skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> It's the level of isolation of a process, yes. Just as two processes can use their address spaces as they see fit without bothering each other, even loading different versions of the same library, under a Linux container, two applications can use their filesystem as they see fit without bothering each other, even using different versions of the same binary applications.

I'm sorry for disagreeing, but that's what chroot() or even chdir() supposed to do. It's not for security (process can fool it), but they do provide isolation assuming there are no malicious actors.

Containers were created to provide security, perfect example is FreeBSD Jail which precedes Solaris zones. It supposed to be secure version of chroot() which should not be escapable. It was successfully used in early 2000 before VMs to provide shared hosting.

> But the security isolation between two processes running as the same user account is extremely weak. While it's true that one process can't write to another one's memory directly, it's not a fundamental breach of the security policy if it can do so indirectly. There may be things to increase defense-in-depth (like Yama) but fundamentally if you're the same UID there is no security boundary. The same rule applies to containers.

Agreed, except the last sentence. With processes the isolation is weak because same UID represent the same user, if you use a different UID the isolation is enforced. The containers (assuming they are correctly set up) allow you to actually have two root accounts that can't interfere with each other.

> Yeah, agreed. I was just trying to come up with something quick. If your app works with v(irtual)env, by all means just use that and stop messing with containers. However, if you've got some large closed-source app with a portion in Python, and it expects /usr/bin/python to both work and be some exact version, you need to virtualize the filesystem.

Assuming these are not malicious, you can just do:

chroot /app1_root python myapp1.py
chroot /app2_root python myapp2.py

And as long as they don't use any tricks to get out, they won't step on each others teas.
at least here in Canada

TekSavvy covers some of the bigger centers in Canada and has supported IPv6 for some time.
Coke's formula is not an "idea"
I can't help be reminded of Jack LaLanne's two rules of nutrition: "If man made it, don't eat it", and "If it tastes good, spit it out."

Of course, he was not exactly a scientist, but he's right that our sense of taste is no longer a good measure of the value of food in the modern world. It seems likely that the way we will overcome this is through education -- but wouldn't it be great if there were some way to fix our sense of taste, so that valuable phytochemicals tasted sweet, or that lead tasted bitter?
what is my what?
Sorry, Konkani speaker with nearly no grasp of Kannada and Tulu.
I don't know what planet you're living in, but the Python ecosystem is about the most mature and modern I have ever seen for modern development in dynamically typed, interpreted languages with a strong web presence..

Take a look around and the equivalent libraries of the languages you mentioned. Honestly, the quality of similar libraries for the functionality that you need is lower, and the featureset smaller.

Javascript suffers from all the problems of a "teenage" tech: immaturity, lack of established libs, poor documentation, and some astoundingly bad coding practices out in the wild.

Clojure's ecosystem is very small, and has the same issues with code stability and lack of decent mainstream library alternatives.

Erlang, though a great language, has some issues with its unfriendly ecosystem and a general lack of libraries for many common tasks.

Go, while gaining serious momentum, still seems to suffer from a substantial lack of features to compete in the same rapid development niche that Python, Ruby and JS attempt to point to, although it was never meant for that role anyway.
Might I point you to Fabric? IMO, it's much, much, much easier to work with than Ansible. At my startup, we've got a nice, 100-line or so script which does all the deployment work for our Django application. (Most of that isn't even Python-specific.)
> Company loses money? You owe $60 million.

How about the CEO does not get a golden parachute?

> Unless you're a shareholder, what difference does it make? It's not your money.

It is your money when you bail them out when a too big to fail company fails.
That wouldn't matter. We don't know how to inspect a trained deep neural net. No one knows how the car drives.
I think the Volkswagen episode shows that we need better emission testing mechanisms.

Demanding that all code be open-source unfairly targets the software industry (companies that sell software products for money). Why not ask Google to make their search engine code public ? If all software code must be publicly available, why not demand that Coca Cola also make their formula and their entire manufacturing process public ? Why not insist that no product must have any proprietary/secret information about how the product was created ?

Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding. I think we need a better emission testing system for testing emissions, not a government review of software code.

IMO asking for free software code is an ideological demand that is better promoted through the free market. Free software ideologues should refuse to buy products that have proprietary components, but all of us should only ask that the government fix its emission testing process.
This. Only 2G, not 200M. I try to get people to package application plus dependencies yet this is what they do every time. Every single time.

