jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
> Chinese government* already has a root CA in all* * browsers.

* For definitions of "Chinese government" that includes the Beijing non-profit China Internet Network Information Center, which isn't technically part of the government, but presumably is easily pressured.

* * For definitions of "all browsers" that excludes some minority browsers and those browsers run by users who have disabled the CNNIC root cert.

I have no doubt that the Chinese government has access to the CCNIC root certificate private key if it so chooses, but demanding the private key for an existing domain certificate would provide slightly less traceability and slightly more deniability.
Agreed. Much of the time the users can't accurately describe what they want. Its easier to build what you think they want quickly and show them it, then get them to say what they want different. (Though a problem with this approach is feature creep).
It is true of just about every article, forget about studies. Studies implied someone at least did some work.

Not a week goes by without a ton of these, revolutionary improvements on battery technology, solar power, wind power, curing cancer, curing AIDS, things that give you cancer and on and on.

There must be money in it, I can't think of any other reason why structurally mis-informing the public is fun or useful.
I totally agree, I believe many people vastly underestimate the usefulness of Freebase as a open source ontology. Starting tomorrow, there simply is no real alternative to Freebase and so many great applications are not possible any more :(
What is interesting here is to compare this one man's effort with "ancient tools" well-researched by two generations of old-school programmers with that amateurish hype and nonsense about node (author publicly stated in his blog that he has no experience with server side development on a POSIX system) and golang - a minimalist approach, carefully crafted by a rigorously trained "professionals". It is not just about KBs and milliseconds.

Btw, this "Hello world" example tells a little, basically, how efficiently memory allocation, and IO layer are implemented (that's why no one still could beat nginx).

Much more interesting comparison would be of some "real-world scenario", say, "implement an http look up for some public data-set, imported into a persistent local storage, say, Postgresql" and then compare not just throughput rates, but also resource usage.
I really enjoyed the article.
It reminds me the sort of iterative search for an elegant solution I often had to do during my design engineering MA.
I didn't appreciate "design thinking" at the time, it was too much manual work for me for something that seemingly resulted in the same output.
Now that I am working full time for a software startup, I realise actually how much I miss this way of working.
I love getting lost deep in a problem space and making something just a tiny bit better at every iteration.
As a developer I constantly have to remind myself that done is better than perfect, at least until your company finds the one thing thats worth improving on. Product designers often don't recognise but working as a designer is such a privilege. Thank you for posting this. It made my day.
You should be at the top of the comments list. What's the fear of "contamination" if the so-called contaminant doesn't harm?
Also, chairs.
What is the actual beef though? That you are at a perceived disadvantage to someone who has a public profile?
yeah, if it is actually the case that they have had no revenue and no costs, then filing a 990 is dead simple. You write down a bunch of zeroes. It literally takes an hour. More importantly though, why did the board not clamp down on them?
I agree with you about the visual-layout-makes-programming-easy spiel, but it does seem like there might be a little more to flow-based programming than that. At least a few smart people seem to take it seriously (e.g. on LtU), and dataflow as a computational paradigm has a lot of research behind it and hasn't seen a whole lot of implementation. It's not out of the question that someone could apply it in a new way that would make some classes of application easier to build. I'm open to that and would find it interesting. But after having looked repeatedly for an intelligible technical explanation of FBP, I'm starting to think that the idea is either a trivial repackaging of a well-known model (like Unix pipes, or CSP with directed graphs) or is better shelved with the snake oil. The fact that it's typically accompanied by rather sensational language is not a point in its favour.

Edit: it's too bad that the programming model is getting lumped in here with the visual programming schtick. Those are two different things. (Of course the former would get no PR without the latter.)
The specialness of Uber isn't the car, it's the driver that is summoned seemlingly magically from your phone and paid just as easily.

The drill analogy only works if you're quickly hiring a handyman to drill the hole, not a delivery person to drop off a drill.
"Fallacious reasoning is not reasoning that is incorrect under one set of axioms that may be correct under a different set of axioms"

In fact it is reasoning that might be correct under a different sent of axioms. The very basic fallacy involving division by zero to show that 1=2 is illustrative: you can certainly set up a system of axioms where 1=2 is not a false statement (it may be a boring system, but it does exist).

"He's not talking about political dissent"

Unless you are arguing against economically rational laws and policies, which quite a lot of political groups and dissenters do.
That's cool. Can this scale to 2,000,000,000?
I think someone else pointed this out, but the Oracle license is included because the javascript references [http://www.java.com/js/deployJava.txt].

