skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes. And I think the following sentence best explains why:

> When 95 percent of Americans are completely unaware of a transformation of this magnitude, that reflects a flaw in how we journalists cover the world — and I count myself among the guilty.

Sometimes it is really maddening how far astray the common perceptions are with respect to reality. It is good to have an example here that shows this clearly.
I tried to discuss the dual-use nature of their research with some machine learning/pattern recognition people (I was there to discuss maybe working with them as a student). They didn't seem to ever have thought about it at all, and were not open to start now. This was quite shocking to me. I'm not sure how to deal with the issue when even the people creating the technology are like that.
Source code, yeah of course. You don't want country X being able to demand country Y's company's source right?

If it's a public safety matter, then yes I do actually.
Agreed.

16 people post the same comment 45 seconds after the article goes online (without reading it properly).

8 people post more thoughtful but identical comments 15 minutes later.

I wake up 16 hours after the article goes online and post my tuppence worth into a rely to whatever is at the top. (without bothering to read the other 362 comments).

[Updated to fix rubbish formatting]
Mobile Application Development Company: Dev Technosys
Obituary: Steve Jobs
Η+Google+αφαιρεί+από+τα+αποτελέσματα+αναζήτησης+όλα+τα+site+που+έχουν+χακαριστεί
>> require a higher threshold for consent than someone clicking "I agree" to 100 pages of dense legalese.

You could just add it to the cookie permission widget!
Ikki – an extention toolkit for Riot.js
Setup a bit torrent client and help host ISOs for a multitude of open source projects (not only linux distros).
What We Love About the New Asana
What has to do what you say with the ruling?

What has to do the business model with a ruling that states that user data can't be transferred?

How is different iCloud than Google Drive?
I did not check it myself, so I cannot tell, but this is what I have heard most often.

Still, it was just to highlight the fact that there is a certain degree of subjectiveness when evaluating whether something constitutes a proof
I think this is a great idea. I've mostly learned to ignore comments sections precisely because the S/N ratio is so low.

Now, given the decline in quality recently, one can only hope VICE employs the moderation tactic to their own articles too...
> > people get bored with the lack of near-realtime debate

> You're making the assumption that people want this.

That might actually be a useful filter. The people out to cause trouble who seem to get off on the reaction to poor comments are more likely to be put off by the lack of immediacy than those who are more interested in a proper debate and take their time writing something well thought out and coherent.
Don't conflate people's privacy and random laws that say they are about privacy.

With prevalent encryption on-the-wire, fibre tapping is less useful. So the way people get their privacy leaked is via hacking or other compromises. Saving to disks in a person's country of origin is probably rather far down on threats to their privacy. (Yeah, I know, if you host it all on disks in the US, then the FBI can come steal those disks. But that's less a risk than a hacking group dumping your DB on pastebin.) And a compromise to the company will compromise the data no matter where the disk are.

If countries were really concerned, they'd mandate strong security for personal info. Not like PCI where technical details are spec'd, but somehow offload it so that companies must make reasonable steps. Then have enforcement to fine companies that misbehave. Perhaps make it something where companies will want to get insurance.

That way, a startup, instead of grabbing everything, they'll ask themselves: "Hey, do we really wanna capture this info?" Just like PCI shot a lot of plans to store card numbers and CVV, a strong law could make companies think twice and plan around handling private info.

Location of storage devices might end up on the list of requirements, somewhere. Like once you store info on more than X people, you're required to address how you handle differing jurisdictions or something.
From the beginning the main practice of the theory of disruption was to make some guys and gals feel special.
On Solving Excel
A related article

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undoing-of-Disruption/23310...
The book, Intermediate Python, on leanpub has been updated
Imagine I'm in the EU, and Facebook wants to store my data in the EU.
But I'm friend with US people. So I'm in their own friend list too, which is stored in the USA. So my data is needed in the USA too.

When I publish something in Europe, my friends needs to see it too in the USA. And you can't build a Facebook wall with intercontinental latencies. You need replication.

It's a social graph, and you can't split it between US and EU: data has to be replicated across borders (or face massive latency and bandwidth).
You are missing service industries in general and elder care (poignantly relevant with the article's emphasis on demographic shift) specifically. A large older population with a smaller worker pool to draw on will drive up demand for caregivers, exhausting the rapidly devaluing savings of the elder generations.
Wow! I totally get that - I was on a phone that had only 2 GB of internal storage. Sadly, I doubt it'll ever see Marshmallow.
More than that 90% of the world still live on less than $10 a day. If you incorporate inflation into the 1981 $1 a day world bank poverty threshhold it would be about $2.50 a day now. At that $2.50 there are something like 300 million more people living below that absolute poverty line than there were when it was created.

