skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There are opinions on both sides. Some are quite insistent that the SEC etc are not doing enough: eg. Themis, Nanex, most of the ZeroHedge crowd. I think the "SEC is doing fine" crowd is less noisy, but probably the majority.

Of course, opinions can be influenced by whether the management of the markets is to your financial benefit, and perhaps that's why there seem to be a more people saying nothing: they're heads down, quietly making a fortune ...

It's worth noting (again) that the LULD circuit breakers were introduced after the 2010 flash crash, as an attempt by the regulators to "stabilize and support" markets. In some previous events, I think they've worked better than they did on Monday.
Code Platoon Is Looking a Ruby Instructor to Teach Veterans to Code
"However, given that it competes with other software compiled with random (usually GCC) compiler versions (what, do you think all seL4 drivers that eventually set up DMA will be verified?), the compiler issue is not a problem unique to Muen."

There's how good it is relative to what it competes with and how well it meets its goals. I'm talking about potential issues with the latter. And drivers have nothing to do with what I said about the kernel. There's other methods/tech for handling them.

"the compiler issue is not a problem unique to Muen"

I have a certified compiler for C. Most separation and microkernels use that. Some use a C++ subset which can be easily converted to C. I don't have one for Ada or SPARK. So, of open kernels, the problem is indeed unique to Muen. AdaCore has commercial tech to handle it in a labor-intensive way but I'd also consider making an equivalent C system side-by-side. Then, can use SPARK proofs, C verification methods (eg Frama-C, Astree), and certified translation to object code.

Meanwhile, that the very-complex compiler can destroy the security argument is worth remembering and possibly testing/inspecting for. I'm working on the concept for an easily-built, robust Ada compiler. Once I'm done, I'll pitch it to the AdaCore people to see if they'll do it or assist an external project in doing it.

"Xen has the same problem (and by extension Qubes)"

Yes, it's why I call it low assurance. I told QubesOS team, "secure" appliance vendors, etc about alternatives with low TCB and strong security. A glimpse at the market will show how many people bought that. ;)

"even seL4 has it for all purposes that exceed running the kernel and sigma0"

They admit it. They also have many parallel projects ongoing at NICTA to fix that. They solved the compilation part recently in an unexpected way. Others they're currently working on are here:

https://ssrg.nicta.com.au/projects/TS/

The seL4 team and Gernot Heiser were more clear on assumptions and limitations of their tech than most I read. There were certainly no attempts to mislead. Refreshing compared to the marketing crap I had to deal with from likes of Green Hills.

"The big innovation here is probably the easy general availability of a practical Separation Kernel system. And the other (not quite as big, but still significant) innovation is having a Separation Kernel that you can fix yourself, if anything looks off to you: "

I agree. I said the same in another comment here to 'hga.' It's why I promote and bring attention to Muen elsewhere so more people review, try and contribute to it. Medium assurance is certainly better than low and might get replaced with high given time.
kornholi, do you have an ER X? If you do, I appreciate your first-hand information. If you don't, I asked mrbill the question that I asked because I was looking for his first-hand experience.

Regardless: Much love, man! :)
Traditional tort law also put some barriers in the way of doing various negative things you could imagine doing with the public information. For example photocopying a bunch of public records about someone you don't like, and then mailing them to the person's employer, flyering the neighborhood with copies of them, etc., or following the person as they go apply for employment and handing a copy to the prospective employer, would all fall afoul (in some jurisdictions) of economic torts and anti-harassment law. But running an "information service" that does this systematically for everyone doesn't have the same element of targeted harassment, so avoids these torts, while still harming the person in question.
The mailing list post discusses the use of virtio for drivers.

That gets you a lot of the way to KVM support.
I use Ansible Vault if it's imperative to store keys in a repo, and I've been really happy with it. StackExchange has something similar called Blackbox[0]. I remember reading about a Ruby gem too, but I can't find it now.

[0] https://github.com/StackExchange/blackbox
If you own a smartphone, or any other device using an ARM processor (and others), then yes you have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced_instruction_set_comput...
I agree with that. It's why I still recommend BareMetal hosting and physical separation where possible. ;)
Five years, building a culture, and handing it off
Modern art was CIA 'weapon' (1995)
I wish I knew what to tell you.

I've never seen more than a minute on our codebase for Uglify. It could also be we were doing something stupid with Closure and slowing it down (like stopping then spinning up the JVM for each package for example) which is certainly possible.

However if we add in some of the more computationally heavy Uglify options it will go up somewhat.
I wonder how reusable this will be on the SPARC64 port.

