I've been following both projects closely, and I'm very surprised. They're two very different project, and I don't see how they possibly could merge.
ChromeOS is open-source through and through, and is based on the web as a platform. Android is tied to a Google account, is mostly but not fully open-source, and has a very different eco-system. It's API-driven.
Will we be seeing web intents and Android intents merge? Will Dalvik be rewritten on a web technology? Will Java be used at all in this new merged platform?
I can't even begin to imagine how these could merge... User interfaces, maybe, but not the underlying technologies. But maybe that's what is meant by this line: "in time there will be a seamless user experience across all the devices"
As far as I know it's the latest source. It doesn't have everything from Chrome OS though, for instance plugins and the auto-updater [1]. Browsing the commits I see an update from 8 minutes ago [2].
Additionally, while the author is correct that a bad developer is a bad developer regardless of toolset, it's much easier to completely fuck everything up in certain languages. It's quite easy to write code that allows for buffer overflows or XSS vulnerabilities in some languages, and not quite so easy in others.
The important thing, to me, is that the language's path of least resistance leads you to The Right Thing. This generally improves quality of life for good devs and reduces the amount of harm bad devs can cause.
I'm only done with the first page so far, but I wouldn't call most of these "hidden". Many of them are oft-touted selling points of the language or appear in basic tutorials.
That being said, today I learned about the two-argument form of iter, `iter(f, until)`. So I guess I can't complain too much :D
Maybe "hypocrisy" would be a better word. That said, there are lots of reasons why this doesn't mean that he, personally, is responsible for this and why the information in there may be inaccurate. I believe the HN article on that service had quite a few people pointing out that the results returned by that site were inaccurate. And sites like TPB are known to return false peers, so naively scraping the list of peers is not a good way to see who is downloading what.
My guess is that it never originated from the actual place, but was spread nonetheless by some people. The point is probably to show that finding the ip is not a reliable indicator. As opposed to the three strike, which is relying almost entirely on identifying someone from his ip, on such places.
But if the tech to reveal who is downloading comes out in the open, it will be a good thing. The industry is apparently already doing something of the sort, but may not be doing a very good job. The only way to achieve rational thought will be to shine a light on them as well.
It'll be funny. But it'll also probably have an affect on court cases.
Yea, this just seems like rearranging the tokens to achieve the same result. Though, the same sort of thing could be said about path.py, which I absolutely love using.