Unfortunately those great Hans Rosling presentations really only deal with mortality at birth, which has consistently improved but probably only down to improvements in neonatal technology.

It's really about time people came to realise the World Bank/IMF neoliberal "free trade" globalisation experiment really only works to enrich western asset holders at the expense of the rest of the world through debt bondage.
> The short-cut around it is the concept of burden of proof in INFOSEC: one is expected to back up their big, security claims with evidence rather than everyone else expected to disprove them.

Totally agree with that.

> do they even analyze every bug for exploitability?

I guess in a real world production used operating system there are practical limits. From http://www.openbsd.org/security.html

"Our security auditing team typically has between six and twelve members who continue to search for and fix new security holes. We have been auditing since the summer of 1996. The process we follow to increase security is simply a comprehensive file-by-file analysis of every critical software component. We are not so much looking for security holes, as we are looking for basic software bugs, and if years later someone discovers the problem used to be a security issue, and we fixed it because it was just a bug, well, all the better. Flaws have been found in just about every area of the system. Entire new classes of security problems have been found during our audit, and often source code which had been audited earlier needs re-auditing with these new flaws in mind. Code often gets audited multiple times, and by multiple people with different auditing skills."

and

"Another facet of our security auditing process is its proactiveness. In most cases we have found that the determination of exploitability is not an issue. During our ongoing auditing process we find many bugs, and endeavor to fix them even though exploitability is not proven. We fix the bug, and we move on to find other bugs to fix. We have fixed many simple and obvious careless programming errors in code and only months later discovered that the problems were in fact exploitable. (Or, more likely someone on BUGTRAQ would report that other operating systems were vulnerable to a `newly discovered problem', and then it would be discovered that OpenBSD had been fixed in a previous release). In other cases we have been saved from full exploitability of complex step-by-step attacks because we had fixed one of the intermediate steps."

> This isn't theoretical: it's a direct implication of the claim they're making, an extraordinary implication, and one which deserves concrete evidence to back it.

Fair enough. Maybe they should change the claim to something like "Only two remote holes (known at the time of the fix) in the default install, in a heck of a long time!" Then again, isn't this what most readers would expect?
If you are a fan of Reddit, KNEWZ is everything that Reddit should be and much more.

We are currently looking for external funding so that we can plan and implement a strong marketing strategy. Please visit our website www.knewz.org or contact us at enquiries@knewz.org
This isn't an instance of the tu quoque fallacy as far as I can see, the poster isn't claiming this isn't bad, they're just claiming that the issue these issues receive in the public eye seems to be extremely politically biased (which I find hard to disagree with).
Can you give an example of a company storing and processing data without telling it in the service policies?

And you have said that ALL the behavioral data collection must be forbidden. Even if the user agrees with that?

By the way, spying is already illegal. If you know about that behavior you can sue those companies
I thought that HN policy was that posts should keep a civil tone.
NYU Polytechnic Gets $100M Donation
Why not create a comments section that runs split testing on the comments? So you enter a comment, and that comment will be randomly shown to a certain percentage of others. Based on up/down votes and response count, eventually the system could deduce the most relevant comments without moderation.
Hosting in Europe wouldn't fix the issue that Russian law wants to have Russian persons' info stored in Russia. It could very easily end up with several countries requiring this, and needing to store data differently depending on user's selected country.

And think about it: is there a really huge increase to privacy? What exact attack scenarios does this defeat, and how likely are such scenarios compared to run-of-the-mill privacy breaches (lax security)?
Their "Freedom Partners" group publicly announced a budget of $889 million for 2016.

I'm not sure what Steyer is worth, he's referred to as a billionaire so that would suggest slightly more than that figure, but it's not so far away as to require a sarcastic response.
As someone who is often perceived to be too negative or worse (although I've improved a lot over the years), I can tell you that in terms of the options you're considering, the best solution is different, but does involve #1.

First, recognize that not everyone thinks the same, or has the same style. Consider that just like his attitude upsets you, your (or your coworkers) attitudes may be upsetting him. This is key to coming up with a solution that works for everyone.

Second, understand that this is probably more venting than anything. The guy is getting frustrated and knows he can't (and shouldn't) take it out on people he sees as having messed up. This doesn't make it right, but consider that the guy is trying not to be toxic.

Third, the guy needs regular feedback about this. --You mention that when your manager talks to him, things improve for a time. This ties into my second point, that the guy is actually trying. You may or may not be in a position where he'll listen to you. I'd recommend trying to talk to him about this directly. When you do this, don't beat around the bush. --Tell him that you know he's good at what he does, but that the constant complaining about coworkers makes it hard for you and others to work with him. I really recommend that you do this. Or if not you, the coworker who he seems to have the most respect for - it'll often mean more coming from a coworker than a manager.

