jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
> push notifications happen when you're afk

HipChat does this.

> it automatically gives you discounts for inactive users

HipChat is free/cheaper.

> You didn't even mention the integrations

I have BitBucket, GitHub, Heroku and Papertrail all integrated and took me 15 minutes to set up. Not sure what else Slack gives me out of the box. Ok, /hangouts isn't built into HipChat (my biggest gripe). We use Trello obsessively for both of my accounts and the integration in both cases is pretty worthless.

> Imagine the delight of posting a link to a Google doc, then finding the content of the document indexed and available in search.

Except it needs to be posted in Slack in order to be indexed right? There is this weird personal desire to want to search every document/email/app/account you have connected for information until ultimately, you don't.[0]

> For me, having GitHub (commits, PRs), CI, exception notification, system monitoring, and ticketing system all wired in,

People have been doing this for years on HipChat via Hubot. GitHub itself uses it obssessively https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCVvYCjvoZI As I mentioned, the one huge benefit of Slack is Slackbot comes pre-bundled and doesn't require you to maintain your own bot. Hence my comment why non-technical people love it.

Please note, I very much think Slack is a superior product, but I think that notion is slightly overstated. If there is one thing Slack got right, is that it made much of it's functionality seem like magic to it's users (whereas HipChat did not)

[0] - http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/14/greplin-grabs-4-million-fro...
He has been accused of putting out hits on people. That is at least somewhat psychopathic.
As with the other discussions on this matter, I remain sceptical that this clause is a problem.

The general argument is made that there is an implicit patent license granted when an open-source license is applied to a software product, and that this explicit patent license somehow overrides the implicit patent license (despite not being part of the license itself).

I've received different advice on the matter, so YMMV. But at the Google level, I'd imagine there'd be channels to negotiate an acceptable solution to this issue…
>, but how can assert that there are reasonable chances that it did not get cracked.

by using different passwords in each site ?

you can't be sure, it's just a matter of time and desire, I have the time and resources, for instance, but no desire.
I think this is a good idea, as it's something I've struggled with. I started watching the video thinking I'd get the usual 2-3 minute intro, but instead was greeted with a 12 minute video for a Wordpress plugin!

It took 3 minutes just to recap the couple hundred words in the paragraphs leading into the video. You could probably skip the instructions on how to install a Wordpress plugin. Combined with the sub-par audio quality, I just ran out of patience.

I'll probably give it a soon though when I get back to the computer.
Isn't it sad how this is absolutely not legal? I wish copyrights would expire as quickly as their original intent would justify. Maybe 5-10 years.
It does not. It just means that using EC2 nodes in your credit card handling system is not necessarily an automatic fail.
Clearly I need to acquire and dispose of a g/f quickly so that I can get hipmunk swag _

Btw: used you guys to get an upcoming ticket to Malaysia. Love the service :)
First warning sign: someone self describes as a entrepreneur.

Second warning sign: asking you to work for free but your not an equal partner.

Danger! Will Robinson!
Statistical reasoning and Bayesian in particular, is frequently misunderstood in spite of its simplicity. It is also preferred that Bayes be spelled in caps. Just for arguments sake, let us assume that an Arab lookalike is more likely to blow up a plane. (digression: I also amuse myself by trying to look like one before flying, at least to the TSO.)

The short answer to the source of the misunderstanding is that one usually forgets to take into account that there are far less Arab lookalikes than non Arab lookalikes. A common mistake is to go with the conditional probability rather than the posterior.

The probability that an Arab is a terrorist, strictly speaking, the empirical conditional probability is the number of Arab with an intent to blow up the plane divided by the total number of Arab in the population under consideration. For arguments sake let me agree with you that this is higher than the corresponding conditional probability for a non-Arab. Lets represent these quantities by pa and pb respectively.

