skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There was a great discussion I wont be able to find about this recently on HN after an article about a zebra/leopard patterned couch. Thwarting an image id algorithim is not difficult and the researcher came on and spoke about the problems in the space similar to this xkcd[0] comic. It is a super complex problem to solve. How far away are we? It is like the turing test, everytime someone gets close the term is redefined. It is certainly coming, maybe reasonable models in ~5 years publicly acknowledged. What can someone really do to prevent it? Short of making an account every few months with a lot of your data but different pictures, what american doesnt have a photo that has been published on the internet? Even if you dont have facebook, someone you know does. The tech will take a while to dev and refine, and longer to deploy at scale, but I can't think of a scalable solution to this.

[0]http://xkcd.com/1425/
Considering that Target can tell whether you're pregnant or not before you do based on your purchases, I'd assume that online habits encode your preferences a lot more strongly that one would like to think.

More info on that weird pregnancy story: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.h...
For example, PayPal SDK

https://developer.paypal.com/docs/classic/lifecycle/sdks/
> I certainly wouldn't argue that the web should be real-name only

100% agreed. The vast majority of the web is based around pseudonymous interaction (even this comment thread). I love that about the web, but I also appreciate Facebook creating one place to foster those real world connections.
Microsoft Windows 10 will be essential for mobiles
People say the same thing about entrepreneurs who sell sheets of plywood for $1000 a sheet after a hurricane, but the government seems to be able to arrest and prosecute them based on the "morality" of the situation.

Seems equivalent to me.
So many submissions, so little discussion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10330939

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10328372 (1 comment)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10326746

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10324044 (5 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10322666
I have one. It's pretty simple in practice, although the LCD fades as it heats up from the projector's light.
Interesting--thanks for clarifying. And are board seats typically handed over to the creditors during bankruptcy? Ie. do the creditors gain control of the board directly or via the ability to override their decisions?

I can only imagine the GM filings...will have to take a look at that sometime.
:/ can't find your email addr. Care to post?
But neither koa.js nor express.js do websockets. You're holding up a site that would probably be simpler without both koa and express as an example to say that it doesn't make much of a difference whether you choose koa.js or express.js.
Can you explain more about how "the corrupt FBI agents" were solely responsible for the fake hits? If you're right, the judge (and the indictment!) are also wrong.
The event "at least one child is a boy" is well-defined on the 4-state sample space. It is the set of events (first boy/second boy, first boy/second girl, first girl / second boy). It has probability 3/4.
OMIGAWSH THANK YOU

I picked up an X220 as my first thinkpad a couple weeks ago and this has been driving me more than a little batty.
MDM uses operating system level API's provided by the vendors (Apple, Google). These require the device to be enrolled with management software (Airwatch, Mobile Iron, etc.).

MAM vendors like Apperian use various other techniques to manage the applications and their data only. The device is completely irrelevant, because we only care about the app. We do this through clever use of API's and a technology called 'App Wrapping'. This takes the mobile app, decompiles it into machine code, and very carefully injects new security features directly into the decompiled app. This allows adding security features like data at rest, analytics, etc. without needing any OS level API's. https://www.apperian.com/mam-blog/app-wrapping-lets-get-tech...
Yes. You pay and still have to look at ads. A model used by The Economist and by the New Yorker, too. Annoying adverts that break the page turning UI and sneakily trick me into clicking on links that open browsers.

It is somewhat frustrating.
South Carolina flood is 6th 1,000-year rain since 2010
This happens to me in Spotfire any time I'm messing with calculated values. So annoying.
On LinkedIn[1]: "Peeple is a POSITIVE ONLY APP. We want to bring positivity and kindness to the world."

On video[2]: "I wouldn't want this app to just be positive (...) we don't live in a fairtale land (...) it would be pointless if it was all positive."

[1]: https://linkedin.com/pulse/julia-cordray-ceo-peeple-creating...

[2]: https://vid.me/ukIW
Neither of the people mentioned are low level suckers.
My entire point is that having yourself is categorically different than having an outsider. This is one reason why even elite athletes have coaches. Many elite athletes will train too much, left to themselves - it's hard to avoid the feeling of "I have not done enough". We're more receptive to a different person, that we trust, when they say "You've done enough. More will harm. Rest."

In my case, I'm unsure if having my advisor present would have made a difference. At that point, my work was almost completely self-driven - but that's rather the point of grad school. You're supposed to get to the point that you're calling the shots; the "authority" status of your advisor is supposed to diminish over time. But I'm also not convinced that having an absent authority figure is any different than not having one be design; I don't see how I would have acted any different if for some reason I had officially no longer had an advisor.
Reddit is too into hysterical drama-chasing for me to take it seriously.
An example of such a sticky post, on any topic, would be enlightening. It sounds too good to be true, but would be delightful to see.
This particular statement from the EFF is not in any way trying to convince Facebook that they shouldn't have a real names policy.

