So what I'm reading here is why CEOs shouldn't go to the office on weekends and check their mail at dinner. What's glaringly absent from the second part of this article is not asking the engineers to come in on weekends, either. Those guys have families and their negligible equity certainly doesn't justify 80-hour weeks. It sounds to me like the author would rather have gone home on weekends while the engineers stayed at the office.

I find it very sad that the top answer on stack exchange is a guide for how to have mature discussion, see the manager's point of view and collectively look for a solution -- while respecting his authority. But when you come to HN, 10-to-1 the comments are all about punishing the manager by leaving, teaching management a lesson, suggesting that maybe they only need mediocrity (in other words, developers as great as us would never bow to such demands) and generally espousing a naive us-versus-them attitude.

Edit: I find it also frustrating, as I suspect that a lot of the bluster is from armchair cowboys, and in no way reflective of what those commenters would actually do in the given situation.

I think what the author misses is the large institutional structure that restricts the supply of experts and (as a result) enhances their prestige. These days, with the growing availability of technical information, existing systems of licensure, credentialing, and professionalization are breeding resentment on both sides of the lectern.

The author's focus in the article is on the layman's resentment for the expert. While most people would agree that experts are better qualified to talk about something than Joe Blogger, I think the urge to disagree with the expert is engendered by the larger power structure of expertise that has grown up over the past 100 years.

To take a trivial example, I wear contact lenses. While I agree that an optometrist knows a lot more about vision correction than I do, I resent the fact that I have to pay a lot of money to sit in a chair in a dark room and wait for The Expert to deliver his Opinion about whether I need the -4.5's or -5's.

The author of the article feels like he is the victim of resentment at the hands of his students (references to "intellectual valet" and so forth). I don't think students are necessarily in the wrong -- most are probably in college to get a job, and they're right to resent the stranglehold that universities have on social prestige and career respectability. They end up taking it out on the professors, because, well, they're stuck in class listening to The Expert for hours a day because of this or that degree requirement.

The experts then start to resent the laymen for failing to pay what they feel is a proper amount of respect for the superior state of their knowledge. They conclude that the solution is to come up with ways to enhance their prestige even more, for example by writing articles like this one that talks about how great experts are. I'm afraid this will only poison relations between laymen and experts even more.

What I love about computer programming is that basically all you need to be an expert on something is time, persistence, and an Internet connection. Contrary to the author's claims, the alternative to institutionalized expertise is not that "Everyone is an expert". It's that "You don't have to go to a prestigious university to become an expert". Sure, there are a lot of charlatans running around in the programming world, but the free exchange of knowledge and the absence of licensure has led to both a flowering of human creativity as well as (outside of San Francisco) non-resentful relationships between experts and laypeople.

I very clearly remember the week this clicked in my brain. Being very successful, really crushing it, and whining to my wife that the company should give more vacation, and her reminding me that I had been at work on Christmas Eve. My whole perspective collapsed around that instant. I could see the hit in career path I was going to take by changing my perspective, but I decided to do it anyway. And I have always been glad I made that choice.

The challenge is there will always be people who are willing (either consciously or unconsciously) to throw away their family and personal relationships in order to pursue success in their career, and it is difficult, if not impossible to compete against them with the 'balanced life' bit set.

The DoS won't work on most of the specific example services mentioned in the post (Blogspot, GitHub, etc.), at least not if the user is using a modern browser, because most of the big names have such cookies blacklisted by browsers.

The mechanism is the Public Suffix List, which was originally created because there needed to be a list to keep track of which TLDs used public second-level domains and only allowed registrations in the third level. For example, while foo.example.com and bar.example.com are both owned by example.com, foo.co.uk and bar.co.uk are two different domains, since co.uk is part of the UK domain hierarchy (along with ac.uk and so on) and registrations happen at the third level. Therefore it would be undesirable if foo.co.uk could set cookies for the entire .co.uk, as in the UK ccTLD world that's equivalent to setting a cookie for all of .com.

So there's a big list (initiated by Mozilla) specifying that .com is a public suffix, .co.uk is a public suffix, etc., and wildcard cookies on public suffixes are refused. This has been adapted, as a huge hack, to big sites that have user-registerable subdomains. So now .blogspot.com is also treated as a public suffix, since anyone can "register" a foo.blogspot.com under it.

However new entries are added on a fairly ad-hoc basis, so a site that allows user subdomains that can run JS is vulnerable by default unless they explicitly get themselves added. I notice Dropbox isn't there, for one.

The list: http://publicsuffix.org/

Ad blockers are the solution to an advertising industry that largely has zero respect for users. Ad blockers are the logical extension of pop-up blockers and spam filters.

If the Internet advertising industry could be trusted to behave itself nobody would install ad blockers. The fact that people are installing such software should be taken as an indication that today's ads are too intrusive and too disrespectful.