The likelihood ratio that an Arab lookalike will blow up a plane is then
(pa * Pa) / (pb * Pb)
where Pa and Pb are the probabilities that a random sample from the population is an Arab vs non-Arab. What are known as the priors. Here we have Pb >> Pa.

In order to justify that Arabs be selectively screened it is necessary that

pa > ( pb * Pb )/(Pa).

This becomes equivalent to the condition
pa > pb
when Pb = Pa.

So I suspect that if anyone is
sticking fingers in your ears and shouting loudly "can't hear you!".
isnt quite, as you put it, "The US".

There are other issues:

It is hard to argue that pa is indeed greater than pb, i.e. for random samples of equal size there would be more terrorists in the Arab sample than not. Its quite a radical statement and justifications should have been mandatory.

Also I disagree with your assertion that "Had the world evolved differently,..." things would have been different. My counterexample is that the Irish or the Catholics in US were not subjected to any of this on flights to Britain when the IRA were bombing away innocent civilians there. BTW this is not the only counterexample.(I also suspect that O'reilly's over the top assertion that terrorist = Muslim is a compensatory mechanism, conscious or unconscious I do not know.)

The logical explanation for the way the security response is playing out in the field of travel seems to be that people are afraid of unfamiliar people and all it takes to tone down that fear is just some superficial familiarity (such as skin tone).

So I am hopeful that this stage too will pass. Sooner the better, and I hope with no permanent scars.
I meant to type 'immigration reform' and skipped omitted the word by mistake, which completely changed the meaning of the sentence. Sorry about that.

By 'reform' incidentally, I mean consistent facts-based legislation giving the existing system a complete overhaul. Regardless of what policy one supports, the patchwork of exceptions and contradictions in the current legislation leads to a great deal of inefficiency and confusion. Making it simpler and more consistent would make revised rules (whatever they turn out to be) easer and cheaper to administer.
You should probably start with the .config from your distribution's kernel, rather than the stock vanilla kernel .config. It's usually in /boot, so in make menuconfig/make xconfig you choose to load an existing saved config, then select /boot/config-[kernel version] (assuming your distribution installs the kernel config there). Some kernels may also provide the .config contents in /proc/kconfig (or something similar -- can't remember the exact filename).
Yes it is valid. Literally 7 billion people are not entitled to unmoderated amplification using Reddit’s resources, regardless of their bias.
A bitcoiner pinged me and asked for my comment here. It really sucks that people are so easily bamboozled by dishonest scammers.

In the original bitcoin software a node would receive every transaction made while it was online twice: once when the transaction was first relayed, once when it was placed into blocks. This was obviously wasteful, so we created and deployed a reconciliation scheme that exploits the fact that normally all, or almost all the included transactions are already known. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0152.mediawi...

But because Bitcoin developers are not dishonest scammers they didn't run around putting out (no kidding) press releases claiming "98.6% compression"-- though that's what you get if you compare the size of the BIP152 message to the size of the block. In reality, since it depends on the transaction being known in advance the unachievable limit for this class of approaches is a 50% bandwidth reduction for a node compared to the original behaviour. BIP152 achieves 49.3% out of that 50%, as measured on the latest block.

Even before compact blocks was created back in December 2015, we knew even smaller could be achieved. E.g. we published a scheme that requires asymptotically 0 bytes per transaction, only requiring data proportional to size of the difference between the block and the recipients guess at the next block. But what we found is that the simpler scheme actually propagated blocks much faster because once the block is down to just a few thousand bytes other factors (like CPU time) dominate. Expending a lot of additional code and cpu time to take 49.3% closer to 50% isn't a win in actual usage.

[And for considerations other than block propagation, saving a few extra bytes per block is extremely irrelevant.]

It's also the case that some of these dishonestly hyped supposed improvements beyond what Bitcoin has done for years are actually totally brain-damaged and wouldn't work in practice because they're not robust against attack-- but there isn't much reason to dive into technical minutia because what they _claim to achieve_, once you strip off the dishonest marketing, isn't all that interesting.
If you don't like the rules, leave. You don't have to use reddit.