From the comments in the reference:

* deployJava.js

*

* This file is part of the Deployment Toolkit. It provides functions for web

* pages to detect the presence of a JRE, install the latest JRE, and easily run

* applets or Web Start programs.

i e Sun/Oracle own the code Facebook is using.
He doesn't say "or wishing for an awesome book", so he is fine.
Yes, you can set the work factor. It seems like the default is around 10 at the moment.

http://wildlyinaccurate.com/bcrypt-choosing-a-work-factor/
cheers! what you would love to see in this game implemented?
ultimately passwords can be changed; internal chat messages regarding personal and confidential data can not be taken back.
China's sovereignty extends only as far as its borders. It has no legitimate say in the goings-on outside. GitHub is located outside of this domain, under the sovereignty of a nation that allows and condones its activity. It's really US sovereignty that's under attack here, if anything.
"As part of our investigation we detected suspicious activity affecting a very small number of Slack accounts. We have notified the individual users and team owners who we believe were impacted and are sharing details with their security teams."

Assuming the password hashes can't be reasonably reversed, what would have caused suspicious activity on some user accounts? Is this a situation where certain users may have been targeted specifically, meaning that only a couple hashes needed to be reversed, making the task feasible?
Does the software name come from "tesuji" by any chance? Because that would be very clever :)
Agree with you in one sense of being responsible for your own security, but by this logic I should keep all my money under the mattress instead of the bank, no?
I would suspect things like "being used from a completely new country" or something similar. Could be those are the accounts with weak passwords that the attacker tried the top 10,000 passwords against.
True, although the main thing they're trying to say is it's not about power or torque.
Sure, Eric is selling his blog content on Leanpub (http://leanpub.com/startuplessonslearned), but the key difference is that Eric asked us to do it, and he's getting money :).

And of course someone could get around the need to pay $29.99 by writing a script, but if you value your time at all it wouldn't be worth it.

We think it's a good deal for Eric (he makes money from something he has given away for free) and a good deal for the reader (it's much more pleasant to read a PDF than to click through posts in a web browser, and even more pleasant to read it on a Kindle.).
Pollan actually does go on the black market (still probably $200/hour though). You can't legally get a psychedelic trip guide in the US right now.

The point is that the exact people who are well-known and respected as black-market guides would become therapists in a world where such a profession were legal!
Emacs - the editor that STILL doesn't have a simple way to duplicate the current line?
> Java Varargs functions can take spreaded arrays as Var parameters

That's syntactic sugar for an array, in the most literal way possible: when you define `func(Object… args)` the actual bytecode is that of `func(Object[] args)`, and you can pass in an array to stand in for the entire varargs.

So no, they're right. The varags just counts as 1 formal parameter.
As a synonym for "inexplicably, self-destructively foolish", the word "retarded" is effective, illustrative, and even more concise. As I said elsewhere downthread, I can't offhand come up with a better single phrase to describe the crew in charge of the E-Ink patents. And yes, I'm sure that says more about my limited linguistic faculties than anything else.

I do think it's important to point out that your taken offense is entirely your opinion. You are certainly entitled to that opinion, and I trust that you're coming from a good place, but I feel it's also important to acknowledge the occasional usefulness of language that you might be personally offended by.
My mind immediately went to the most recent episode of NPR's Planet Money, where they explored buying rights to one of Marvel/Disney's +7,000 characters. Specifically, they tried licensing Doorman, an obscure joke of a hero who can teleport others.

Although they never said it outright, it sounded like the main deterrent is just anyone else making money with an angle Disney hadn't explored. It sounds similar to eInk refusing millions if it means someone else makes a greater fortune.
> Regulations don't prohibit irreversible transaction mechanisms, basically nobody wants them.

Please don't just make stuff up. Point me to the credit card I can get which doesn't allow for chargebacks. I want to use it to buy things from people I trust who don't trust me, because that is an actually useful thing that some people have a legitimate reason to do.
So, I guess I fall in the middle.

I have no issues with lock_guard. Also, it will unlock on destruction, which is not much of a problem. And having this sort of side effect at end of scope is consistent with languages having synchronized or atomic blocks.

I would also not have much of a problem with a join_guard that joins one or more thread on destruction.

I am a fan of RAII and both lock_guard and join_guard have a single job and if you use them it is pretty obvious what you want, you can opt in on them and you can delegate the job by passing them around.

My issue is with more complex objects blocking on destruction when it is not their primary purpose.
One of the things I've realized after working on SpiderMonkey for a few years is that simple solutions that accept a little bit of overhead are often faster than more complicated approaches that try to eke out every last cycle.

