jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
I also did something like this a few years ago (with Go templating instead of Jsonnet), but we recently replaced it with Kustomize (https://kustomize.io/) as it worked quite well for the basic use case of getting shared Kubernetes configs to deploy code to different environments at different times.
This is designed to make Signal more popular while solving some fake account issues:

- Using phone numbers means that Signal can constantly check against your contacts to let you know if any of your contacts are now using Signal. As such, using phone numbers encourages use of Signal.

- The usage of phone numbers instead of email or usernames also helps combat temporary/fake account creation abuse, as phone numbers are KYC if you ban VoIP numbers

That said, in the end it is a compromise on privacy and anonymity to increase the popularity and stability of the app.
Browsers use heuristics here and display the punycode when it conflicts with a more "likely" domain: e.g. in the cross-script spoofing here: http://unicode.org/L2/L2004/04305-spoofing.html , Safari on macOS displays http://xn--tp-jbc.com as "xn--tp-jbc.com" but http://xn--t-zfa.com as "ät.com"
One example, if you move domains, all you'd need to do is redirect the single entry point URL to the new one without having to force clients to change anything and with having to redirect every single API request.

You can also allow other sites to implement the same API and clients would only have to select a different entry point. Look at AtomPub for instance.
One reference indicating greater speed for union labor (typically higher skilled, but more expensive per hour):

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-232X.1988....

Reference: "This study examines the impact of unions on efficiency in retail construction in the late seventies. Square footage put in place per hour is 51 per cent greater for union than nonunion contractors. The study finds no difference in mean cost per square foot and offers mixed econometric evidence on Tran slog cost functions. There is also no difference in profit rates or prices between union and nonunion contractors."
What is your writing process like? Do you edit a lot, or just write it in one go? I notice with the academic articles I'm involved in, that they are edited to death by the separate authors. Comments are often good, but sometimes I feel that when everything is edited many times, the coherence of the first (sloppy) version is often lost.
I am not saying that people are sheep.

I am saying that when it comes to choice of search engine, most people didn't actually choose google. Most people don't even know what google really is, they just use it because that's what is used.

The rise of google have have demonstrated nothing but network effects (which isn't exactly based on objective choice)

People don't use google because google is the best search engine, they use it because it's the most used. Just as people don't use FaceBook because it's the best social network but because it's what most of their friends are on.

The average time spent on Facebook is actually increasing which means less time is spent in google land and this will sooner or later hurt Googles add revenue.

We also haven't seen the effect of companies moving their main communication onto Facebook. But it seems pretty plausible it will happen.

Facebook ad conversion rate has nothing to do with whether facebook will end up taking large parts of the search market from google.

People don't search because of the ads, they search despite them.
That's more the case if you show some sort of aggregate 5 star rating on the front page, I suspect. If you look at peoples iTunes libraries they probably use 2-4 stars a lot and 1 or 5 stars more rarely. But on Amazon, people who think a book is 4 stars but see it rated as 3 stars are going to vote for 5 stars to push it up more.
"If you think about the USPS as an independent corporation, it would be crazy to think about these results..."

I agree. But why should we think of it that way?

The Postal Service was originally conceived as an essential piece of national infrastructure. Why should we think of it as an "independent" entity that needs to turn a profit? Does the highway system turn a profit? How about the Federal Reserve, or the National Institutes of Health?

What's important is that the USPS continue to have enough funding to provide its service in an accessible, timely, and reliable manner. That is what makes it a critical piece of infrastructure. Like it or not, it is still essential to be able to communicate with hard copies.

(Why? For one thing, we don't, as citizens, all have an official electronic mail box. Physical mail also bears information about its transport -- where it went, whether anyone else read it along the way, whether it was delivered and read -- in a way that most electronic communication doesn't. We don't have a unified way of finding out how to communicate with someone online, and the means we do have are all owned by private corporations that cannot be relied on to provide that information in perpetuity. And so on.)

I agree that, for many things, there are ways to communicate that have advantages the Postal Service doesn't offer. But I cannot imagine having to sacrifice what makes that service valuable in the name of making it profitable, or always having to rely on alternative services, especially for critical or official communication. We're going to need a public post office for some time yet. And as communication continues to move online, the need for a reliable, public system for delivering that communication will grow even further.
I'm utterly fascinated, is it really possible to produce that much text on an unknown subject?

Yes: journalists do this routinely.

My family's business does grant writing for nonprofit and public agencies. We routinely write on subjects that we initially know nothing about; we described some of that process in a post about writing Department of Energy grants: http://blog.seliger.com/2009/04/05/doe/ .

Granted, this is not "academic text," exactly, and neither is journalism. But neither is what the guy cited is doing; he's really just regurgitating stuff that sounds okay. This works surprisingly well surprisingly far into the educational system.