Fourth, ask your manager to follow up regularly. --He needs to help keep reinforcing the attitude change so that the guy doesn't fall back into old habits.

Finally, consider offering the guy a chance to vent over lunch once a week or so away from the office. --This helps give him a chance to get things off his chest, but to do it somewhere that it doesn't hurt others. And it might give you a chance to give him some insights of your own about the people he complains about.

This guy may never be your ideal coworker, but you can probably help find the middle ground that makes things better for everyone.
Because she has likely borrowed that policy from Matthew Garret [1], who specifically used it against comments he disagreed with. Seeing as they were both involved in the same community, and both used it for "parting shots" purposes, I think a coincidence is really unlikely.

[1] http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/32778.html
The point is that Google will have to adopt much more than Apple. Sure, iCloud and gDrive might be equivalent, but there is no Apple equivalent to e.g. G+ or G-ads.
If the police could take action to locate the one making the threats, then reporting them is a reasonable option. But here's a thought: if you saw graffiti on a wall you owned, then you could report it police AND paint over the top of it with a fresh coat of paint.

Let's say you are a Jew, and the graffiti was spewing Neo-Nazi propaganda, targeted at you. You would be justified, because the wall is your property, to mock the perpetrators on your newly repainted wall. It's your wall - and you are free to express yourself on your own property.

Sarah's "wall" is similarly her blog post. You can make offensive remarks, but she is free to remove your offensive remarks and mock you in their place. And at the same time collect evidence of threatening behaviour and report it to the police.

Not sure why this is such a difficult concept...
Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker
> Without the safe harbor agreement you can no longer avoid EU privacy regulations by storing the data in the US.

Maybe I'm missing something here.

My understanding is that the Safe Harbour agreement wasn't a mechanism for US companies to avoid EU data protection regulations... it was a certification that they did comply with EU data protection (particularly in situations where that data was transmitted outside the EU).

Now it's gone, EU customer data held by US companies will be governed by national data protection laws instead, so may end up having to be stored within the EU.

> The US privacy regulations are no longer considered compatible with the EU privacy regulations

I don't think they ever were, which is why the Safe Harbour needed to exist in the first place.
The judgment does not prevent you from storing personal data in the US per se. It only nullifies the blank check of the safe harbor provision. As far as I can tell, there's nothing preventing Facebook from obtaining consent from you using Model Contract Clauses or Binding Corporate Rules, for example. This is already normal for companies from countries that do not enjoy the benefits of a safe harbor provision, after all.
Personally, I think third-party comment widgets are a terrible idea: security/privacy issues, page weight, loss of ownership of content, homogenisation, etc.

It's interesting commenting about the quality of comments on a site that is nothing but. Maybe Hacker News, etc. is the future, although I'd like to think that on-site and off-site comments can co-exist (and for 'off-site' read twitter, facebook, etc.) The problem with all the off-site options is that you have to know they exist. At least on-site comments provide a fixed, available 'place' for discussion to take place.

I have a feeling the solution is just better moderated comments sections. Many sites just chuck up a form and auto-publish anything entered into it; that might work at really small scale, but soon descends into chaos once a critical mass is reached. One day, I think, more comment sections will looks like mini-HNs.
Similar to the Cookie banner, you'll probably have to indicate to your subscribers that their data will be resident outside the EU and will not be subject to the same data protection. Subscriber proceeding will indicate agreement with that.
So tomorrow Reddit launches its own version of 9gag?
A reference will not be enough when my friend wants to see my name and photo on the list. And if my friend must fetch it from Europe (and not cache it), expect Facebook to be slower and use more bandwidth than ever.

Without intercontinental replication, you'll be facing latency and bandwidth problems which will make social networks impossible.

note: when I say bandwidth, I mean intercontinental bandwidth, not your local internet bandwidth.
I am pretty sure that sweeping others with my firearm would have earned me a beating in the army...
I like this idea. It's a bit like how slashdot works: random moderation.
> That's not true in practice.

Well, looks like your practice differs from mine then. Whenever I had to cooperate with someone, I'd ask them about their e-mail, username or any other form of contact, so that I would have a "readily available channel", as you say. I don't see how asking for a username would not be normal; to me it's as much normal as asking for a name.

> But it's always a song and dance to remember what their username is when I want to write to them.

I don't use Twitter, but there are many places where lists of known people are kept - e.g. contacts on my phone or known e-mail addresses; and somehow in neither of such places I have trouble finding the right people; it is a feature of such lists to let me tag specific usernames (be it phone numbers or e-mails, to stick to these examples) with descriptions which sound familiar to me. These descriptions don't necessarily need to be real world names either - often it is easier for me to tag someone with a word describing shared interest or place I know them from, rather than using their real name, because often their last name would look completely unfamiliar to me anyway.

