skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> But the law sees him as just another shareholder, whose large shareholdings and job as CEO are coincidental, whose control of the company can be measured purely by numbers and without reference to his personal relationships and history.

Not being totally ignorant about this, but the strawman example would be "just because you are the President of the United States of America doesn't make you invincible; you are still a citizen in front of the law, you may get away with some immediate legal charges, but you still have to face the Congress for any misconduct."

However, I argue, while the law is supposedly being above all, the framework which gives the President the power to govern the Executive branch is exactly what makes him nearly invincible until someone yelling at him in the newspaper.

Mark can be a total prick, fire someone he doesn't like, make up evidences, as long as no one talks and proves that he is forging evidence. This sounds like a Hollywood plot? You bet it is, because he totally can do that as the Emperor of Facebook. He can lead the product to toilet. He can say he likes to own the entire floor alone and have everyone work from a cubicle instead of open-floor plan. Fine. You can sue him, challenge him, but he owns the company. Sounds cynical, you bet. The laws can take him away from the company, but it requires humans to actually make the laws or changes to replace him.
As a scientist who writes code, a good 95% of all the code I write is prototype code that gets written just to see if an approach will work. Almost everything I write never gets used again because the idea failed. This is just the nature of research.

I do make an effort to rewrite what I have hacked together once I have a working approach, but if I wrote everything correctly from the start I would be wasting a huge amount of time and get very little actually done.
Why is NOAA withholding climate documents from Congress?
As a developer, an unjailbroken Chromebook is my preferred local terminal, because all my work involves SSHing to servers anyway. The Secure Shell and Mosh apps work great (and I even use the Mosh app in Chrome on "real" OSes, because it's simpler).

Before Chrome OS, I ran homegrown minimal Linux installations with a separate user account to run Firefox. It was way too much overhead for me to be excited about maintaining, and paying $200 for a secure architecture and security updates by the most competent people in the industry was super attractive. I can do servers very well; I don't also need to do desktops, let alone my personal desktop.
So I've isolated the problem - babel 6.0.2 installed with npm 2.14.7 is slow, and when installed with npm 3.3.6 is fast. OS and node version is not a factor.
It's usually true that the secret designs are insecure. I'll give you that. I only trust that which is done by pro's with review, esp with high assurance methods. Most things aren't like that. Easy to see how the interpretations would get conflated a lot.

Far as help or review, there's a false dilemma that goes around between something being so open I put it in a Hacker's News comment and totally closed. In reality, there's many things between with the review being more important than openness. I tried to address it in this write-up:

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/05/friday_squid_...

Goal was to get people to consider proprietary, open-source models more to ensure steady flow of cash to maintain/audit security-critical software. Dual-licensing at the least. Might prevent another OpenSSL debacle.

Far as actively developed, that's a good point. The trick there is to make sure you have guidelines for how to use the security-critical functionality and stick to them. The common stuff that's prone to error is done in a way that defaults to security. An example is how Ada or Rust approach memory/concurrency safety vs C. Not a guarantee by itself but raises bar considerably. The parts that are obfuscated have little risk on the security-critical aspects and are more about changing likelihood that shellcode will do its job. There's even methods in academia to do this automatically at compiler level.

So, this is what I'm saying. You should definitely have pro's in-house or (if possible) externally to review the design for flaws. Just do Correct by Construction, make design as boring as possible, and obfuscate the hell out of any aspect you can without introducing risk.

An example from my work when I did high security consulting was to put guards in front of any networked service. The guard blocked attacks like DMA, TCP/IP, whatever. The messages they passed along were simple, easy to parse, and landed directly in the application. The application itself had automatic checking of buffers, etc. My biggest trick, though, was to use the guard to fake a certain platform/ISA (Windows/Linux on x86) while app actually ran on different OS and ISA (eg POWER/SPARC/Alpha/MIPS). They'd hit it constantly with stuff too clever for me to even want to waste time understanding. Never executed because they couldn't see what they needed to see. And all the good security hardening, patches, monitoring, and whatnot. Strong security practices + effective obfuscation = TLA's remote attacks stood no chance. :)
The actual compilation of each "translation unit" (roughly, ".cpp file"), so the preprocessing, lexing, parsing, AST generation as well as the first-pass code generation, can be done in parallel. A project with 1000 .cpp files would (theoretically) need only as much time for that phase as the longest of the 1000 would take (plus time for the overhead of transferring files to build machines).

Of course after that there is global optimization and linking, maybe those take the majority of the time on the GP's case, which is why I was asking. In my experience, even for optimizing release builds, those phases are just a small part though - 25% or so for my projects, as a high-end guesstimate? But as I said, maybe it's very different for others.