Plus they always base it on images from the Internet, so bascially we trust some stranger with root privileges to all our data. Not always on the same image of course.
Alienating Atmosphere (2014)
I was a Wikipedia admin, three times. If you have a tendency towards depression, steer clear of that site. It matters not a jot what you actually do there, you will eventually be burned.

(In case you are wondering what I did for Wikipedia, I rewrote most of their USA PATRIOT Act article over a two year period, established the Wikipedia Admin Noticeboard, created the [cutation needed] tag, in the early days kept their Wikipdia In The Press page up to date (eventually this became irrelevant), encouraged Australian Wikipedians to write up about their own country and areas, fought trolls, helped influence a number of policies, and did a remarkable amount of blocking of truly awful people whilst attempting to maintain clans encourage civil discourse on the project.)
How about selective door opening? That's used widely in the UK and Europe.
The Tao of Louis CK
But it's a really extraordinary idea. It's not just many worlds, it's a fuck-ton.

Another way of looking at it is that there's only one "world": the amplitude distribution over quantum configuration space. https://www.quora.com/How-does-observation-collapse-probabil... has a decent explanation/argument.
How Many People Can You Remember?
Could you expand on your server rendering of React ?
Patents do not offer a monopoly on an idea. They offer protection of an invention a process a machine, but not an idea.
There is/was a refactoring DSL for parsing and modifying C code accurately, but I don't recall the name. If I remember correctly, it was produced by a French organization or university.
The problem with making it public is it would start this process of regulation. Then it gives way for these regulations to be used in such a way that would greatly restrict software creativity and growth.
China Is Building a Reputation System to Monitor Citizen Behavior
I've seen a lot of comments on this topic discussing the issues manufacturers might have with releasing their code as "open source". I say odd because it's orthogonal to the issue here. No one (not even the EFF) seems to want to force auto makers to open source their code - not even if you use a bastardized meaning of open source like Microsoft's "Shared Source". What most articles I've seen propose is instead that it not be a felony to copy, reverse engineer and then inspect the code. Some articles have mentioned letting regulators inspect code, but most stick to a simple request - remove the DMCA Anti-Circumvention protection for automobile software. It's disconcerting to see a relatively simple request be pushed into straw-man territory of requiring all code be open sourced.
How do I know this study is accurate?
“How do you feed your family?” $5,679 from 178M Spotify streams
You could use a free-as-in-freedom app on your smartphone like:
https://github.com/Freeyourgadget/Gadgetbridge/
This would be a good time to point out that a similar auto software story found its way to HN recently:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9643204
Once Toyota's ECU code was reviewed by domain experts, they found extraordinary lapses in basic software quality practices. This and the VW fiasco clearly show that hiding ECU code is the wrong way to go. We can directly measure the negative consequences, and these are only 2 such incidents discovered recently. Who knows how many more issues are still hiding. We won't really know how at risk we are unless there is some kind of 3rd party review process, required by law. Clearly, the auto industry will prioritize profits and liability over actual quality, in much the same way that banks will never voluntarily limit their risk at the sacrifice of profits. Self-regulation is not working.
In other news, mounting / gives you access to the root filesystem.
I'm listing what my friends were showing that their Apple Watch can and I excluded what Pebble could do as well.

Can you list what other things Apple Watch can do?
I assumed the quote was with regards to closed source software and read it as "We should't use [closed source software] for [anything]"
Yes. Any code which has a safety responsibility should have it's code publicly available.

You could divide the cars systems up into safety critical and non-safety critical components, like there is no reason why the software running the car's media center needs to publicly available, but there should be a well defined interface between the media center and safety critical code (or no interface at all)
One of the reasons that I don't buy more e-books is because my Kindle's battery charge is often depleted. Somewhere along the line, Amazon changed airplane mode such that ads are still displayed all the time.

I haven't been an avid reader for the last year or two, and when I do get the urge, I pick up my Kindle only to find the battery is dead. While it's charging, I find something else to do. By the time I get the urge to read again, the battery is depleted again.

When you're an avid reader who remembers to charge his device regularly, the Kindle is great. When you're an intermittent reader, it just another electronic brick.
I don't recall where I saw it, but there was mention of 2016 VW TDI models not getting road certification until the issue was dealt with. Maybe this was incentive for VW to come clean.
Why can't you just write a HTML builder in pure JavaScript that matches the semantics of what you had in LISP? HTML is not a complex language. My HTML generator is 300 lines... I feel like you should be able to bang out the basics in a similar size?
Slide to unlock, pinch to zoom, bounce.