I wonder if one way to improve writing skills would be to produce this kind of massive levels of output. Maybe that is a key benefit of blogging.

You could, if you wanted to. The "want" is the key part here, and the skill is not as easy as it sounds: it took me many years to be able to write proposals efficiently and synthesize unknown information efficiently.
It's true that large will have more resources to do security right, but also they become a bigger target. If a small company self-hosts, they are less likely to be targeted than if they are a customer of a big cloud service where hackers might incidentally steal their data because it's there with thousands of other accounts.

I guess what I'm saying is that regardless of who you are, there is no easily discernible best practice playbook, just a sea of tradeoffs generally made by people with a woefully inadequate grasp of the risks involved. Heck, even the best security people are at a disadvantage in the asymmetrical battle of infosec.
> "don't roll your own crypto". I think they are negligible

Please do not ever consider "rolling your own crypto" a walk in the park. Unless you have a serious security background and some actual cryptography education and research never, never, NEVER do this. It is not negligible, and it is not safe.
I'm sorry, I didn't quite convey what I actually wanted to know.

I'm aware of how to model mutable state by simply passing in and "returning" the state, that's not the problem.

Let me try to explain again, bear with me:

Assuming the evaluation function is

evalLambda :: Env -> LambdaExpr -> Proc

(I'm purposefully ignoring continuations and possible IO here. Also, a new Env is not returned because evaluating a lambda doesn't mutate the environment.)

The result of evaluating a lambda expression is a procedure that closed over its environment, so let's assume Proc is a function that has a copy of the environment passed to evalLambda. Note that it is not a function that takes an Env, as the closing-over happens when evaluating a lambda and not during its application.

Now, the interesting thing happens when the result of the lambda, the function, is stored somewhere, and after that a variable whose binding was closed over by evalLambda is mutated: The function evaluating the assignment/definition correctly produces an updated environment, but how will the stored Proc know? I can't see how this can be done without IORefs, honestly.
I won't defend it, but I can imagine that an argument for why self-signed certs could be worse than plain HTTP might be that if you're using HTTP, the communication isn't meant to be secure/trustworthy, but the presence of a certificate means that your communication is meant to be one or both, and since the cert is self-signed, it may not be either. This argument does presume that site administrators know what does and doesn't need to be confidential, which of course may not be the case.

Some argue that all communication should be encrypted, but that's another issue.
Why combine hashes? Just use XOR. If bcrypt can protect "not_my_password", it can certainly protect "KKQ{H]zTDWVSJVA", which is the former XOR'd by "%$". XOR doesn't decrease the keyspace (or change it in any interesting way), so any attack on XOR is an attack on bcrypt; XOR is fast enough to evade any sort of timing attacks, too.
Thorlabs-- they ship quickly, include food with the order, replace things quickly without hassle, provide lots of documentation+software sources without hassle, it's always easy to talk to a human with decision making ability, etc. I've never had a suboptimal experience with them. When I broke four $20000 machines in a month, sequentially, while using them "technically" in spec, I got four overnight RMAs and eventually a better/cheaper replacement. I met the CEO at a conference and he knew my name as a result of this incident. In general I don't do brand loyalty, but I fucking love thorlabs.
Neat idea! I noticed some display issues in IE 8.
Sounds great! Incidentally, there's a chalk festival in Pasadena that weekend too.
See also: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
Hmm, so I should run my combinatorial search algorithms on 512 Linodes, although perhaps they wouldn't like that ;)
Here's hoping this starts a vibrant community of HackenPad enthusiasts. Void your warranty, lose a bit of bass from your sound, and you've got Verizon for your iPad!
I could use a drink!
Oops, I failed to link to the *.crx — fixed.
Until recently he wasn't exactly drowned in cash so that might have been a factor.
Hey I just noticed this comment - thanks, I'm going to check out the authors you mentioned.
Worthy of a standalone post somewhere so I can add it to my bookmarks. :)
It always ends up as a boolean somewhere.

/* complicated auth check */
...
/* more complicated auth check */
...
/* etc */

if(!isValid) {
/* do nasty things */
...
}

You just need to find isValid and flip its value. Easy cheese in a good debugger.

I used to keep Soft-ICE installed on all my boxes. There were a few copy protected apps I didn't bother writing out the cracked file since I used them infrequently. Instead I'd set a breakpoint right before the e.g. isValid flag. Whenever I'd run those apps, Soft-ICE would pop up and I'd know I need to flip the bit for the full version.
1) Invent your own digital currency
2) ???
3) Profit
Only peripherally related, but re: non-blocking IO: at least one framework already exists to do that within the .NET ecosystem (Manos). It's by no means popular (yet--I'm hoping it catches a little fire as it matures), but it does already exist. ;-) Node is much further along, though, and would be a nice tool to have in my toolbox when I'm working on one of my Windows machines.

