According to the article, removing / didn't touch the stuff in /mnt/c. Therefore, I would assume (but obviously not test myself!) that this just stops as soon as it sees another mount point.
I just checked the `rm` source code for the GNU coreutils, and it actually checks for `/` by checking for identical device and inode numbers to `/`. I admittedly don't want to test if the feature works, but in theory if you remount `/` at a different location `rm` will still require the `--no-preserve-root` flag to delete it.
That said, the above only saves you if `/` and `/mnt/c` are the same device mounted at two different places - I haven't used the system to know.
Considering it is an opinion piece from the times, I am going to guess that very little actual research went into this.
Let me see some code that alludes to racism or sexism and not just an analytical algorithm that says yes, this guy that has a long history of being arrested has a good chance of being arrested again.
I highly doubt that biometrics are being used to assess these things when proven data is exponentially more reliable.
This is an intriguing system, on the one hand I imagine this will prepare kids for the business world on an exponential level... on the other, I hope there are safety nets created through policy that regulate fiscal decisions.
I would argue that people with those crazy LED headlights are even worse. Since I often work late, I get the pleasure of being temporarily blinded as a white dwarf passes by at 45mph regularly.
I literally LOL @ "white dwarf". I absolutely agree, but, I have to admit... I have those lights :/
My last car was smashed by an idiot who didn't know how to back out of a parking spot, so rather than waiting for weeks while the body shop replaced the whole right side my car, I just traded it in for a new lease; a 2016 of same model. The new model has those stupid lights and I absolutely hate them. They're even unnatural and obnoxious to the person driving the car, not just the poor souls they're blinding.
Unfortunately, most cars will likely have them within the next few years.
And don't even get me started on the LED eye melters that cyclists are running these days. Some are about as bright as car headlights, but the spread and aim are inferior - especially since the folks that run those invariably seem to point them up from the horizontal. I keep thinking about mounting a 8 D cell maglight on a gimbal on my handlebars to give them a photon in-kind response.
More often than not, they're not mounted correctly. When it comes to headlights, too many cyclists (most?) do not think of their bike as a vehicle. The headlight should be a solid light and the light beam should not be parallel to the ground. the primary purpose of your headlight is there to help you see where you're going. If it's not, you don't really ride in the dark. As with any other vehicle, being seen is a secondary reason for lights.
I've been commuting by bike, year-round, for 17 years. While my commute home may require lights, my morning commute requires them. (It's at 3:00 a.m. and some stretches have no lights.) If my headlight was parallel to the ground, it would not let me see where I am going. Oh, it will show a person or vehicle, but it won't let me see the road. It's aimed at a spot X feet in front of me, enabling me to see debris on the road, as well as anything huge.
Properly aimed or not, a headlight is only going to let a motorist (or anyone) see you if they are coming towards you. I can see them coming, too. A good reflective vest and secondary lights (helmet, side, etc.) is necessary to let people see you from behind or the side. (The vest is useless if the car is running without its headlights on, which has happened to me a few times in the morning.)
If you were coming towards me, why were you in the wrong lane? If you were drunk or not paying attention, seeing me probably wouldn't make a difference.
If you were coming from behind me, you wouldn't have seen my headlight, anyway. That's why I have a taillight and a reflective vest.
I think part of it is a reaction to the poor bicycle infrastructure in many cities. Bright lights have stopped cars from hitting me at night a couple of times. While I'm simpathetic to other people (I try not to point them in people's eyes) there aren't that many other options.
I live in Portland, OR, e have pretty good bike infrastructure. If the goal is to be seen, there are indeed other options. LED glow or area lights are probably more effective than the eye melters pointing towards the sky and much less hostile.
As a cyclist commuter who was hit by a clearly negligent car driver on Sunday in broad daylight, I fully support any measure to make bicyclists more noticed on the streets. In the absence of fully grade separated bike lanes, bicycles can only do so much to protect themselves against 4,000lbs of metal.
