I believe this area of mathematics will become one of the most important areas within 10 years.

This sequence of events ended up very relevant, given the subject matter. :D

Looks great, unfortunately I am having challenges using it on iPhone Safari: trying to engage the sliders moves the cards around instead.

Thank you for reporting. I am looking into it.

You may enjoy this then: http://jtra.cz/stuff/essays/math-self-reference/index.html

I was already aware of its existence, but I forgot the exact reference, thanks.

That's because it's a direct re-publish of an answer from Quora (note the "contributor"). The decrease in quality may be that the Forbes you knew was sold [1] in late 2014, and the current state of the company seems chaotic at best.

[1]: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/your-money/in-forbes-me...

I wonder if studies like this could eventually have an impact on blood donor age ranges?

The Red Cross[1] current lower limit is 17 (16 with guardian consent), with no upper limit as long as donor is well & not restricted in activity.

[1] http://www.redcrossblood.org/donating-blood/eligibility-requ...

The Red Cross is more concerned about you not dying from blood loss.

I have written vulnerability testers in Powershell and C# varieties:

https://gist.github.com/Zagrophyte/ea086087e6fd7ca579ef (Powershell)

https://gist.github.com/Zagrophyte/0fa7a8e2e507fac2b59d (C#)

My guess is that from a PR perspective they might have worried that releasing the information without a definitive scope of impact would have led to days of wild panicked speculation in the media outlets, and userbase.

While there was still wild speculation, security was only one of many possible scenarios being discussed, and it was mostly treated like a regular outage.

I'm not saying this delay in disclosure was "right" (what if it had ended up worse in scope?), but I agree with sibling post (dave1010uk) that it seems to have worked out better for their brand.

The author (pg) did not post this link, _pius did.

Would something like Kiln Harmony work for storing the main upstream repository?

https://secure.fogcreek.com/kiln/

It seems that if KH translates seamlessly between HG and Git that a project could accept pushes from both, right?

I assume since KH is not open source / free that this would not be an acceptable method for maintaining the main repo, or that the translation would introduce interesting wrinkles, but it does seem like one could potentially have his cake and eat it too.

Thanks to hg-git, Mercurial users should have no problem using the git repository.

hg-git and Kiln Harmony serve different, though overlapping, purposes.

hg-git allows people who know both Git and Mercurial, but who prefer Mercurial, to work with Git repositories from Mercurial. No effort is made to hide the Git model, and no effort is made to ensure that the Mercurial repository generated from the Git one is idempotent (i.e., a given Git repo will always generate the same Mercurial repo) or can round-trip (i.e., I can trivially craft repos that hg-git can work with just fine, but where pushing to a bare Git repo will result in a different Git repository from the original). The benefit to this model is that the Git users don't need to do anything different, ever, and no one needs to know that you were using Mercurial, ever.

Kiln Harmony does something different: it's designed to let a team use whatever tools they want. This means that Mercurial users don't have to learn the Git model, Git users don't have to learn the Mercurial model, and generally, everything "just works" in that situation. Doing that requires a lot more processing power than hg-git requires, which is part of why we only offer it as a hosted solution for the moment. It also works best when your central repository is a Kiln Harmony repository.

I obviously think that's a fine trade-off, but if part of the main motivation of SQLAlchemy was GitHub, then Kiln Harmony probably isn't a good solution.