I told my parents: if they are ever called by anyone, to tell them "now is not a good time, please give me a case number and I'll call back when I do have the time."
And then, this is important, look up the number for the customer service hotline online.
I feel like this is a simple solution that works 100% of the time.
Likely. I had him setup with uBO but sometimes it would bork a website so he disabled it, I think. Then, one day I screen shared with him and he's using Safari! He claims he had always used Safari. :/ He doesn't really even understand what a browser is. Or a tab. Once I screen shared and he had like 30 gmail tabs in Safari. :o
Another top tip is how to response to “can I just confirm”. No, they can't just confirm any details, until they have confirmed who they are, which they can't do without us calling them on the company's published support number.
Luckily my parents are appropriately cynical and have not fallen for anything like that, but I know a couple of people of my generation who have (in the worst case losing 5K+ in savings, back when there was no onus on UK banks to take any responsibility for such fraud through their systems so it was properly lost to them).
Mike Tyson once said "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth". I think you are underestimating the underhanded tactics and emotional tools available to scammers to keep you on the line.
When I'm at home with the old man (mam is unfortunately in a care home), it _really_ irritates me how many scam calls he gets some days. Most of them are obvious: they just hang up when you pick up, the line is very bad or the caller is otherwise barely intelligible (i.e. they are speaking their 4th language), they refer to an account that doesn't exist or a fictitious government agency. But the occasional one is very smooth, and sometimes even have a few details about Dad's life and/or accounts that give pause (either of the form “could this actually be real” or “I wonder how have they collected and associated that?”).
If my family are anything to go by, they definitely target the elderly more than even one generation down (so it isn't just due to those of the younger generations often only having mobile phones and landlines are more targeted) because they know those tend to be more susceptible to the con and more likely to have some savings worth pillaging.
Also in DayJob, some of our C*s and others associated with them (PAs, office managers) have seen some pretty sophisticated phishing attempts, both targeting the business's dealings and their personal accounts. I get the impression that these are reducing in number ATM (or the filtering of them is improving) but that those coming in are making an increasing effort to be convincing.
I agree the functions in a file should probably be reasonably-sized.
It's also interesting to note that due to the way round-tripping tool-calls work, splitting code up into multiple files is counter-productive. You're better off with a single large file.
I think he was referring to a cryptographic signature, possibly using the "web of trust" to get the key. I'm not convinced we need central authority to solve this.
Both not minifying and including unenforced type hints consumes a little bandwidth though this can be largely offset by compression. This is an engineering trade off against the complexity of getting source maps working reliably for debugging and alerting.
If I am shipping a video player or an internal company dashboard how much of my time is that bandwidth worth?
This feels like a ridiculous thread that captures everything wrong with modern Javascript ecosystem.
It's grown into a product of cults and attempted zingers rather than pragmatic or sensible technical discussions about what we should and shouldn't expect to be able to do with an individual programming language.
edit: to clarify, I assume there needs to be a basical level of comprehension of programming languages to debate the nuance of one, and if you can't think of a single reason as to why someone would want types removed, that's a possible indicator you don't have that necessary level yet, and I think the most effective way for you to learn that is to Google it. Sorry for coming across as rude if you genuinely don't know this stuff.
If you already know many reasons as to why types would be removed, then it seems disingenuous to ask that question, other than to make the point that you feel types shouldn't be stripped. If you think that, say it, and explain why you think they shouldn't be stripped.
The current state of Javascript is you _have_ to remove types; I was pointing out I can think of reasons why I sometimes wouldn't want to. (Admittedly in a glib manor; though on this site many prefer that to four paragraphs)
Hear me out: javascript integrates types as comments (ignored by default) in its standard and engines start to use types as performance / optimization hints. If you mistype, your program runs, but you get worse performance and warnings in console. If you type correctly, your program runs more efficiently. We already have different levels of optimization in V8 or JSC, why can't they use type hints to refine predictions?
You do not recall correctly. There is more than 500K SLOC of test code in the public source tree. If you "make releasetest" from the public source tarball on Linux, it runs more than 15 million test cases.
It is true that the half-million lines of test code found in the public source tree are not the entirety of the SQLite test suite. There are other parts that are not open-source. But the part that is public is a big chunk of the total.
> TH3 Testing Support. The TH3 test harness is an aviation-grade test suite for SQLite. SQLite developers can run TH3 on specialized hardware and/or using specialized compile-time options, according to customer specification, either remotely or on customer premises. Pricing for this services is on a case-by-case basis depending on requirements.
And then, this is important, look up the number for the customer service hotline online.
I feel like this is a simple solution that works 100% of the time.
reply