Math is fast. Stack space is rarely a key constraint. On the other hand, tracking typical argument counts for a function also requires overhead, and compiling multiple copies of a function is also not free. If a particular call site is hot enough that call overhead matters, it's probably hot enough that inlining is the correct answer.

As one additional data point: V8's new approach appears to be very similar to how SpiderMonkey's been implemented all along. Convergent evolution is generally a good sign.
> Concentrate on overriding your own base instincts, then you will be less inclined to expropriate from people and redistribute the wealth of others according to your subjective preferences.

Who says those are my actual instincts? For all you know, I completely agree with your positions on taxation and am merely testing how well you advance our mutual beliefs. For all intents and purposes, neither of us exist beyond this conversation. One must transcend the baser instinct of assuming one's opponent's personality in order to debate with pure logic.

> I’m glad you’ve conceded that coercion is not a necessary component of laws.

For all intents and purposes, they constitute a vast majority of laws.

> It is true that private property also predates the government.

Source?

> I’m glad you’ve conceded your earlier point about the right of exit.

How did I concede?

> You’ve yet to establish the necessity of taxation.

You've yet to advance an alternative mode of government that exists without it.

> Rent is not unilaterally determined by the rentier. Its negotiated between the rentier and the renter.

In the same way that a monopolistic market still creates contracts despite power and information asymmetry, sure.

> How do you describe a government in a way that the government isn’t an instance of “might makes right”?

Social contract and free association, which is how governments are founded.

> Homesteading is not established by force.

Tell it to the Lakota.

> Voluntary exchange cuts across relations that are violently enforced by society.

Voluntary exchange is still founded on the principles of violent enforcement in the case when exchangers break contracts.

> Hobbes was mistaken about a state of nature.

And who wasn't?

> Your fixation on Proudhon is detracting from your efforts to reply to my arguments.

It's because your arguments are by similar to his.

> Essentially you’re saying if I didn’t have a state expropriating me, I’d have a state expropriating me.

And that's the crux of it. Anytime there is more than a single person, you have a state. It's states all the way down.

> Well, who is expropriating the state? Why not?

There's always a bigger state. And usually, the state itself.
I do see the dissolution of the state as the end game for crypto, which also happens to align with my philosophy.
> The number of times such an activity would be useful to me is zero.

what about sending money to someone far away? ever tried? or just living in a bubble using a single fiat to buy coffee

your limited use argument is tiresome. you can not send money to anyone you want with fiat. most can not send money to you. you are not free
That's pretty cool. I did search for a unit calculation library before starting this but since WASM is a priority I wanted to use a Rust one.
Taxi worked too. The way too capped supply taxi market is a US problem.
I always worry about ventilation with cases, though that may unwarranted depending on the particular case / skin. I was cheap (and not sure if the laptop was my root issue at the time), so I ended up putting duct tape over the area my wrists touched, and that helped a lot. It looked pretty silly though.

That said, when I had the option to get a laptop where I wouldn't have to think about it at all (plastic cased thinkpad), I jumped for it. Maybe I've just developed a deep-seated, emotional resentment for metal bodied laptops in general after spending so long dealing with itchy/oozy hands, wrists and forearms. Also all the doctors who just prescribed steroid creams and blamed stress...
We've designed the Framework Laptop for end-user motherboard swaps from CPU platform to CPU platform. We minimized the cost of that move by keeping the memory, storage, and WiFi socketed.
This is exactly the right approach, and the easiest way to implement idempotency in many realistic systems. Instead of thinking about idempotency in verbs - "perform action iff action has not yet been performed" - think about it in nouns - "create a piece of data whose key is the tuple of its inputs".

Practically speaking, this narrows your "transaction window" significantly - instead of:

1. Begin transaction
2. Check to see if work has already been done
3. Do work
4. Persist work
5. Commit

With a potentially long transaction spanning from 1-5, you do this:

1. Do work
2. Persist work to key / table with uniqueness constraint
3. On conflict, do nothing (looks like you already did the work before)

Of course if "Do work" is very expensive, you can bring back in "Check to see if work has already been done" as an optimization, but for many simple CRUD examples, it's actually /cheaper/ to learn that the work has already been done via the conflict check failing than via an explicit pre-flight check.
Oh interesting; I thought I read somewhere it was recent.
I agree that you shouldn't be doing this stuff in production if you don't know the ends and outs of doing this idiomatically. For instance, the lack of parenthesis ala

#define SQ(x) ((x)*(x))

set off my C spidey senses. I use them even for constants in pound defines just to be consistent.