Products like Incredibuild do just that.

(of course it's not 'trivial' as in 'I'll set it up over lunch', there are many many details to work out, which is why I said 'for some values of that word' - i.e., the engineer's meaning of 'trivial').
Proxyblock, an interactive content-blocking proxy written in golang
> "Clinton defended her vote in favor of the Patriot Act, which created the NSA’s surveillance program"

Erhh... what now? Pretty sure NSA surveillance (both foreign and domestic) didn't start after the passage of the Patriot Act.
You might want it for: 1)all photos organized by moments/events instantly, an effortless while fresh way to consume your own photos and digest your past experience; 2) with our app, you take 10 second to share a collage instead of 10mins, while you are still in the moment. 3) For those who enjoy the editing process, you still can get inspiration from what we recommend to you as a creation. Plus, we are fully editable and you can just further customize based on what we drafted for you. -- Let me know if that is not convincing. :)
Millennial Customer Service – Your Guide to Getting It Right
What a beautiful creature!
OK -- Android (until absolute latest) = lovecraftian horror.

Android marshmallow = exceptionally bad.

BB10 is a fundamentally different OS (QNX based) than pre-BB10. but Pre-10 was also a good OS from a security perspective, just utter shit to develop meaningful third party apps for.

Windows...used to be horrible. Big changes around Vista (although, ~unusable). Since Windows 7, it's been "reasonable" in a highly managed corporate environment, and not bad even out of the box. 8, 8.1, and 10 have been improvements on that. It's actually easier to do a 10k user highly locked down Windows deployment (although expensive, and involving a lot of experts and third-party tools) than to do a 10k user locked down Mac OS X deployment. Apple had a lot of advantages by starting from UNIX and from basically starting after security was a "thing", but hasn't done as good a job on OS X security as I'd like. iOS, on the other hand, is amazing -- the only serious deficiencies I find with iOS are a lack of "enterprise as sole root of trust" (which no one does, with the possible exception of (Blackberry Pre-10 and post-10), or roll-your-own open source linux/bsd with a lot of trusted computing grafted on in ways which are not at all trivial to do), and a lack of emphasis on anti-forensics on the device itself -- if you unlock it, it contains an sqllite db with ~every message, which shouldn't be how they do it.

OTOH, on cloud services, Google is far and away superior to Apple. The biggest problem with Apple is you're largely pushed toward iCloud which is not amazing from a security perspective. The true win of ChromeOS was you were equally pushed to the Google ecosystem, which is amazing for cloud service security -- the sole problem being you're 100% exposed to Google, Inc. which is both a US company and a single third-party entity, but if you had to pick a single company to be responsible for your cloud services security, you'd probably pick Google on the merits.
That seems unlikely in the US. It's my impression that shopping malls, which are arguably even more public than Facebook, are considered to be private property in the US. But I can imagine regulation on an antitrust basis. And if EU has jurisdiction, all bets are off.
> These startups are extensions of their founders in a way that public companies are not, and that public markets are not comfortable with.

Yeah, the public markets are so uncomfortable with it, they've given Google a $512 billion market cap, and Facebook a $295 billion market cap.
Android's attack surface is much higher than Chrome OS's. On CrOS I can usually get away with running questionable NaCl code because the NaCl runtime sandboxes what it can do, and on top of that, the browser itself is sandboxed by the kernel. On Android, questionable apps have direct access to the entire kernel system call interface, as well as to other OS features.

Personally, I'm not so much upset because Android is uncommonly bad (it's like any other system that gives untrusted users non-root access to Linux: you can probably get away with it, but eh), but because CrOS is uncommonly good.
> companies who want the benefits of being public - access to capital as they need it

While traditionally this is the purpose of IPO's and secondary stock issuances, if you look at corporate financing in 2015, this has become such a miniscule percentage of how capital is raised, even for public companies, that it is almost irrelevant. So the standard reason given for a stock issuance, raising money, is really no longer the reason for stock issuance.
Check out UC Berkeley's introductory CS class's take on it: http://cs61a.org/lab/lab09/
Oh OK then we're on the same page and I don't have much advise.

Maybe just that you can look at Piwik analytics - open source and you can host it yourself.