> Ownership of the house changes every couple of decades

If you can't control your house, what's the point of owning it? This undermines the whole concept of private ownership.
I guess? I would have expected the doors to put up a fight, too. But it doesn't sound like there was much forced entry going on beyond getting into the building itself.

At my own workplace, all the areas that are not intended for public use - office blocks and most meeting rooms, for example - are locked at all times and have keycard access. Defense in depth, y'know? And we're not even a juicy target like the US Capitol, we're just some company.
I stand corrected, there are reasonable alternatives to Facebook. But Twitter seems to be a unique channel for global communication. You may be right that we shouldn't expect to have global reach, but if some people have that opportunity while others are denied based on the content of their message, how is that fair? Isn't it up to individuals to reject the message or ignore it if they deem it offensive?
> The worrying thing about a 10-person startup is their lack of money.

I work at a company this size. We've almost gone under quite a few times. We're still here. It's an interesting way to live. It's certainly not for everyone, but you get an enormous amount of influence and autonomy. The pay isn't "great", but I make enough that my wife can stay home with our three kids and the numbers in the bank account just keep going up.

Of course, a lot of that is lifestyle decisions, but working at a small company is a lifestyle decision as well.
You're either being willfully ignorant, or arguing in bad faith.

Calling for your people to all organize outside of the capitol building, claiming that the election was fraudulent without providing evidence, and then telling the active terrorists "we love you" should be sufficient evidence for you.
Perhaps it is the biggest reason why they did that in the first place.
I like to keep business and charity separated. Mixing the two, in my opinion, simply adds a layer of indirection for the bastards to hide behind.

Besides, if you’re in a working environment where people throw around terms like “total comp” and have mortgages denominated in millions of dollars, the self-interest ship has kinda sailed.
How much is Google still investing in Android? The Android ecosystem feels stagnant since at least 2 years. It seems Google is content with Apple taking most of the hardware profits and them taking the ad dollars.

I wonder if this will backfire soon. Wasn't LG the OEM for some of their Pixels? Who is replacing them?

What about Apple's mobile processors outclassing Android?
Avoiding transpilation is nice, but so is avoiding a library altogether. I take this approach when I just want to get going with zero setup and zero overhead; if I'm going to the trouble to set up React then I'll want bundling, and at that point I'll probably just go ahead and configure JSX and TypeScript.
I was out for breakfast for the first time since the pandemic started this weekend (I'm fully vaccinated now) and in walks a guy with a dog sporting a "Service Animal" sash that in tiny letters said "emotional support". I was paralyzed - I was traumatized by my interactions with dogs when I was a kid; where's my say in having untrained animals in my vicinity? This kind of shit needs to be ended but there should be NO issue with blind people with actual service animals receiving service anywhere
(Disclosure: I'm a founder of an equity crowdfunding platform so I financially benefit if people use this legislation.)

I don't think startup investing is for everyone, for some of the reasons you mention below. And I agree there's a risk of the ecosystem developing poorly to be a "market for suckers". But I think the JOBS Act is a net good thing and the concerns you highlight are addressable.

The main problem I have with the "old rules" of investing is that wealth is used as a proxy for sophistication. If you happen to have a PhD in Machine Learning, for instance, you're unable to invest even $100 in AI companies unless you're literally a millionaire. With companies staying private longer, most of the growth in high growth startups is only available to the wealthy.

From the data we've seen so far from unaccredited investors trying to invest in startups (but failing the financial requirements) we haven't seen any correlation in financial status and savviness. Unaccredited investors try to invest in the same companies as the accredited investors, and they all avoid the weaker startups. So I'm optimistic about that, at least for the early adopter crowd. And I think as the ecosystem matures fundraising platforms will look less like Kickstarter campaigns and be more optimized for groups of people assessing/vetting startups. (But I'm an optimist and obviously biased.)