There was never enough interest in Linux/SPARC to make a Xen or KVM port feasible. But OpenBSD's community is a different animal.
If it's easy to reproduce then why hasn't anyone reproduced it?
Another good example of the level of technical detail I see in comments from systemd haters, thanks.
I think the issue here is that the two of you are answering subtly different questions - which statement of the problem encourages to arrive at a 'paradox'. In particular, we need to agree that Sleeping Beauty is questioned both times on a result of tails to make progress.

The coin is fair, so the chance of getting heads is obviously 1/2. That's the answer to "What are the odds that a given coin flip came up heads?", but it's not what Sleeping Beauty is being asked when she wakes up.

What SB is being asked is "Given that you have just been awoken, what are the odds that you were awoken as a result of the coin landing heads?" There's an implied conditional present. The coin flip was fair, but the questioning is biased by result - if SB is awake and being asked, the odds are 2/3 that she's in a world where the coin came up tails.

To demonstrate, resort to extreme cases, as you did. If SB isn't woken at all for heads, then the answer to the question "you're awake, how did the coin land?" is tails with 100% certainty. If she's woken up once for heads and 99 times for tails, then the answer to "you're awake, how did the coin land?" is tails with 99% certainty, and so on.

This all hinges on the assertion that SB is questioned on every awakening. If she's only asked on the first awakening (or is asked about the coin flip as a general concept) then the answer is of course 1/2, as you assert.
Netflix takes gamble with Epix film cull
Yes indeed. That's exactly how it works. Introspection.

Given a language that doesn't support templated strings inherently, how else would you provide that feature?

Though technically, `fmt` is not a function per se. It's an object with a `__call__` method. That doesn't improve the situation for you, does it?
In a little more detail:

A 'stop loss' order will sell once the share price falls below a threshold. It will sell using a market order, meaning whatever the current best price might be.

A 'stop limit' order will sell once the share prices falls below a threshold too, but will sell using a limit order, setting a minimum price that you're prepared to be paid.

In a crashing market, stop loss orders can result in you selling stocks for pennies, regardless of their rational worth. Stop limit orders protect you from excessive price drops.
Nah, I'm just not running OpenBSD. Gotta stay where the innovation is at, both in productivity and security. ;)
If you're going to question market hours, you should ask why the market is open for so long. Why not just have one big print a day?

There's not actually so much new information coming out throughout the day that the market needs to update prices on a sub-second basis for hours and hours every workday.
I think you are both right in different ways. For an engineer, the problem can always be solved in new and more efficient ways, as long as new techniques appear. But from a product design standpoint, the optimum is hit when the solution for all cases is automated into defaults and a minimum of configuration, and that leads to characteristically different products emerging to solve problems that are subsets of the old ones, rather than feature requests piling up forever.

After all, the point of the "application" is to enable a goal to be reached. We can engineer better pens, but that doesn't improve the quality of our writing; but a new tool like a typewriter or word processor does improve it by being more specific to the problem. Following the revolutionary improvement a logarithmic function takes hold; the newest Word only does a little more for most use cases than WordPerfect 5. So the next big leap would not be another word processor, but something that can automate away typing, like an AI-writer, or a cost lowering of other media that requires no typing, like voice and video capture.
I'm fairly certain the GP meant the literal RISC OS system by Acorn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC_OS
The phrase "ex-con" or "ex-convict" is well established to refer to a person who has been convicted of a crime and who has completed any sentence associated the crime of which they were convicted, distinguishing them from both those who are still serving a sentence and from those who have never been convicted of a crime.

(Its derived from the usage of the term "convict" to refer specifically to a person who is currently serving a sentence for a conviction of a crime, i.e., a prisoner or inmate.)

If "convict", the noun, had a primary definition of anyone who has ever been convicted rather than someone serving a sentence for a conviction, then, yes, you might be right that you couldn't be an "ex-convict". But that's not what the word means.
I also have kids and a company but I can recognize the risk I am/was taking. Without kids I can live in 2 square meters, eat cheap, be healthy, etc. With kids I pay the best education, the best health plans, etc. Not the same.
In your opinion, what is the best way to address the use case of spreading I/O across multiple spindles for non-uptime-related performance reasons?
I logged an issue on the GitHub extension in case that's the problem: https://github.com/github/VisualStudio/issues/62
Albuquerque Cops Charged with 2nd Degree Murder
Copy-pasting more than just text
Or you can just run FVWM2, and get everything offered here (including the fine grain control), plus a bunch of goodies for theming, window decoration, window buttons, pagers, virtual desktops, button panels, etc.
How does this compare to XMonad?
Really depends on where you work. In SF, it's pretty amenable to that. A smart friendly co-worker had gotten locked up for drugs a few years before he started, even warning the HR department that his background check wouldn't come up clean, and that'd been no problem at all, and he's since moved gigs. (If you'd like an intro just hit me up :-) and I'll see what I can do)
Reminds me of the classic "Tulpa" creepypasta:

http://creepypasta.wikia.com/wiki/Tulpa
No - real routers use mechanical switches configured by steady hand.
Developers on Sandstorm don't have to maintain infrastructure. They don't have to protect and back up user data. They don't have to implement authentication, sharing, document management, search, etc. They don't need to think about consensus algorithms or distributed infrastructure problems. They can relax their security diligence as many common security bugs are mitigated by Sandstorm itself.