Html/dynamic pages, images, CSS, js, fonts, analytics all from the same server (or at least same domain), and as much squashed together to avoid requests, that was the 'best practice' when I was still 'current'. I don't really understand either what else there would be.
Poorly. I'm a bit sick of the annual purge of Native American names. For f sakes, Yellow Horse has a wikipedia entry. If you are an American company claiming to want real names, then you damn well can accept people's real names. Never mind what real name means to a group that often has two "real" names.
For me? SSH and a VPS. I don't need whatever random crap I decide to `wget && tar x && ./configure` to have any risk of infecting my browser session. And I can keep my VPS up-to-date just by getting a new one from The Cloud every so often, and it comes out way cheaper than buying a beefy developer laptop periodically. I've had the same, low-end Chromebook for almost two years now and barely feel any need to upgrade it.
Indeed, had a look at a few clips and pictures and look and indeed traits remind me of a Fox more than it's genetic-background heritage.

ADD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canidae most interesting compliment to this article
The excessive compensation argument has already been dropped. There's no scenario under which a few hundred thousand dollars in compensation is going to end up being considered excessive for being a director of a $300 billion corporation. It simply will never happen.

"Espinoza had sued alleging breach of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. Bouchard tossed Espinoza’s waste claim, saying he couldn’t prove the directors’ compensation was unjustified. He allowed the other two claims to proceed."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-28/facebook-a...
Win a Virgin Voucher Email Scam – MailShark
Dropbox clone
What makes you say it's not reflected in price?
100% spot on assessment! Wirth thought ahead well enough last time in making it modular and simple enough to easily port. They thought even better by putting it on a FPGA. And also with CPU and components simple enough to implement on ASIC with old node (350nm or 180nm). That's inexpensive enough to be crowd-funded.

Need the I/O stuff, etc to be implemented for the node, too, though...
Hacker Subscription Box – Last day to register to win a free HackerBox
> That's like saying "Lenin and Stalin did some bad stuff, but it doesn't invalidate the basic idea of Marxism" (which Marxist True Believers still assert).

Because it doesn't. I will assert that even though I'm not a Marxist True Believer.

> After seeing too many examples of it working out badly and none at all of it working well, we regard the idea as invalid.

And that's just plain stupidity, which is exactly what I'm complaining about. It's "someone tried that before some time ago and it didn't work, therefore let's label this stupid and throw it away" kind of attitude. The real reason we're ignoring the entire idea is because communist propaganda has lost and US propaganda has won, and it has little to do with actual merits of the idea itself.

You could utter similar dismissals for fire before we mastered it, or for gasoline before we created ICEs, or for powered flight before Wright brothers. What I was asking for is an actual discussion of the idea - pointing out where the idea is wrong, and talking about how can we modify it to avoid its problems while reaping the rewards.

Which fortunately you did in the rest of your comment, so forgive me for the text above, but I really really disagree with the sentiment of your first paragraph.

--

> And if you disagree with this, show me historical examples of eugenics movements that stopped at reasonable places.

I don't think we had many of such examples - the only ones we label "eugenics" happened within the last 100 years, and involved powerful people with ideology doing stupid and harmful things because doing things because of an ideology is generally stupid and harmful.

> Unrelated comment: Another danger of eugenics is exposed by my wording of the starting point: "some genetic makeups are more fit for the current environment than others..." That's clearly true. But the current environment is not necessarily the one that future generations will face; leaving them some genetic diversity (even if it creates some disadvantages) may be a net win. Remember sickle cell anemia.

Yeah, that's a strong point I'm going to agree 100% with. Too strong adaptation to current environment means you'll be really out of luck when the environment changes.
The application of an old idea to a new domain is what most innovation is. The real name policy had an important effect on the early Facebook in discouraging trolling. This made it a far more friendly environment for most users. I am a strong believer in the importance of using real names online - after all I am using my real name here even though I do not have to.

I personally think that limiting the early user base to elite universities was the more important innovation for Facebook’s success. It allowed them to control their growth while creating an “aspirational” platform that could be scaled out later. I am surprised that more companies haven’t tried the same approach - it would be hard to do now, but the value in targeting this community is still there.
Root of trust on air gapped system. It meets the verification requirements, it's portable, and is a start on the safety requirements. :)
Simple Business Viability Calculator Built by Non-Dev
At $job-2 doing agricultural telemetry, our firmware engineer found that one ISP's satellite was randomly dropping the last character in routed traffic. Took a little while for them to believe us, and that satellite had been up there for 30 years...
Agreed. I don't understand this at all. The whole point of syncing was that it got around all the inherent limitations of requiring an always-on network connection in a client-server architecture. And now somehow going back to requiring a network connection to save data is an improvement?
I disagree. The default should be to preserve the record of a person, not trying to erase them from history and pretend they never existed.
A dough could be kept in the fridge up to an week. You could also always invite a date to help :P
4 Ways to Add Extra Retirement Income
aww... I've have reached my article limit.
Why+software+architects+should+lead+continuous+delivery
The Enlightenment bull market and its decolonial future
I'll add that ARM is a sue-happy organization whose processor licenses cost $1-15 million. MIPS gets so much traction in embedded space by charging a mere $700-900 thousand dollars. If we consider cost to implement, then the tiniest and legally-clear ISA possible makes the most sense.