The biggest problem with the JOBS Act is the potential for adverse selection. If "the best" startups don't want to touch it with a 10-foot pole for legal reasons, that's a serious issue for the ecosystem. We've been spending a bajillion dollars on legal research and think we have something that makes this nearly a no-brainer for startups, but time will tell. Startup lawyers hate being guinea pigs with new regulations.

At best I think we'll see a lag in mainstream startups using Title III. Instead we'll see small businesses that are underserved by current investors first. With more precedent and familiarity with unaccredited crowdfunding I'm pretty sure we'll see more startups use it. A similar thing happened three years ago with "rich person" crowdfunding – many critics speculated only bad companies would use it, not-bad companies started using it, and now it's generally accepted.

Index funds would be great. The JOBS Act prohibits investment funds explicitly and it's prohibitively expensive to create a fund for early stage startups that unaccredited investors can participate in. However we're working on ways to emulate index funds, and I think it'll be doable by someone in the long-run.
every day feels more closer and closer to everything getting insanely cool all at once
Programmers are horrible at guessing branch prediction. It's a famous truism. And the only thing worse than guessing the branch prediction wrong would be moving the code farther away then adding a jump to it and back.

The next level of mistake is gathering the profile data from the unit tests. (Hey! Free Input!) Ugh.

Hardcoding "Case 5: is most often" in a library also bit me. If you're giving me the source, let me guide the paths, thanks. Maybe you use Case 5, maybe my code doesn't. (And I just stepped through Clang doing the exact right thing on a switch statement with inlining.)
Am I reading this GPO link wrong or did that not make it in? Section 2804 here actually eliminates an enforced key escrow, so I don't know.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-106hr850rh/pdf/BILLS-106h...
FWIW, I just founded a new startup and we're using Python3. No major problems so far, and I find it much more pleasant to work with than Python2.5-2.7 (which I used in my last startup, and at Google). Dictionary comprehensions are great, keyword-only arguments have been necessary in a couple cases, Unicode's not a total mess, I like how the standard library naming & packaging has been cleaned up, and I suspect I'll love asyncio when the time comes to use it. The only library we wanted which doesn't support it is Splunk, and that was Splunk's loss (we just switched to PaperTrail).

There's an awful lot of FUD and hate for Python3 on Hacker News, but I've found it's great for a green-field project. And folks with 500KLOC existing systems should know that their technology choices are basically locked in time to when they started the project, anyway.
Section 2804 refers to products manufactured and used in the US. But section 2803 is pretty clear:

"New section 2803 will make it unlawful after January 31, 2000, to sell in interstate or foreign commerce any encryption product that does not provide duly authorized persons an immediate access to plaintext capability, or immediate decryption capability."

and

"Sec. 2803. Unlawful sale of encryption

Whoever, after January 31, 2000, sells in interstate or foreign commerce any encryption product that does not include features or functions permitting duly authorized persons immediate access to plaintext or immediate decryption capabilities shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined under this title, or both."

I don't know what this document is, or what it's relevance is, but that was my reading.
A rent deduction, up to a maximum amount determined by that index. Now that would be a pro middle-class policy that I would support.
Yeah usually 80 percent of any problem is just one factor. In this case that's clearly pesticides and the discussion of more potential causes is a benefit to the producers.
I did near the height of the frenzy (Jan '18), but I got lucky and got it for MSRP. That's a great example though, I remember seeing retailers charging 2-3x MSRP.
I think concrete versus natural landscape is a bigger factor in your case.
From the research: 'contestants have increasingly underestimated the true price of the good over time with an increasingly greater magnitude, suggesting that individuals have become more inattentive to prices.'

Does it suggest that? Or does it suggest that underestimating is a better strategy?
The article only listed user and sys time usage, so technically that doesn't matter.