But it is not just Apple, almost every company has patents invalidated for prior art
Isn't the anti-compete for stuff like this? And they won't be able to work on tesla-technology-related projects
Sandstorm.io (disclosure: my project) applies mandatory seccomp and other attack surface reduction yet manages to run a lot of apps with only minimal modification:

https://docs.sandstorm.io/en/latest/developing/security-prac...

Admittedly, though, "only minimal modification" is probably too much modification for Docker's goals. That's fair. But I don't think that gives them a pass to pretend the problem doesn't exist.
But your competitors can't really steal it, because they are subject to the same rules and have to make their code available too. So any theft of code will be apparent.

Manufactures will probably check each others code to make sure none of their own code has been stolen and file lawsuits if it has.
My company, like most companies, relies on an enormous amount of open source code in order to construct a closed source product.

We have also contributed to open source, and have plans to contribute more. There are certain things that help everyone without jeopardizing our business, and other things that are too valuable to share.

We cannot force a company to open source code without an extraordinarily good reason. I believe in open source and support it, but at the application level it is a trickier issue.
Well. Happiness is really a personal thing. In my case, it makes me happy to let my bike without any lock in front of my house, knowing that nobody will touch it. On the other hand, it would make me quite unhappy to get an expensive bike stolen.

A carbon fiber bike would probably be 3 kilos lighter than my bike. But then I would have to carry a really heavy chain in order to lock it. So, I cannot see the gain. Also, the heavier my bike, the more exercise I do, witch is the point, isn't it?
Really? Can't I hack into the build chain and inject code while building. The code will pure and clean like a ice block for sculpting.
Why not ask Google to make their search engine code public?

That's a great question - why not? For many consumers, Google essentially is the internet, and by meddling with search results (which they already do to try to personalise my results) they could make or break companies or politicians by presenting one-sided or even false material. That's a lot of power - why shouldn't we know how it works to make sure they're not abusing it?
Railway oriented programming; Error handling in functional languages

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvD1VjRvGIk
Kevin Cook Austin – AngelList
'I cannot be that person': why the 'Queen of the Mommy Bloggers' had to quit
Utility is a unit of accounting that works much better than money. It's actually called a "utility function" because the utility varies depending on the inputs, including time, number of units, etc.

For example, let's say you've always wanted to go skydiving. You pay $500 and go skydiving. It's a great value to you. But when you get back to the ground, would you pay $500 to do it again? Probably not, since the utility of going skydiving has dropped for you (because you crossed it off your bucket list), even though the price has stayed the same.

Now imagine the price for skydiving has dropped to $25. You might go again. Heck, you might go every day for a week. But after a while, the novelty wears off, and you won't go anymore. Even if the price drops to free.

In fact, if someone was forcing you to go skydiving every day, you might even PAY to do something else instead.

On the other hand, maybe you need to skydive every day because you are trying to qualify as a stuntman. That means the utility of being qualified is greater than the negative utility of "boredom from too much skydiving".

Or maybe you NEVER go skydiving because you went base jumping several years prior, and skydiving seems similar enough that it's just not worth $500 to you.

Trying to representing these trade-offs with only money is confusing and/or impossible. Try to work out the "boredom" example using only money: Someone can know they get more utility from X than Y, but not be able to express prices for X and Y.
I don't think Javascript will ever be stable the way Java is. It will probably end up close to where Python is today. It's not just matter of time, it's a matter of fundamental design choices in the language.
Yeah, I get the impression Linus fucking hates GCC :P

That's good though. Compiler freedom is better for everyone.
It's interesting that philosophy, unlike most other disciplines, has been so good at this. It's not purely the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, either. There's another encyclopedia founded at the same time (both 1995), the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy [1], with a broadly similar mission and also quite a lot of good articles (though fewer than 1500). And there's an excellently organized, continually updated bibliography of philosophy papers, PhilPapers [2]. It's run like the original Yahoo, a big directory with manually curated topic areas. In computer science, we haven't managed to build resources like these.

[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu/home/about/

[2] http://philpapers.org/
Nice .. it sure feels weird, though, to be firing up a web browser to be controlled by an external MIDI device .. ;) I wonder how long it'll be before we get an Ableton Live-style app written this way ..
That may be, bit I'm absolutely confident it is perfect for malware and spyware too.
Of the DMCA issue, I definitely agree. If that's the main obstacle preventing a more transparent way to scrutinize automakers' software (among the many other kinds of software the DMCA negatively impacts)...it's hard to see the downside of fixing the law.
I think I'm starting to get it... but perhaps I can parrot back for clarification? So you setup django as usual: REST framework with the normal REST API endpoints.