However, my usual recommendation is SPARC given its ecosystem, openness, and mere $99 registration free. RISC-V, esp Rocket processor, will hopefully take its place. A custom, tiny RISC chip on a FPGA? Ok, ok, Wirth... that is more practical... (sighs) Lol...
Actually, my parents got them themselves.. I got one for my grandmother when her computer crashed (I was so happy, I ordered her a chromebook and had it overnighted). She was so happy with it... My mom got hers after she saw it, and knowing that it didn't have to deal with viruses, all they ever did was browse, email, facebook. My dad got his about six months later, and my other grandmother got hers about six months ago.

They've all been very happy with them... well, one of my grandmothers has trouble with using it sometimes, her hand shakes, but that's a problem with desktops for her too.

I used one for about a year and if I were able to use the VPN to remote into work (stupid proprietary VPN software), I'd probably still be using it... I used remote desktop and SSH to other systems when I needed more for work, but was pretty happy with it. Yes, there were times I needed more, I had a desktop for that... one at work, another at home... most of the time I used my chromebook though.

These days aside from at work, I use my htpc for more web stuff than anything else... I've tried a few android and arm based mini systems for that role, but the experience was less than stellar.. currently an i3-5010u which does pretty well for my general use, and htpc chores. I'm on it right now.

Most people only use/need the web for home use... Chromebooks are great for that... There's even a few halfway decent general purpose email clients being worked on (one client to work over imap, etc for multiple accounts) as opposed to typical webmail. That was about the only shortcoming I really felt. Also, getting my private rsa token for SSH setup on the thing was a little bit of a pain.
Are we doing it right? https://paragonie.com/contact :)
Like you, I can't see how they'll compete on price if they own their own hardware. Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Facebook have all been working on this stuff for years. Even adopting Opencompute or similar, they will have comparatively no buying power, no users and no data.
Late bloomer, not a loser. – 500 Hats
I'm a scientist too. A lot of my code is not even what I would call a prototype. Many of my programs get used exactly once, by myself. I write a program to solve a specific problem, and when the problem is solved, I move on to something else.

Now, I also do some prototyping, but my workplace has a formal software development process, and my code would never leak into a product. For one thing, I use a different language than the programming department. Likewise for the electronics and embedded portions of my prototypes.

Sometimes my code continues to serve a useful purpose, for instance allowing testing of the hardware portions of a product, months before production software is ready to use. And if our codes produce different results, well, let's just say that I've lost a few bets, but have also won a few. ;-)

With all those things said, I'd welcome review of my code in any "critical" situation, including preparation of results for publication.
white rich guy doesn't feel successful enough, lol.
In C++ (and C for that matter) separate source files are separate compilation units. So it is trivial to parallelize. The compilation process produces object code, which, generally, has to be linked into an executable to be useful and that is usually not a parallelized task even though nothing prevents you from writing a parallel linker in theory. Unless LTO (link-time optimization) is enabled, the bulk of the linker's time is in I/O so making it parallel would not produce any performance gains till recently. Nowadays we have SSDs that can benefit from deeply queued I/O and, probably, somebody will write a parallel linker eventually.
Thanks. And I didn't even mention security in ARM chips (or lack thereof)
Of course. I have no problem with generic, implicit optimisation. However, people often need to optimise further, manually. Without good language support, they start coding to a particular implementation: using less-than-portable intrinsics, or worse, trying to trigger heuristics that produce the optimisations they actually want.
Driver Toolkit 8.5 Crack License Key and Keygen Free Download
Pretty much, but large multinationals are the only ones that own the mainframes, and it's only cost-effective to have a few very large providers. That's the way it's all moving.
Google: Greater than the sum of its parts

Hit the first link

You're in.
This makes me sad. I used ChromeOS as my daily driver for over a year, and it worked beautifully. Always secure, always up to date. The available fast and elegant SSH and IRC clients combined with Google Drive alone covered most of my daily necessity.

I only stopped using ChromeOS because Microsoft hired me and gave me a computer that cost 5x as much. Google did an admirable job in optimizing for low-end hardware, but there is a point where you can only eek so much out of a dual-core ARM with 2Gb of RAM.

On the other hand, my android phone (which cost the same as the chromebook) regularly struggles to load the homescreen.