(IMO, however, the "behind enemy lines" crap is just that. These projects would be a lot better off if they left the poo-flinging to Groklaw and Roy Schestowitz. You want to talk about disheartening...)
Also included in this deal are over sold servers and shoddy support.
Drive to work.
Work.
Drive home.
MIT open courseware - ocw.mit.edu
You could always spawn off your own chain. Like with most things, including the gold rush, people struck it early and are likely to profit if it takes off. But there isn't anything stopping you from grabbing a pick axe and mining yourself.
Can anyone provide an explanation as to what we're looking at here?
This python script is communicating with the bitcoin program (the one available from the bitcoin website which is running in headless mode) via JSON-RPC. It's asking the program which is communicating with all the other nodes for work, performing that work and returning an answer eventually to the bitcoin program which then will propagate it to other nodes. This python script is simply performing the work in python instead of (in parallel?) the bitcoin headless server performing the work.

Essentially, attempting to implement the communication protocol of bitcoin, it's piggy backing off the bitcoin application and just attempting to perform the work. If you've ever looked at the "specification" of the communication protocol you can certainly emphasise going with this route.
No one but you is comparing the two.

* One is a moral judgement: Should we subjectively mistreat animals in order for humans to be healthy and prosper?

* The other is a scientific question: Is irradiation a safe and effective food sanitizing method?

Guess which one has dozens and dozens of studies to back it up? OP posted a few links, but try the CDC's take on it: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no3_supp/tauxe.htm
Sibling comment says this doesn't matter because you can "just" tap the chip. I don't know if that's true, but practically, isn't the real reason why this doesn't matter is that there are a bunch of signed bootloaders that let you boot untrusted code? For example, famously, the Kaspersky rescue disk. [1] Even assuming that the key for this particular disk has been revoked, trusting this to protect your system seems rather fraught, as it's not good enough for your kernel to be secure from ring-0 privesc, every single signed image in the world needs to be as well.

Could be I'm missing something. Is it impossible to replace the boot disk entirely once Secure Boot is enabled? Hard to see how the hardware failure case would be handled.

[1] https://habr.com/ru/post/446238/
> With built in and inevitable deflation.
Why is everyone thinking deflation is a bad thing?
"Oh no, how horrible, my money isn't loosing value over time so I dont't have to buy things I don't need and can start to save money without loosing value"
How should I know? It could be anywhere between $13 million and $13 trillion for all I know. I’m not even sure how much I have in my own bank account.
If you were to require the email address upon registration but instead of storing it in plain-text you store a hash of their email.

When password resetting ask for email, hash and match it against you stored hash.

If matching generate new password and store it, send the generated password to the email input by the user. Though it would likely be preferable to send some form of password-reset-token instead of a password which allows them to change to a new password within X time.

This way you never store their email-address in a usable plain-text.

But if your question was more to alternate methods than email in any form, hmmm, nope, sorry, can't think of any right now that are less invasive on privacy with the same security benefits.
Tell your boss that you effectively suck and it will take you 4 weeks instead of 2?

No, I tell my boss that he sucks and it will take me 4 weeks instead of 2.
Excellent points. Thanks.

First let me clarify that I agree the notion of "banning encryption" is misguided and wrong. I'm looking at Obama's position (perhaps incorrectly) as "we need to be able to have backdoors", not "ban encryption".

I think the government's argument would be that yes, the most sophisticated adversaries will always find a way around monitoring. But I think they'd argue that 95% of adversaries are not the most sophisticated, so the position to is to make it as easy as possible to catch that 95%.

"If we're trying to monitor 100 bad guys and 95 of them are just using iMessage, then let's make it easy to read what the 95 of them are saying and deal with the other 5 with more sophisticated countermeasures, rather than having to use more sophisticated countermeasures for all 100 of them."

I absolutely see the whole argument here. I'm just trying to figure out what the right solution is.
I couldn't agree more. Schools can die and the free market can take care of education for those who want to learn. Maybe give kids some cash to spend, see where they spend it, whether that's school or something else. I'm so done with people pretending school is anything but a babysitting service which keeps kids from being their parents problem. And the losers of society, people who don't have kids, need to pay for that. I don't like to make an argument based on fairness, because it's pathetic, but sometimes I feel pathetic.
> especially considering most people are likely aware at this point that Facebook is using their data.

I would contend most facebook users are not, as they are broadly either poorly informed or very old.
RP2040 is Cortex M0+. It doesn't have an FPU.
The thing is, C also makes me aware of what is happening, by letting programs fail when I forget about certain things.