> Your arguments seem to be based in a theoretical version of how the world works, not how modern social relationships actually function.

On the other hand your arguments seem to be based on the narrow view of how your social relationships function, completely ignoring much wider spectrum of "modern social relationships"..
Moonspike: Join the World's First Crowdfunded Moon Rocket
Minimum Survival Skills in a Post-Gold Rush Game Development World
I don't agree that "Free Market Oriented" is the same as "Right Wing". One is economic ideology, the other is a social position. They interplay certainly, but how should I put it, some of Economists editorials recently do seem disharmonious with overall enlightened character of their commentary.
I tried this and got nothing: what is ford doing with electric cars

returns nothing
Show HN: Google When?– adds a timeline to visited links in Google search results
So would you have a problem with the exact same comments he was leaving, being left by someone who genuinely held those views? He's essentially just playing devil's advocate which can play an important role in discussion. The number of people with enough time on their hands to adopt a fake persona will be trivially small compared to those who are treating the service 'seriously' or those who are abusing it using far easier methods.
Such a sad story. It's as if he knows what's going on, but he can't do anything to stop it.
Denmark to add 180% tax on electric vehicles
That's a different problem from employment, though – but yes, it's nice to see that, after 10 years in office, Merkel actually has to do something for a change.
this is not returning anything either:

what is new emerging technology for healthcare
Just to point to this brilliant detail from the first link:

"The state department regards attacks against "noncombatant* targets" as terrorism. But follow the asterisk to the small print and you find that "noncombatants" includes both civilians and military personnel who are unarmed or off duty at the time. Several examples are given, such as the 1986 disco bombing in Berlin, which killed two servicemen.

The most lethal bombing in the Middle East last year was the suicide attack on USS Cole in Aden harbour which killed 17 American sailors and injured 39 more.

As the ship was armed and its crew on duty at the time, why is this classified as terrorism? Look again at the small print, which adds: "We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against US bases." "

Perfect. Thanks.
A fellow IRC moderator once warned me:

"Carefully handle your "troublemakers". They're both the bane and life of your site."

In other words, it's often your outspoken (and sometime inappropriate) members that are driving the most interesting discussion. I see this on Facebook quite a lot (I moderate a very large group) where the people who are often stirring up trouble in one thread are also generating a very lively discussion in another.

It's hard drawing the line sometimes between what seems like a vehement disagreement in opinion and insulting of someone else, and a tap on their shoulder to "hey, just keep in line please" can either set them off, or defuse the situtation.

But either way, it is difficult. Too heavy-handed in moderation and you drive them off the site, leaving a lot of silent people sitting around with little discussion, and therefor, little reason to stay. Too little moderation and your comments and threads become a cesspool, eliminating any beneficial conversation and catering to the lowest common denominator.

I don't blame Vice for finding this difficult, and really, I'm not sure I'd prescribe a solution for them. I agree with them in the sense that it comes down to their resources and best use of their time, and given that they produce their own content (and not reliant on their members to do it as in other social forums) then it may be better to dispense with them altogether.

But dispensing with a forum is a sort of "scorched earth" policy of eliminating an out of control board, a "nuclear option" when you're just finished with it all. It'll provide some relief, but they lose at the chance of growing something better in the end.
From my experience, majority of "bedroom/garage" startups self-limit geographically - whether it's expecting a phone number or a bank account in a given country, or assuming everyone has a U.S. state and zipcode (90210). Data regulation is hardly the deal-breaker when their own dataschemes don't support internationalization.
If it's just a problem with Facebook's contract, all is well.

But the article says "Facebook and Twitter [...] could be forced to host European user data in Europe".

That's way more agressive than just a contract change and poses a threat of technical blocking problems.
It's obviously about regulatory requirements rather than a random hacker. If I host my data in the US, then I am subject to the whims of the US government, and as such they have jurisdiction over European data (which of course, is not protected in any way in the US, even by the meagre data protection laws that the US affords its own citizens).
Strangely, nobody talks about the investors... Did they command such a cheat ? After all, the top engineers are already 2 levels deep in the management (top level being investor, then CEO, then tehe engineers) so they're relatively low enough to be scapegoat...
The two are not incompatible; EU countries are already fining companies that leak private data, and talking about increasing those fines (the EP suggests a max of 5% of global revenue or €100M, whichever is higher).

EDIT: fixed wording
Manifest for a web application – Working draft
so a non profit wouldn't require to follow EU regulations on personal data?