It's hilarious that this figure keeps getting quoted with a link to a source that directly contradicts it.
> Armed conflicts have indirect health implications beyond the direct harm from violence. Even if the conflict ends immediately, there will continue to be many indirect deaths in the coming months and years [...] In recent conflicts, such indirect deaths range from three to 15 times the number of direct deaths . Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death to the 37 396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza.
The text is not claiming that 200,000 people at the point of publishing have died, it is estimating the number of deaths attributed to the conflict in the coming years.
My bad, you're right. This shows how bias can affect my readings, I'll work on that and I appreciate you pointing it out
But to stress again, even then this was assuming the war stopped back then, a year ago, and the public number also does not include the groups I mentioned earlier.
And this conflict is unique in how brutal it is for the civilians in Gaza. For instance the numbers used for the Russia-Ukrain war (500K-1M) are not those of civilian causalities. According to the latest UN numbers, it's around 13K for killed, and around 30K wounded [1]. Whereas in Gaza, the number of women and girls killed alone is more than double that (28K) [2]. The conflict is also unique in how many children have been killed, where it outnumbered the number of children killed in global conflicts in the last 4 years [3] (numbers from March, 2024)
What I'm trying to highlight is that when OP is attempting to undermine that conflict, they are not comparing the conflicts properly. Which leads to unjust assumptions, this does look like a genocide, and even if you want to fight this label. This conflict has been extremely devastating to civilians in Gaza, and perhaps is the number 1 most brutal conflict to civilians globally today.
lisp's syntax is simple - its just parenthesis to define a list, first element of a list is executed as a function.
but for example a language like C has many different syntaxes for different operations, like function declaration or variable or array syntax, or if/switch-case etc etc.
so to know C syntax you need to learn all these different ways to do different things, but in lisp you just need to know how to match parenthesis.
But of course you still want to declare variables, or have if/else and switch case. So you instead need to learn the builtin macros (what GP means by semantics) and their "syntax" that is technically not part of the language's syntax but actually is since you still need all those operations enough that they are included in the standard library and defining your own is frowned upon.
Lisp has way more syntax, that doesn't cover any of the special forms. Knowing about application syntax doesn't help with understanding `let` syntax. Even worse, with macros, the amount of syntax is open-ended. That they all come in the form of S-expressions doesn't help a lot in learning them.
> A skilled interviewer is easily able to ascertain breadth and depth of the candidate's experience [without a coding test]
And yet, many interviewers' experience shows that there are people that would pass a discussion-only interview and fail at basic coding tasks. There's plenty such people holding down jobs for a while, so even that may not be a sure indicator of skill.
> The intentional ambiguity is deceitful. The expected dependence and expected deference is so patronizing and manipulative.
I'm ~1.5years into my first job as a Backend Dev so I can't speak much about the industry, but based on my experience and what I hear from others, asking questions and clarifying unclear requirements is part of the job description. I almost never get my tasks in a precisely defined way and a lot of my job is gathering information and asking the right questions to build the right thing, often making my own choices and judgement calls. I assume that these skills are what GP comment is trying to test.
> They don't really care, nor should they, about your product, or your customers.
You can hardly blame a company for preferring someone who does. Or at least, pretends to.
That'd still be a bit too tolerant for my tastes. It should have some kind of reinforcement signal that's stronger than just preventing the code from compiling. Some kind of shock therapy to help users learn and internalize things might be more appropriate here.
> For security reasons, it is advisable for users to log out from a web application once they have completed their tasks
No, the application should be resistant to XSS instead. Online banking and such are automatically logging out to prevent someone stepping away from the device and another person abusing the logged in session.
> Frequently, when a Logout function is present in the application and is implemented with JSON Web Tokens, the application stores the JWT in an insecure location, such as the JavaScript code itself or the local storage in the user’s browser
This claim is as valid as "Frequently, when a Logout function is present in the application and is implemented without JSON Web Tokens, the application stores the plaintext password in an insecure location". The storage location is completely independent of whether it's a JWT or not.
>No, the application should be resistant to XSS instead
Or we can admit that vulnerabilities are a likely possibility, despite all of our efforts. Therefore the most secure approach is to understand that limiting the impact of one vulnerability is a reasonable way of dealing with it.
Otherwise you're suggesting running application code as root on the machine isn't a problem, since your application has no vulnerability.
The application should be as resistant to xss as possible but things do sneak through and we should try to limit the damage in other layers.
An example is that you could think you have no xss issues because you use react to do your rendering. Meanwhile you have a window.location = something_from_url which is just as capable of running js code if you’re not careful.
Having the auth (whatever it is) in a http only cookie is one protection. Having it time limited is another. For some applications locking it to an ip address might make sense.
Using xss one might target login form and steal username/password instead of a token. So I do not see argument here against jwt. Sure the xss will have to be more sofisticated(?)
I recently switched to Firefox and the main blockers for staying on it were a bad experience with syncing of passwords and such a across devices, the UI (i found a nice fix but it's tedious to setup), and no app-mode.
Right, but the letter "X" may be pronounced "Eggs" and people may not even notice that you're not pronouncing it in a cool "Dimension X" scifi way with reverb and stuff.
Double Yew, Eggs, Why, Zee / Zed
Eccentric billionaire Elan Mosk, while cosplaying Howard Huges, Laid an egg that "he is going to make a wooden rocket that can land on the fondue oceans of the moon"
[edit: added the zed for friends who count on their hands starting at the thumb not pointer finger]
> Armed conflicts have indirect health implications beyond the direct harm from violence. Even if the conflict ends immediately, there will continue to be many indirect deaths in the coming months and years [...] In recent conflicts, such indirect deaths range from three to 15 times the number of direct deaths . Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death to the 37 396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza.
The text is not claiming that 200,000 people at the point of publishing have died, it is estimating the number of deaths attributed to the conflict in the coming years.