youtube recommendation algorithm. No new categories of videos will be age restricted.

Does this change your view of Youtube's new stance?

The article said "stop recommending" and to me that is functionally "stop providing access".

Personally, I believe for most people, the algorithm is all of Youtube. It controls what show up on the side bar and on the search page. How many people would go beyond those to find a video? By changing the algorithm, YT can effectively restricting access to certain contents.

Regardless, my point doesn't change. A corporation does not have the standing and should not be allowed to regulate moral matters. They operate on completely different principles and letting them control what a person can and cannot see or hear would not end well.

Lol perhaps this post title will promote a lot of "I read the title not the article" comments.

I don't understand your concern. The conversation surrounding the negative impact of social media has been going on for some time now. But also, they already pick and choose what most of us watch through their recommendation system.

Why does it seem like you’re always hiring? Is there lots of growth happening or is it turnover?

Very well said

I just attempted this myself by creating an issue, commenting a file, copying the link and not submitting the issue.

It seems to work initially, but then 5m later the file gets deleted and the link leads to a dead s3 asset page.

So I believe this is fixed. Though the solutions suggested below are crafty, trying to reproduce myself shows me this has been addressed by the GH team

Isn't the workaround for this just ... actually submitting the issue? Then presumably GitHub won't delete the file.

Maybe. Haven't tried it. Though, that does make the attack vector a little less intense than persisting even without an issue. At least the attack vector can be tracked.

fwiw, I tested this out as well by clicking open issue and uploading a file and then not actually submitting the issue. the file is still accessible 2 days later.

so it doesn't appear to be fixed. :-|

Just want to point out that GitHub removing the asset after 15 minutes is actually worse than leaving it. The least appetizing aspect of this for adversaries is that your payload is now forever available to anyone with the logs. If it were adversary’s choice (submit the issue and it stays, only draft the issue and it gets wiped, good riddance, a phenomenal c2 stager indeed!)

As a person that used Overleaf extensively for my undergraduate, simply came here to say thank you.

It’s the nature of the study that parent comment is referring to.

If a study is self-reporting, it’s an observational study which can only establish correlation, meaning the study can only say, “there might be something here that warrants a further research”.

A clinical trial is needed to establish causation.

So while 10k sample size reduces the error bars, it only increases the confidence that there might be something here worth doing a more rigorous study later.

> A sample pool of 10,000 volunteers is pretty good in the realm of statistics.

No it’s not. No sample size can make up for other biases.

“All data in of itself is useless”…what does that even mean? That’s like saying a chair in of itself is useless because no one is sitting in it. And this could be extrapolated to saying everything is useless.

Data’s usefulness stems first from its many defining factors, which validates it, and then opens doors to using that data to explore insights.

> And this could be extrapolated to saying everything is useless.

Now we are getting somewhere.

I mean I can do mental gymnastics to understand the sentiment, but it really just comes down to individual preferences and definition of "use". To me, the usefulness of everything is in constant flux, and that's kind of cool to think about.

I thought your comment was spot on. I just appreciated the possible turn towards nihilism or existentialism.

We spend so much of our life determining what is useful in one sense of the word, and rarely stop to think about the usefulness of what we do in the philosophical sense.

> All data in of itself is useless. A sample pool of 10,000 volunteers is pretty good in the realm of statistics.

The point isn't the size. The point is there are too many confounding factors. It could be that people who work longer hours do so because they are high on trait conscientiousness, which also causes them to report low productivity

It could even be because they are conscientious that they actually work slightly slower, and/or it could be that people who are less conscientious just don't care as mcuh about producing what was expected.

To paraphrase the late Hitch: productivity metrics are not great. Neither is the word "connection" in science-adjacent reporting.

Adding this for data. I charge $500 an hour for contracting. It's gotta be at least that as it's costing time I would otherwise spend with my family. Family time / time away from my core job is incredibly valuable.

For said data... does anyone actually pay that? I mean if you don't get hired for that amount you've got tons of family time so I guess it works?

What I'm trying to say, I don't see the correlation between having a huge hourly rate vs family time. 40 hours a week of work is still 40 hours regardless of how much you're paid.

I mean, if you work 20 hours a week, then you don't have 40 hours a week of work