A guy in Turkey and a guy in France working in their free time built Wekan, a Sandstorm app that easily replaces Trello. Two people in their spare time vs. a whole funded company. There is no way that they'd be able to build and run a SaaS service competing with Trello -- and no way I personally would use a service run by two random guys in their spare time -- but building a Sandstorm app was no problem for them, and has been incredibly useful to me.

To me the question is: how will SaaS developers be able to compete against Sandstorm developers that can build apps so much more easily?
Lessons learned from buildout a django site with a reactjs front-end
Lessons learned from building a larger app with React.js
The fact is, there aren't three volunteers, there's only one. Upon awakening, she has no information she didn't have when she went to sleep, which at first seems to be an unassailable argument in favor of the "halfers."

To me, the problem with the "no new information" argument is that there's another popular paradox in which it also seems to apply, but fails spectacularly. In the Monty Hall paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem), you know in advance that the host is going to open a door at random and offer you a chance to change your initial guess. You're aware that the host knows what's behind the doors. You know that no matter what door you pick, one of the remaining ones has a goat behind it. And you know that the omniscient host will pick that door. So what new information do you gain when the host does what you knew he was going to do?

One way to resolve the Monty Hall paradox is to rephrase it such that there are a million doors and the host opens all of the remaining ones except one. Of course it makes sense to switch doors in that scenario, since you knew that the host would avoid opening your initially-chosen door as well as the one with the car behind it. Your initial door has 1:1000000 odds of winning, while the only other closed door has odds of 1/2.

So if you could find a way to transform the Sleeping Beauty problem into a Monty Hall problem, that could be a good way to settle the argument in favor of the "thirders."

Or, if with some logical sleight-of-hand, you could show that SB is not isomorphic to MH, that could potentially be used to strengthen the no-new-information argument made by the "halfer" side. I'm leaning that way, because SB does not know upon awakening, and will not remember, whether the experiment will result in her being awakened twice. For all she knows, she's playing the same Monty Hall game for the second time. It's this lack of an unbroken timeline of conscious awareness that settles the question in favor of the halfers.

To answer the thirders' rebuttal that SB would lose money if she were gambling on the coin toss with any odds other than 1:3, I'd say that's a completely different experiment. We aren't being asked to speculate on the set of events behind multiple awakenings, just one in isolation. The lack-of-new-information argument carries the day. Any arguments that involve repetition, clones, or gambling fail because they are responding to a different question.

TL,DR: Don't gamble if the game involves erasing the players' memories. You will lose a lot of money in a hurry, even if your strategy is mathematically optimal.
That's the thing though, every place I've seen pervasive sharing could be replaced my explicit ownership(including a clean mechanism for transferring ownership).

Being explicit about who owns something makes it much harder to leak things by forgetting to clear references/etc.
From my understanding, the answer is 1/2.

Let us assert that the probability of the coin flip being heads is 1/2.

Now, you have awoken. Regardless of if you've awoken to the Heads flip, or the first time to the Tails flip, or the second time to the Tails flip, the original flip's chance was still 1/2.

The possible misunderstanding comes from the fact that you will awake TWICE to Tails, which is more than to Heads! But the thing is this is irrelevant to the question, because you don't know whether this is the first or the second time, and you only need to wonder whether the original flip (recall it is probability 1/2) was heads or not. Potentially you could think that you'd be "wrong" more often, but we are only looking at one specific instance of you waking up in isolation, for which you have no additional information.

For example, consider waking up 1000 times if the flip is tails. Upon waking up, do you think the probability heads becomes 1/1001? I think regardless of waking up the first time or the 1000th time, you have no more information so it might as well have been the first time, and hence the probability is 1/2.
I've heard they refused, citing HIPAA.
What is the current state of medical science on this topic? It obviously looks very scary to the layman to see their space being blasted by invisible waves like this, but have we found any evidence that there is short/long-term impact on our bodies, brains, etc.?

Articles like this[1] on electrosensitivity definitely make me raise my eyebrow and think "what haven't we realized about this yet?"

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/21/the-town-t...
> How do you justify the 1.3% share on servers[1]?

OpenBSD is a research operating system.

A lot of their development and deployment methods do not align with the needs/wants of large infrastructure deployments (e.g. biannual releases, supported for 1 year).

Happy to cull/reinvent legacy to suit modern systems and practices (e.g. utf8, doas, opensmtpd/ntpd/bgpd/sshd etc...)