If you see the biker then I think the lights did a good job. I suppose you could make an argument that it could blind people and they hit someone/something but I never heard of that happing - I only hear bikers getting hit because they were not seen.
Worse, if a cyclist's frontlight is blinding other cyclists coming at him it means they're failing both the others AND themselves, as: The oncoming ones can't see shit and are more likely to make a mistake and the rider themselves isn't illuminating the ground ahead of them so they can't actually see where they're going.
i'm a cyclist and i sometimes have to stop and get off my bike and wait for an oncoming cyclist to pass me (eg, on a multipath). it's not necessarily the brightness, it's that it's not constructed to be visible (and/or illuminate the road) without also blinding oncoming traffic. fortunately i haven't ever hit someone or something while blinded by an oncoming cyclist, but that's in spite of the crap bike light, not because it did a good job.
Yes, me too. I'm a daily bike commuter and am quite sympathetic to the being seen aspect. This goes way beyond that in some cases. Case in point: a good chunk of my ride goes through the Portland Springwater corridor. This is a dedicated bike/pedestrian path. Much of it is unlit at night. I've seen these riders a half mile ago (~2 minutes) and by the time we're getting close enough to matter their lights are blinding. It's like a driver who refuses to dim their high beams for oncoming traffic.
I'm not sure how these are legal, I'm in my twenties with 20/20 and only somewhat sensitive to light but even the normal ones are absolutely blinding to the point where I'm really not sure what I would do (other than have already crashed) without the "focus on the white line to the right" trick.
Most of the offending lights, as far as I know, are badly done retrofit kits that don't have the proper focusing hardware. Owners and cheap shops just drop an LED replacement into a "standard" headlight reflector and get horrible results.
The proper ones, like one sees on BMW, etc., don't blind people.
There's no law or technical consideration that says "LED headlights have to be built 10x brighter". People want them as bright as their electrical system can handle, and they buy them that bright. Blame people. If you like, regulate people; We successfully prevent them from using green lasers as headlights, this should be no different.
Normally I would agree with you, but I'm also at the point where I just can't credit people who still STILL consider him to be an acceptable candidate for POTUS.
The incredible Brexit fiasco should drive home to us all that this is not a game, not a reality TV show.
This isn't about politics, it's about humanity. It degrades us (the U.S.A. as a Nation) to have this trainwreck taken seriously as a candidate.
That's all opinion, I'm sure their opinion is just as important to them as yours is to you... I still don't think I would unfriend someone because their opinion differs from mine. Unless it was illegal or harmful to others in a real way... live and let live.
I think it helps that HN has a common factor to bind us together. Professional Techies may be able to disagree in a less flamboyant style in most situations because at the end of the day politics is mainly seen in the light of how it affects the tech industry as a whole.
While there are also some folks that are undoubtedly passionate about their particular political views, they mainly get well thought out replies as to the argument they are presenting for and against... even if some people get a bit passive aggressive with the down voting.
I think you are talking about affirmative action, not so much a specific guide to hiring process. The law states that x ratio of specific minorities have to be hired/enrolled per year as a catch up mechanism that is largely outdated in 2016.
As far as University enrollment, women have led the numbers for years so that isn't really at the heart of it. More so the subjects they choose as a major/minor being the issue.
Marketing STEM majors to minorities and women has been a priority for a short amount of time, so we will see how it pans out in the next decade.
And that also means that at some point (ideally in the very near future), we're just going to have to be OK with the idea that not all women want to be STEM majors. This necessarily and explicitly means that the ratio will never be 50/50.
We're all ok with the idea that men don't really want to be early childhood educators (Pre-k through grade 2). It's a big deal when a guy applies for those jobs, according to teachers I know. Then, of course, come the endless jokes about the pedophile trying to get a job with kids, how he is going to need a female escort when dealing with the kids, etc.
I liked this article, well written and thought provoking. I am curious if this attrition effect plays a large part in graduate rates from STEM programs.
Quite a few major enterprises use SEP/SEPM in combination with other IPS/IDS. Time to make sure everything is updated I suppose. Good work project zero.