It's simply saying: Okay, you've got a real name policy. You should reform it in a few ways so that people can't use it for targeted silencing and harassment of groups they dislike.
"This ship has sailed."
I am no expert on this but the article suggested that the database of named photos was the hardest part to obtain for an individual. Since you would (probably) most value a database of people you have met before, a self generated database would be a good start to gaining access to this technology.
for the record, this is what ulbricht was convicted of:

narcotics trafficking; distribution of narcotics by means of the Internet; narcotics trafficking conspiracy; continuing criminal enterprise; conspiracy to aid and abet computer hacking; conspiracy to traffic in fraudulent identity documents; and money laundering conspiracy.

notice that "attempting to have multiple people killed" is not something he was convicted of.
It doesn't, it's a fallacy. A lot of code that we think of today as buggy was written in the era in which people did not understanding threats and consequences of certain decisions. The reason we have nice things today is that we were lucky enough to have languages like C to experiment on and with and learn. "Safe" languages of today have the benefit of hindsight that good old C didn't have. Comparing legacy code in C to modern code in whatever you deem worthy is not only unhelpful but also very deceptive.

Compare new to new and tell me: how many web, smtp, imap, dns servers in Python, C# or Rust do we run today? There were some attempts but very few successful ones, despite of all the goodness that comes with better languages, libs and tools. I bet there's a reason behind it, other than just "people didn't try hard enough". There's old stuff out there being used today that we should definitely phase out. But we'll replace system software with new one written in system languages. Most likely C, perhaps Rust. But definitely now with ones written in "safe" languages that should deliver (if they are so awesome) but somehow didn't.
glad they found the culprits. I was absolutely certain it would be renegade engineers and the higher level up (politically secured allies) have nothing to do with it. Torches and pitchforks everyone.

The amount of restraint I have to exercise as an ex-consultant who made his living working for the likes of Audi, VW & Siemens nobody here can possibly comprehend.
Apple Dumps VMware Licensing Agreement
"thanks to harassers flagging her"

This is a fairly significant and under discussed problem. Rush Limbaugh is probably safe from harassment... that dude commenting in some political group is not so immune. This creates an interesting chilling effect.
Where did they say that? They are suspending people left and right and there are investigations ongoing against Winterkorn.nright now there has nothing final been said yet.
Simply for running a drug market, with no additional criminal conduct? Just the nuts-and-bolts of running the site, setting up Tor, taking money, that kind of stuff?

1-2 years seems about right.

You think about the very low barrier to starting a site like that up, and then you think about the kind of person likely to stumble into that scheme, and then what it would take to deter them and others from trying it, and it seems like you want enough of a sentence so that it's for real, but nothing more than that.

But for paying to have people killed? Life seems appropriate. Maybe, if you want to take a more Scandinavian approach to sentencing, you'd say "10-15 years". Long enough that the convict comes out of prison effectively living a different life than they were before. Enough to completely disrupt their previous connections.
You can prepare the spare certificate in advance: generate two private keys (preferably with different software on different machines), buy two certs, and only put one of them online. That way, if something goes wrong, you have a known-working certificate you can switch to. It doubles the cost, which may or may not be worth the money.

You're also allowed to pin any certificate in the chain, not just the end-entity cert (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7469#section-2.6), so you have some other options. You can pin some number of CAs that you think are trustworthy CAs: pin not only GlobalSign but a few other major CAs that you'd consider using in the future. That doesn't protect you from all the things HPKP could possibly protect you from, but it does protect you from the DigiNotars and MCS Holdings and TURKTRUSTs of the world.
> Once your platform begins to become ubiquitous (Facebook Messenger), it starts to have certain responsibilities, similiar to a utility but not quite that far.

I think this is a decent argument. Facebook is pretty close to being a digital utility at this point.

But, a logical corollary of that argument is that if Facebook is a utility it's also expected for everyone to have it. Hence, it's fully okay for services to require Facebook access to log in (just as it's okay for companies to basically expect their employees to have a telephone).

So, which would you prefer: ubiquitous Facebook, with certain regulations keeping it in check, or a Facebook that you can readily opt out of because you don't agree with its policies.

> A compromise would be to allow Facebook users to get verified (similar to Twitter's verification)

I'm not sure I fully understand your proposal, but it actually sounds a lot like my opinion. It's not that I think Facebook profiles should be required to use their official legal name, just that they should use the name they use offline. Is that what you meant by verification?
She (and everyone here) talks about it being OK to criticize code but not OK to offend people personally, which seems like a rather reasonable concept -- but does anyone have actual examples of the latter, to put everything in context? I see http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=135628421403144&w=2 and http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=136157944603147&w=2 quoted, but to me it looks like both are about code?
> Is there any evidence that you get better quality content from a NY Times subscription than you get for free on the web?