Refusal to support hardware without documentation or binary kernel blobs.

Focus on simplicity and correctness, rather than legacy and kludges, which often gets in the way of sysadmins wanting to Get Stuff Working.

Take your pick?
Translation: "ZFS and btrfs are 'incomplete' because their handling of striped RAID is incomplete."

Disregarding the fact that things like mdadm still exist, and further disregarding the fact that the vast majority of filesystems out there don't bother with trying to implement RAID at all (probably because - again - there are things like mdadm that do that already), RAID5/6 are generally a bad idea compared to a RAID1 or RAID10. Both RAID5 and RAID6 make multiple very incorrect assumptions:

* Failure of multiple drives in a short period of time is rare (in reality, if one drive fails (excluding bathtub-curve-related infant mortality), the likelihood of subsequent drive failures increases significantly)

* The failed drive can be replaced and repopulated quickly (in reality, this is becoming less and less true as drives get bigger and bigger, thus taking more and more time to rebuild the failed array member; SSDs buy some time here, but that's not sustainable)

* Bit rot / "cosmic rays" are rare (in reality, silent data errors happen all the time, as has been demonstrated [0] as an example of why RAID5/6 is woefully insufficient for even the most basic protection against data corruption)

Basically, if you want something striping, and care at all about data integrity, go with RAID10. Only use RAID5/6 if you don't care about data loss (whether due to a comprehensive backup policy or a comprehensive redundancy policy on a machine-level), though in that case you might as well just cut to the chase and use RAID0.

I really wish this article would've dug into some of the real shortcomings of these filesystems; btrfs in particular would be incredibly useful compared to a more traditional LVM approach if it supported file encryption and swap subvolumes (for either of these things, LVM (+ LUKS for encryption) is necessary with or without btrfs). Instead they get criticized over not supporting things that a sane sysadmin wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole in this day and age.

[0]: http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/Why_RAID5_is_bad_news.pdf
This is beautiful. I've never seen a more concise yet powerfully clear explanation of backpropagation. This explanation is so fundamental in that it relies on the fewest number of axioms.
The Danish government has introduced a local version of this concept called NemID (i.e. Easy ID). It's essentially a universal online identity that government departments and businesses alike can implement. It's currently not used for public voting yet due to security concerns, but that's most likely a matter of time.
While I'm sure there's certainly some refinement to be done on how app updates work, Sandstorm explicitly closes the WebView loophole. An app you run doesn't have access to make backend network requests or frontend javascript requests unless you grant that permission. So it's not really possible to build an app that pretends to run on your server but is really just a wrapper for a SaaS.
There isn't an official Docker image for now as far as I know, so your best bet is to make an Ubuntu 14.04 Docker container and run the regular Sandstorm installer within it.

I agree it'd be great on NASs. I'm particularly excited about Synology ones since I know they have some x86-64 models. If you're interested in possibly helping out with that stuff, feel free to email community@sandstorm.io and I can see if there's a way we can give you a preview of that sooner rather than later.
... I hope.

This shouldn't withstand federal judicial scrutiny for a second.
Ironically, this would probably have been an unconstitutional violation of the business's right to enter into a contract according to early 1900s doctrine (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_contract).

That doctrine was reversed in the 1930s to permit states to set a minimum wage, but granting states greater authority to regulate contracts cuts both ways.
I'm a layman in probability but isn't it the same thing as the Inspection paradox?
http://allendowney.blogspot.be/2015/08/the-inspection-parado...
Git for Windows 2.5.1
I like minimalism, but IMO the closest you can get to this idea without wasting time reinventing the wheel is a tiling windows manager. I have been using i3 for about 3 years now and can't imagine going back.
I think I'm a 3/8-er. When SB is woken up, the probability it's monday is:

P(Monday) = P(Monday|Heads)P(Heads) + P(Monday|Tails)P(Tails)
= 1(.5) + .5(.5)
= 3/4

So then:

P(Heads) = P(Heads|Monday)P(Monday) + P(Heads|Tuesday)P(Tuesday)
= .5(.75) + 0(.25)
= 3/8
Unfortunately, that violence is going to make you unemployable in Virginia...
Senior Software Engineer, Android  Course Hero
I don't think this would work in a country. In my opinion, democracy only makes sense when the state of the entire set of decisions can be held by every voter's mind.

Food is a pretty easy decision. Taxes and wages and so on and so forth have proved to be quite difficult for many people.

Republics work well because they break up the required duties among the people, so the amount of work required to vote is decreased. This allows them to have their own work outside of decision-making, even when decision-making is a lot of work.

Great way to pick food, though.
So you're fine with suffrage in general, or just for people who have paid their debt to society?
How to apply de Bruijn graphs to genome assembly