For client-side, everything works as normal: The React code starts with static values for state/props that are pre-populated (ie. the return value for getInitialState was already determined during server-side rendering). Upon app updates (eg. user interaction), the app will make asynchronous calls to the correct REST endpoints -- perhaps batched, as you mention. Client-side is the "easy" part of this one. :)

For server-side rendering you have a normal HTTPresponse-returning Django view (eg. for /). That view compiles/renders the React JSX "template" in NodeJS. Only for server-side, when you call renderToString to get the initial HTML, getInitialState is actually a series of REST requests (in javascript) which are batched, sent to django, and returned (map-style) to node as JSON for initial rendering.

Two questions:

(1) Does the REST request batching get sent to a different, special endpoint for batching? Or when you say "middleware", do you mean that any REST request is capable of being a batched request via the middleware?

(2) There seems to be some nuance in structuring getInitialState (or props) so that it makes the REST calls on the server-side, but not on the client-side. I'd be curious to see how you structured that.

PS -- You might shoot me an email (in profile) since this is somewhat OT to the thread? I'm super-appreciative of your insight!
It's kind of like how execs of partner companies could enjoy Steve Jobs saying well done when they hit a deadline only because he would scream, "You fucking dickless assholes!!!" at them when they were behind schedule.
Also, the statistics can be somewhat misleading because they average over so many details.

For example, there is a huge disparity in the range of safety equipment, level of situational awareness, and caution used by cyclists. Some are very conscientious, use lights, even mirrors, pay close attention to traffic, etc. while others take a cavalier attitude to safety, ignore the laws, are practically invisible on the road, etc. The statistics average both of those extremes into an aggregate risk level (though the same is true for cars as well, which is worth considering). Also, people have the ability to judge which routes they travel and to choose the safest ones.

Overall I would never discourage people from cycling, though there are some routes that I myself would be hesitant to take due to the lack of alternatives for safe places to travel. I commuted to work by bicycle for about a year and a half in Alabama, which is considered the worst state in the US to ride a bike (and I wouldn't disagree). In most cases there are reasonable and safe bike commuting routes, often on less trafficked side streets from main thoroughfares, though there are some cities where it's difficult to travel by bike unless you are a very skilled and aggressive cyclist.
We built an javascript API mapping that's "isomorphic". The express server receives a request, and for each route we have a function that takes the request, uses the API mapping that sends REST calls to our django server to grab the appropriate data, sends the data through to the store (server calling createStore from redux), the body rendered using Provider from react-redux, and using the react-router, which is rendered back on to the express response. The state is pasted onto the page using JSON.stringify (with some caveats to escape </script> tags), and is hydrated back onto the elements on the page by the browser, by calling on createStore on the state pasted onto the page.
I sincerely doubt that.

Please remember that the engine control software is already there, doing exactly the same thing in normal operation: adjusting the engine settings to produce optimal results for the current driving situation. For example, the mix should certainly be different when the car is stationary (sitting at an intersection), than when accelerating or going full throttle.

There is nothing underhanded about this, quite the contrary, it is a Good Thing™.

Once you have knobs to turn, the temptation to turn them just a little too far is always great, especially if you have conflicting goals. On the one hand, you are supposed to reduce CO2 emissions, which having great mileage does, on the other hand you are supposed to reduce NOX emissions. So you fiddle.

And car companies have always fiddled with any knob they could to get performance and always pushed it as far as they could. For example, this particular problem has been known for some time and was tolerated, see http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article146711288/Die-... or http://blog.fefe.de/?ts=ab029b73 (German). Furthermore, manipulating the catalytic converters has also been long-standing industry practice, I found a Toyota forum post complaining about the practice from 2003, also in German: http://www.toyota-forum.de/threads/kat-schaltet-unter-vollas... However, I remember those discussions from the late 80ies and early 90ies.

So if everyone is doing it (they are) and have been for a while (they have) why now and why Volkswagen? Your guess is as good as mine, but the EPA needed a win after some bad publicity, and going after a US manufacturer probably wouldn't have been quite as politic.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-22/dear-volkswagen-was...

Also remember that even one single Barbecue grill or wood-fired stove/fireplace (even the "green" pellet-based ones) emits more of the pollutants in question than a thousand of these cars. So maybe a little perspective may be in order...

UPDATE: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10265534 has more links indicating how widespread this is (apparently all the french car manufacturers)