An interesting question:

1) It's not something that can be measured. It's similar to asking, 'is there any evidence that FDR was a better President than Calvin Coolidge?'

2) Is there evidence of that others are better?

3) Based on my experience, I believe the NY Times output has been more accurate than almost any other source (maybe the Financial Times or something I'm not thinking of). That's not true for every story, but over the population of stories. Because I can't evaluate the accuracy of each story, I need to find a source I trust.

4) The NY Times breaks many important stories that are not in other publications, at least not until the Times breaks them.

5) FWIW, Paul Graham, at least at one time, thought highly of the NYT's integrity (search the page for "times").
http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

6) The NYT's reputation is excellent, relative to other news sources; many people trust it. Also, both the left and right say the Times is biased against them, which I think is a good sign.

All that said, certainly the Times isn't perfect and has much room to improve.
More info on the supported switch, which is produced by Accton: http://www.edge-core.com/ProdDtl.asp?sno=457&AS5712-54X
I would consider it if MS cared more about privacy.
Never buy Magic
whoa. I was on your side until those last two sentences. unvouching.
The article is attempting to explain the economics of why that is so. It's a pretty important thing to understand.

Other pieces of the economic puzzle are things like network effects and lock in. I highly recommend this book: http://amzn.to/1FTa7ib
> Is this an issue though? If the Linux Kernel project can get all the talent it needs with current attitude, then there is no good reason to change.

Before Sarah there was no USB3 support in the kernel, and no prospect of gaining any.

Alan Cox has quit twice, the first time after being personally abused by Linus.

Do Alan and Sarah seem like the kind of talent you can casually discard?

btrfs is, and I'm being kind here, spinning its wheels. Are there filesystem devs who can't be fucked contributing?

The android team periodically try, and then give up, trying to mainline chunks of their work because they can't be bothered dealing with the shit they get.
That would be the killer app for Google Glass. Not just for your situation, but for salesmen, customer service reps, security guards, politicians, or anyone who needs to recognize lots of people, recall names, and bring up an instant profile about the person standing in front of them.

(Granted, even this application has serious overtones of societal surveillance.)

EDIT: Anyone care to speculate on why Google Glass doesn't do this? Surely the processing capability is there.
You make it sound like the TPP is the only bill these congresspeople will have to digest in the next 2 to 3 months, but I suspect they'll have plenty of other policies vying for their attention.

Even if it was the only policy they need to get their head round, what's the rush? Is the world going to fall apart if it takes a year to debate? Isn't our understanding of the intricacies of the bill likely to improve over a longer debate?
I had an interesting conversation with a co-worker today, about why unit-test coverage is always bad unless enforced.

I decided that it's because even though my boss and myself will have good intentions, we can both mutually decide (without ever discussing it) that the tests should slide - I will try to meet his deadline, he won't check too hard.

Unless there are credible institutions that take that decision away from us (a build bot that refuses to deploy untested code for example) we will slip towards worse.

Management does not need to apply pressure towards misbehaviour - they simply have to not constantly strive for best behaviour. Our expectations fill in the rest.

As such, we are unlikely ever to find an email from the board saying "Hans, frig the tests next week, we can't be arsed to invest in catalytic converters", but the organisation decided that anyway.

I think it's to do with lack of candour - see the Pixar book out recently
I don't understand why people feel entitled to use Facebook in this way. Facebook is a place to communicate with your friends and family, not a publishing platform.

If you want to write anonymously, then get a free account on any number of other platforms that are designed for anonymous publishing.
of course your "assumption" is right.

"head of" is a low level (entry-level) mgmt position in these places. No idea why anyone would down-vote you.
Oh, come on. From Alex Winter:

"Silk Road Was Just Another Tech Company
Outside of the tech press, Winter notes, a lot of the media coverage on the Silk Road has been “drugs and guns and hitmen—just wildly off-base.” Off-base, he says, because when he started interviewing the people who knew Silk Road he didn’t see an outfit that was all that different from those littering Silicon Valley. “I started to meet all these core architects within the Silk Road: vendors, engineers, sellers, administrators, people who were helping with scaling,” he says. “It’s obvious in retrospect but it was just like any large tech company. But it was just not represented that way in the media, so even I was caught off-guard.”"[(http://www.wired.com/2015/05/deep-web-silk-road-alex-winter/...]

