He means that in the sense of the either-or fallacy[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

You're assuming the same set of people that are commenting are those that are upvoting this article.

Another hypothesis is that those are two largely disjoint populations on HN. With the smaller one displeased with the article and is likely to express that in comments. The other, larger one is pleased with the article and doesn't bother much with comments.

This is my first post, so I'd love any sort of feedback - good and bad. Mainly constructive. Thanks

As he wrote in the fiddle's test he worked from the deobfuscated code of the original item, which probably used map to save 4 characters

That doesn't make sense. Motherboard usually support a certain number of memory sticks. You probably have 2x1GB sticks, you can upgrade by replacing them rather than adding additional sticks.

You probably do still have a 32bit system so you're still capped at 4GB of useful memory. I'd still upgrade my system if I were you.

In theory you'd be correct. But some motherboards, even when they're not operating under the constraints of 32 bit addressing, can't handle more than a certain amount of memory. In my case, my laptop's motherboard can only handle a maximum of 8GB.

This is a fairly common problem: http://superuser.com/questions/308310/what-limits-a-motherbo...

1. The memory controller will impose its own limit, which may be less than you'd think.

2. The form factor may also impose a limit. You won't find a DDR stick larger than 1GB, for example.

Of course, if either of those were the cause of a 2GB limit, then you could make the case that the whole system should be upgraded, but that's a lot more expensive than a couple of sticks of RAM.

The version is not a decimal but a dot delimited list of integers. Which gives you 10 > 8.

I agree with you, but 7GB for 100 tabs sounds likes something unusual happened. I usually have around 200-350 tabs open (Yes, I'm hoarding, I'm aware of it). I usually terminate their processes and respawn them when I need them (their state is not lost) but IIRC, when I don't I get around 3GB for 200 Tabs

I've seen this many times, and it seems to depend on the complexity of the page being rendered. I did close and re-open things, much to the same result.

The difference is, I can put custom JS on my Github page and send you a link, when you open it you run code I authored. Developer console is just me running code, and is also on any arbitrary domain on any site.

My understanding of this article was that he pulled off the hack entirely by himself, without having to get someone to visit his page. Maybe I misunderstood.