That being said, in my experience those timings are not very accurate at this time scale; timing a program which takes just a few tenths to execute may report halving or doubling the user time between subsequent runs (and vice versa for systime).
Latch on to the plan from the start so they can influence it when it starts to look like it's going to impact their bottom line while also looking like they're the good guys.
The major issue of our Age. And one that gets the short shrift in discussions on AI Ethics and Responsibility. Thanks for posting ;)

Related: Pope Francis @ Hiroshima

http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/pont-mes...
I don't do development full-time anymore and haven't kept up to date with superstars in the programming world so take this opinion with a grain of salt.

I've always admired the clarity of thought of Rich Hickey [1], creator of Clojure. I wish I could point to a single article or post that outlines his philosophy, but they're all over the Internet. I used to spend hours in the early 2010s scouring the web for his writings/videos.

What I find admirable about Rich is that he was originally trained as a musician, yet has an impressive theoretical grasp of software concepts and is tempered in his designs by way of a battle-tested pragmatism (stemming from his having written software for real-world systems).

I've never written a single line of Clojure (and it's unlikely I will ever do so), but his thinking process has been an inspiration to me.

[1] https://www.red-gate.com/simple-talk/opinion/geek-of-the-wee...
I used to do something similar all the time as a designer--

Present the client with 3 options. Two of them were terrible. The third was the one I wanted them to choose.

It usually worked. Usually.
The problem with that is the expectation for salaried workers is they are not working expanded hours at all time, that there is an ebb and flow.
There is no ebb in the modern salaried worker's time, they just work more for less.
"Founder of Endpass - a blockchain startup solving problems in decentralized identity and authentication"
Well, Nathan Poe was just the guy on the Internet who noted the "law"

So let's name it after you, and call it .. Chance's Law...?
If children aren't eating, the cause is most likely not being able to afford food, or not being provided with food by their parents. If teachers were to have any effect, it would be by giving the children money or food, not "hanging out" and "encouraging" them.
I don't think relocations are necessary at all. Within one system each file has a fixed place. Relocation and resolving happens only when files are copied across systems, where serialization should happen anyway. So e.g. once you receive a binary from the network, you resolve it and place it somewhere in the 64-bit space and then just execute it from there every time. The inode number becomes the file's physical address essentially.

Base+offset segmentation does have an overhead since you'd need some extra CPU registers for that if I understand it correctly.
My Cousin Vinny would have looked a lot different if Joe Pesci's character was a terminator.
It's a PDF.
Sometimes the best way to solve a problem is to stop participating in it. Why do the security breaches matter so much in the first place?

If the risk is so high and the security so bad, stop using the technology for things that demand more than provided protection.

Otherwise it makes it sound as if we are being sold snake oil. (Hint it’s a stepped approach that starts with being disconnected to the internet.)
By capturing all external inputs to application, it can replay it many times and results will be always identical.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.05937
The work of preparing to leave the country is necessarily public in a way that doing crypto stuff might not be. I suspect they were worried that preparing to leave the country would tip their hand - and they could have been caught earlier if they tried it. It just turns out they were caught anyway.
I remember perusing a book on ML (the language) and having aha moments such as "so this is where the '_' naming convention comes from" and "this is where pattern matching was borrowed from". Monads (aka zio/cats) are not built-in, the "lazy" keyword is a far cry from strictly lazy evaluation. I say "Scala to Ocaml" on the JVM is equivalent to "F# to Ocaml" in the .NET world (there must be some category theory joke in this topology).
It probably didn't come across in my post (I see on re-reading it) but I wasn't trying to shit on people who haven't had that kind of experience. I think VM/container performance in modern software ecosystems (and especially on shared hardware, which is typical "in the cloud") is so bad that lots of people just genuinely don't realize what kind of workload the hardware itself is cabable of serving, and so are consistently surprised when a single server—much faster than a typical server circa, say, 1999—is happily serving a not-even-that-large workload. It's not their fault, just a difference in experience and some... very good marketing, I'd say.