An interesting side note was that she put in a simple profanity filter but in all of her trial runs it never picked up any "fuq" or variant names.

Edit: Here are sample boy names: Shill Flay Roshard Per Coll Milius Madfrego Derry Fer Fordy Carlel Marler Rommyronance Jord Felwooke Rott Luper Bent Zekin Othen Nolanterry Jerarton

Here are some girl names Esalessie Rine Nolenn Alynna Myrtinet Faybeciline Aline Orassabenda Phina Dorgia Lideleaste Beara Sonilinn Judelia Monangeora Jarnina Geleene Emozellyn Maudra Verta Lortis Fret Kathoph

That seems like a really precarious position for those startups to be in. First there's quality-control: the #1 thing that's going to wreck your relationship with a laundry customer is if you mess up their clothes, and if all the clothes-handling is outsourced, how much can you do to prevent that from happening?

And second, if all the value you bring to the table is a thin layer of code over someone else's service, at some point that someone else will just write their own app and cut out the middleman. "Climbing the value chain," the MBAs call it -- start off as a provider of outsourced services to companies whose executives' noses are too high in the air to do their dirty work themselves anymore, and then slowly shoulder those companies out of the way by establishing direct relationships with their customers at a lower cost. It's a strategy Asian hardware OEMs have been pursuing with success for decades -- there's no shortage of people who used to be IBM and Dell customers who are Lenovo and Asus customers now.

https://productforums.google.com/forum/m/?hl=en#!mydiscussio...

That feels like a step back from Google's stated mission to "to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful":

http://www.google.com/about/company/

Apparently, only the information that maximizes search advertising revenue is worth organizing and making accessible. I understand that fighting SEO spam is an important part of keeping search usable, but there must be a way to do it that doesn't lead to completely cutting out large parts of the "indie" web (e.g. posts in discussion forums, and other sites that host user-generated content).

   In[1]:= Predict["NameAge", "Gertrude"]
   Out[1]= 84

   In[2]:= Quartiles @ Predict["NameAge", "Gertrude", "Distribution"]
   Out[2]= {62.8975, 74.7389, 84.8247}

http://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/Predict.html

http://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/Classify.html

Most security research does not in fact work this way. Consider, for instance, virtually any memory corruption vulnerability; while it was once straightforward (in the 90s) to work out an exploit "blind", today, researchers virtually always have their targets "up on blocks", connected to specialized debugging tools.

I am a little surprised that we are only now hearing about high-profile researchers getting dinged for actively scanning for actual vulnerabilities in other people's deployed systems. It has pretty much always been unlawful to do that.†

(These are descriptive comments, not normative ones. My take on unauthorized testing of systems in production is complicated, but does not mirror that of the CFAA).

It's for this reason that you should be especially appreciative of firms, like Google and Facebook, that post public bug bounties and research pages --- those firms are essentially granting permission for anonymous researchers to test their systems. They don't have to do that. Without those notices, they have the force of law available to prevent people from conducting those tests.

(Background, for what it's worth: full time vulnerability researcher, started in '94.)

† Caveat: it does depend on the vulnerability you're testing for. There are a number of flaws you could test for that would be very difficult to make a case out of. But testing deployed systems without authorization is always risky.

On HN we dream big. And we all agree that we can dream big and maybe hit it big. Imagine what it feels like to realize at a young age that you DONT get to go after your dreams because you are missing the tools. Imagine what it feels like to believe something is wrong with you because you talk to yourself sometimes. Now get back to starting your company.

And yet, you can be happy to commute, to have co workers, to have some freedom from our parents.

I really don't understand guys who say (or think) shit like this. Honestly, it annoys me not so much because it's sexist, or misogynistic, or bigoted or whatever, but rather because it's fucking stupid.

I've been doing this stuff professional for around 20 years now, and I've worked with oodles of female programmers over the years, and I've never seen any reason to believe that female programmers are in any way less competent than their male counterparts. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

It really boggles the imagination... where do these guys come up with this shit? Making crude jokes, sexually charged statements, some of these other things I can understand (that doesn't make them right mind you, I'm just saying I can understand the place some of it comes from), but I can't even begin to understand a mindset of insinuating that women are less capable as developers/hackers/programmers/whatever.

To anybody who believes that women are somehow inherently inferior at coding, let me just say that you're wrong. Absolutely, totally, completely wrong. Maybe you haven't worked with enough women, or maybe you had the bad fortune to work with the wrong women, or maybe you just weren't paying attention, but it's just not true.