This may not be as nice as the compiler yelling at me even before the program is run, but it certainly makes for a much simpler language.
Yes :-)

There was me making assumptions about my audience after posting about knowing your audience...

IIIF is a cool approach that is growing in popularity in cultural heritage, the field I work in. The IIIF main site [1] is a bit baffling, but the long and short is it allows for reusable media that does nice stuff like zooms, pagination, commenting, etc. An "IIIF manifest" (examples: [2]) is just some json, which means you can grab IIIF media and re-use it in a viewer wherever you want to.

The demo page [3] has a bunch of links.

[1] https://iiif.io/
[2] https://ronallo.com/iiif-workshop/presentation/example-manif...
[3] https://iiif.io/demos/
Thanks for this explanation.

What sets this post apart from the rest is that it actually provides useful information for everybody, after all those other posts of type "but that's obvious, I looked at it for 1 minute, saw half the solution, was too lazy for the rest and in hindsight it's all obvious. What a ridiculous patent system."

Not to say that the patent system is problematic...
I would imagine that unless you were a licensed electrician, you would be liable.
Dismissing ideas, particularly obviously non-wacky ideas, as "conspiracy theory" is basically censorship. It is a framing of things as "this is not debatable by polite society, so I'm going to mark it thusly and hope you forget about it."
That seems like a lot of money for a glorified spell checker / keylogger
Wikipedia writes,

> The 2010 US Census included changes designed to more clearly distinguish Hispanic ethnicity as not being a race. That included adding the sentence: "For this census, Hispanic origins are not races."

Government forms should simply ask about ethnicity, not race, and certainly shouldn't be asking both. I don't see why anyone who isn't racist would object to that. You can definitively call someone racist for listing ethnicities as different races.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_Un...
I really, really, would like us to stop considering blocking access to legal organizations because of political views.

Can you imagine your license of Microsoft Windows being de-activated because of a social justice campaign?
I'd find this question frustrating because it feels like a trap. I was looking for the trick -- was I missing something in the question that made the obvious approach untenable? No, the answer is simple, just add a way to multiply numbers with the multiply operator.
Not a strawman at all. It is quite common for people with a post-secondary education to think that they have fundamentally better critical-thinking skills and are much less prone to propaganda, just because they have sat in lecture halls for 4–9 years. And you don’t exactly dispute or disprove that, degree or not.

I personally expect people with post-secondary education to be more ideological than people without one. After all, they’ve been in some kind of educational institution for longer...
Bitcoin uses about 1/3 the energy of all datacenters in the world put together.

Datacenters use about 205 TWh/year.

https://www.networkworld.com/article/3531316/data-center-pow...

Bitcoin uses about 75 TWh/year.

https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

And that's with everyone on the planet using normal money every day and just about no one using Bitcoin.
Seriously, I hope their patents expire ASAP. They're hampering the technological progress of e-paper devices with their iron grip on the technology.
This is such a silly counter argument.

First of all, countries secure energy because people want energy. Even in a world where we use Bitcoin, people are still going to want HVAC, cars, cell phones, and all the other things that we use/buy that consume energy and damage the environment. The idea that a country will magically stop wanting oil because it's using Bitcoin is just laughable.

Second, Bitcoin uses a ton of energy by design. It's literally built to create a competition between miners for hashing power in order to prevent 51% attacks. This structure is why increased hashing efficiency hasn't reduced Bitcoin's energy usage, it only results in spending the same amount of electricity on new hardware rather than old. A country that runs on Bitcoin will need a bit more energy as a fiat country, because maintaining sufficient hashing power will suddenly become a strategic problem. Up until today the risk of a 51% attack on Bitcoin is a private concern; only the miners and those involved in Bitcoin are concerned about it. But if a country used BTC as its main currency, suddenly that is a strategic problem. Does anyone honestly think that the USA wouldn't use its military to secure oil in order to hedge off a 51% attack on its entire financial system? Honestly, it would be dereliction of duty to not do that, given that scenario.
Have you considered raising funds for these projects on a platform like RaiseGreen? I know plenty of people who would love to invest, myself included, but can’t afford the investment alone.
Without asking you to reveal too much about your literal "secret sauce", do you already have an estimate for the price per liter of your "chemical carbon capture blend" ? Are we talking liters / tons to operate for a standard year ? Do you have specific IP / RD needed for the production ?

Good luck anyway !
Not all who are privacy concerned are build-from-source savvy.
How does this compare to the most ancient carbon capture tech: Trees ?

I know this sounds boring, but a single $M would allow to plant as much trees and they will capture carbon from the atmosphere, without any maintenance, for decades.
Doubly so when you consider the sources of most Americans' information and that it is not in the best interests of those media giants to fight for a level playing field on an open internet.