That being said, there are benefits, like the type safety listed being one of them. No weird cast to void* and go to town on raw memory shenanigans you would have to do to use functions in intrusive collections in C.
Neuroscientists have been doing BCI with monkeys for years. Take a look at the work coming out of Byron Yu's and Steve Chase's labs at CMU for starters
>Uh, yes actually. To both.

What a disgusting opinion you have. Of course the two cultures that strongly value education and success are... successful.
Oh okay so if we are going by populations, all companies should strictly be 6.7% black and no more, right?
Heat pumps are more efficient than 100%
I wish the metric system was base-12. It's so close to perfect.
This is some great advice to live by. Sort of goes back to the old mantra of making sure you're getting paid "what you're worth." If something's not worth the headache, then either make the headache worth it or dump the headache.
I'm 2/3rd of the way through the book right now, and I vacillate between being ready to ditch the book altogether (for cheerleading Google too much) and continuing on in horrid fascination (Mayer announcing basically that design was dead "machines made this")

Too much to review here, but overall I am immensely impressed with the talent at Google and their potential to change the world. It's truly an incredible thing to watch.

I also feel like if you took a bunch of hopelessly naive engineering grads, gave them 100 Billion dollars, and turned them loose on the world, you'd have a Google. That both a compliment and a critique. I strongly suspect that Googlers aren't all wearing superman capes and flying around the planet, looking for evil villains. Much of it today must be tediously boring.

But "files are so 1990"?

We are not going to reinvent the mainframe as the internet. At least I sincerely hope not. No matter how many super-incredible geniuses we throw at it, there are really good reasons that have nothing to do with 1990 that lead me to know that I want complete control over my data and my processing. That doesn't mean that those things have to permanently live locally, but it sure as hell doesn't mean that I have to "control" them through some cloud provider using html. Maybe I'm smoking crack, but it seems to me we're just proving that old saying "you can have too much of a good thing"

Hopefully one day it'll be 2025 and these same types of forward-thinking people (I consider myself one) will have moved beyond rigid cloud/client thinking and be saying "the cloud is so 2010, you know?"
The USD has been trending more strongly in relation to the NOK. (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8...) Probably an irrelevant currency for most, but the Kroner has been extremely strong and independent (IMO). Can anyone explain how this trend relates to the above article?
what do you mean "a lot"? a company which invests $100k / month in adwords should be expected to spend how much in online surveys?
Aw geez, not another high-speed-rail argument.

The US does not have, and will never have, an effective high-speed-rail network. Nor does it really need one. You can already get from every city to every other city in a slow convenient way (car) or a fast inconvenient way (plane), and there's no real need for a third method intermediate in speed. Have you ever been at a total loss to figure out how to get from one city to another conveniently? I haven't.

The Chinese government can build high speed rail, cuz it doesn't mind ripping up the houses of hundreds of thousands of people to build dead-straight rail lines into the middle of cities. The US, at this stage, has far too much investment in its cities to rip 'em up just so that I can get from San Francisco to Los Angeles in four hours (instead of seven hours, or one hour).
I absolutely agree - any one of the Bell Labs scientists could easily have become a multi-millionaire by choosing a different path. Financially, they saw only an infinitesimal fraction of the value they created.

In one corner, we have engineers and scientists whose full time job is to solve problems and create new ideas; in the other corner, we have those whose full time job is to acquire money in any way possible - executives, Wall Street types, etc. It is easy to guess who will emerge financially victorious. Sadly, I don't think it can be any other way.
I didn't know that either and that made me look at all the other options and features that Vimium offers. So many things I didn't know about! :)

Thanks for making me look! (it's like vim, there's always more to learn)
If the core workflow was actually the same, then businesses wouldn't have been so loathe to upgrade to it. From what I've witnessed, few people launch their primary applications through text search - they prefer shortcut icons, whether they be in the menu, taskbar, or desktop.
Neither productive, insightful, nor accurate, just FYI.
My first and last penny stock. Never again, because $HMNY.
Any power grid is very vulnerable to attack. Anyone who can cause a sudden surge in demand can take a power grid down.

If you can make power usage unexpectedly go up by more than ~10% within a minute, most power grids will fail.

I'm struggling to think of any companies who could do that though... Someone with malicious access to teslas servers couldn't even do that... For example, instruct all plugged in tesla cars to start charging all at once. Assume 400k tesla cars are plugged in overnight, with an average 10kw charge ability. That means tesla could add 4 gigawatts to the grid demand instantly, which is only 0.4% of the USA's ~1TW generation capacity.