That's so disingenuous it's condescending. What the hell were they scaling, exactly? That Silk Road was a scaling experiment, not really a mechanism to sell drugs? Seriously?
Ah. I'll adjust my humor detector and re-parse...
they're not the ceo and/or board, are they?
You say "over-react", but in many ways the reaction is quite rational. When an airplane crashes, hundreds of people die. We are reacting not just to our fear of dying in a crash, but out of sorry of the lives lost and empathy for their families.

Humans also tend to react much more strongly to the malicious actions of others than to the arbitrariness of nature (including human error, as humans are part of nature). Even compared to your ordinary murder, terrorism takes it to the next level, since it indicates that there are others who share the ideology or membership in the terrorist group who intend to cause harm to your society, and they're still out there.

In short, it's not all about "risk". It's about justice. There's little irrational about the desire to live in a just world, and the willingness to pay for it.
True. But, open-source projects are in a bit of a pickle when it comes to tools. People always cry out for "professionalism" which I think is nonsense. In a "professional" environment, there are FAR more carrots and sticks, far more tools. There is training, promotions (carrot) and the risk of being fired (stick) and a lot of subtle tools in therebetween.
TO both x3n0ph3n3 and mkaziz:

Knowledge of the act, not knowledge of the law. There are very few contexts in which you can be punished for not knowing an illegal act took place, and they are all situations where you should have known but were negligent.
I have one of these, but I find that the plastic case flexes too much for comfort. (ThinkPad laptops are made of stronger stuff.)

There's an older, less compact version that doesn't flex. But I just wish Apple would offer their bluetooth keyboard with a Trackpoint...
"But what happens if it turns out that an insufficient minority are willing to pay for content to make businesses like the NYT and other publishers viable businesses (or at least viable at their current scale in their current incarnation)?"

I think about it slightly differently. If you ask the question "Will all the news organizations and publishers go out of business?" And the answer is obvious, no they won't.

The reason they won't is because there is a demand for content and the only people left standing will be the ones who can deliver content in a way that pays their own bills. Will the NYTimes go out of business? Perhaps.

This is the fallacy in a nutshell : "My current thinking is that if they were to stop writing, people would just get their news from elsewhere, and other publishers would gladly fill their shoes."

Nobody will commit finanical suicide to serve a market. They have to believe that there is a way to make money at it, so the only way "other publishers" jump into the market is if they can do so without losing their shirts.

What we're observing is the death of the "put up some content and slap some ads on it" way of making money. That it has worked this long has been very impressive as there is very little barrier to entry, but the commons is so thoroughly stomped upon with blog spam and content farms is finally killing it. Having service providers listen to their users and allow them to disable ads, puts the final nail in that coffin. Is it no wonder they scream loudly?

The vote is being called as they say, "Either put up with ads, or pay for your content."

The challenge though is how to negotiate what the content is worth? How do you make a market so that people can actually implement that choice over a wide range of pricing so that the market collectively they can arrive at a price?

It is something I thought Bitcoin like systems might help with, but any microtransaction system if it has low enough friction would work. Publishers could tweak the price of page views, readers could read or not read the content provided. Prices would float up to equilibrium and people will be able to once again reason about what an article is worth, whether it was written by a hack in a third world country or written by someone with an established reputation for quality.

The existing market is collapsing, and in its place a new market will emerge because people really do like reading stuff. And enough people like it to make it into a market. Capturing that value which was learned back in Ben Franklin's days for what became newspapers, will be relearned given the channels and technology we have today. Its cost structure will be different, I would hope more of the value would flow through to the authors but one can never predict these things. Music is in the middle of the same process. But the music industry won't cease to exist, but it could very easily transform into something we would not recognize.
The SPECint and SPECfp benchmark suites were never very tightly connected to real-world performance, but I wonder what these figures look like for SPECjbb, the java benchmark.

(If I recall correctly, SPECjbb spins up an app that looks a lot like "java pet store" and runs clients against it.)
Well, if they are trying to find scapegoats then this is expected; you can't blame a few interns and hope people will buy it.
It's also pretty overtly hostile to the existence of a real name policy at all.

The very first line sets the tone of hostility:

> Facebook claims its practice of forcing users to go by their "real names" (or "authentic identities" as Facebook spins it) makes the social network a safer place.

The piece they link to emphasizes that the "EFF continues to believe that the best solution is simply to get rid of the 'real names' policy entirely."
It sort of works, except for the now white bar at top, and negative images, and when you come across the random dark app.

It's a limited, partial solution at best. If it reversed lightness instead of going negative it might be more helpful.
Thanks, i will see it, seems very interesting.
More so, there's already a white box switch that runs it, Pica8 switch is basically a Debian distro with OVS and proprietary drivers.