skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Using Bootstrap for a small 5-page site is like taking a cruise ship for a canoe ride.

It's not that hard to build really lightweight HTML and then just only write the CSS you need. I specialize in taking sites and making them responsive, and the first thing I do is go in there and get rid of all the classes extra tags everywhere clogging up the works.

With tools like Bootstrap you end up using bloated, heavy HTML to get a few mediocre responsive breakpoints, but it's no comparison to a properly responsive page.

Here's some button and input styles in a single-file HTML5 app: http://staticresource.com/encode

Here's a set of responsive content blocks where the breakpoints are measured based on the width of the block, not the browser: http://staticresource.com/block-styles.html

Or check out the CSS of http://elementqueries.com to see how a simple, easy to read layout can be done with just a touch of CSS at the top of the page.

None of these use Bootstrap, and if I had even so much as linked to them, I'd be working against the defaults they bring in.

Here's what I use as my 'reset' that I bring in to every project, it's a much smaller set of opinions and leaves me more free to just build what I want: https://gist.github.com/tomhodgins/c4988b9d9878763ae861
Fire 'Em
Transatlantic airline fuel efficiency ranking, 2014
Why is conflating these two issues defending the other side?
1) Exactly. Also, the more crypto you move into the browser, the easier it becomes to inspect downloaded code and isolate misbehaving developers.

2) Exactly. I don't follow the standard process these days, but it's sad that we're not really making any progress in such a critical area. We now have pretty progress bars, but we're still as vulnerable as 20 years ago.
I'm assuming control over specific companies, and claiming that such control would have greater than zero effectiveness.

Don't we assume the NSA is logging any US traffic anyway? Even if not, they could require a direct line into all messages sent via some apps.
Does the speech address spidersex, too?
If a user sees photos of their acquaintances going on vacations every day on their respective newsfeed he/she will most definitely feel down on their luck. Disregarding the ethics of the study completely, Facebook certainly forces people to have a negative outlook on their personal lives.
Nice graph.

I found a small error, the entry about Microsoft Lync is wrong. It started as

Microsoft NetMeeting [1] & Windows Messenger [2] => Microsoft Office Communicator [3] => Microsoft Lync [3] => Microsoft Skype (Business) [3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netmeeting

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Messenger

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Lync
Getting started with the Mesosphere DCOS
True, but (again, as a layman) I don't believe that's the gist of the comic. The artist seems to measure the entropy of the password based on the characters alone. I think a dictionary-based attack would reduce this entropy. I'm happy to be educated about why I'm wrong, though.
The other side is stable economy and conserved cultural values, it would seem.
I have the perfect solution to this, but software systems aren't with me yet. The answer is: a keychain. Not a digital keychain, an actual one. On this I put my "infinity key" - it's a little USB flash drive with a LUKS-encrypted file system on it that holds a private key. Lots of tech people have something like this. It's great for SSH - I can add my infinity key to any host and be assured that I will always be able to login securely from any machine I want. We're all used to the physical metaphor of keys as security, and needing a physical key to get into things. This is not a huge change for us.

This could easily become the norm, and should. It requires only one key for all of us, it is perfectly secure, doesn't require storing secrets on the remote end, never needs to be changed, can't be forgotten because it doesn't need to be memorized (there is one password for the LUKS encryption). There is no penalty for using the same key in thousands of places.

The problem is, no website or browser supports this kind of authentication, and most people are not savvy enough to build this sort of thing for themselves. These are both problems that should be solved; we desperately need to move the Internet away from passwords, password resets, and so on.
> You're also dealing with a labor market that punishes people who actually take their maternity/paternity leave, or who actually leave the labor force to raise children, by simply never letting them back into a career-track position ever again.

By the way, in Germany usually you are guaranteed to get back into your old job after the 18 months of maternity leave.
It's difficult to rank all the content that is posted on Facebook - filtering by time is one easy pivot, but IMO it becomes difficult to pull the signal out (I find twitter to be a torrent of data I can't keep up with).

The upside is that time is an easy pivot to understand, and if someone close to you posts something and immediately asks you "do you see my post?", it's trivial to answer with confidence.

It would be nice if Facebook exposed controls to allow users to sort their news feed - by time and by whatever other metrics they're currently using.
Nigerian professor solves 156-year-old Riemann problem
The Forgotten Midwest Craze for Palaces Made Out of Grain
Don't see FireChat on here, any reason why?
>Japan has not grown significantly in the past 20 years and it won't grow again.

You mean, Japan won't grow again this year? Or ever?

Interestingly, back in the 1980s, we Americans thought Japan was going to take over in every market: automotive manufacturing, high tech and consumer electronics, software, even space travel eventually. They were buying up iconic American properties like Rockefeller Center, and Japanese culture was all the rage.

Then something strange happened in the '90s: the Internet. Suddenly the Americans (and some Europeans) roared back into first place and left Japan just idling by the side of the road. It was a remarkable turnaround.

By the same token, I would expect Japan eventually to bounce back from its current doldrums. China is a huge challenge to Japanese manufacturers, but they are still incredibly clever and innovative. Their aging population may do a number on that innovation, though; a new baby boom is probably their best hope.
Of course! Keep in mind that I'm just an average Muslim, so I might not be able to address all of your questions.
You guys seem to be creating a bunch of great little tools, but I wish you would spend more time on documentation.

For example, in this case it's not at all clear how the cluster management works, or even what the semantics are.
> To my knowledge, these are usually dictionary-based attacks, which would significantly decrease the "search space" to discover even a long, lower-case sentence.

The xkcd comic assumes a dictionary-based attack. It points out that choosing 4 words at random from the 2048 most common words provides more entropy than choosing one word at random from the most common 65536 words and performing some letter substitutions on it. In both cases, it is assumed the attacker knows the formula used to create the password.

If your formula for creating a password is "Choose a printable ASCII character at random, then repeat", you only need a password that is 7 characters long to beat the "4 random common words" formula (95^7 > 2048^4). But the percentage of people who construct passwords by choosing random printable characters rounds to zero.
A few years ago, I tried and tried and tried to create my own native GUI chat client for Google Chat that used XMPP. It was dang near impossible. I don't know if it was because I was a terrible programmer or because the protocol was way too complex or because good documentation was just not there, or maybe a little of all of them. Either way, I never finished that app.
I completely agree with the article. From what we can tell password strength meters mostly work, or at least work "well enough." Some users attempt to game the system and in doing so wind up with marginally more secure passwords.

We also found 2F easier to implement than even we expected. Google Authenticator uses something called "Time-based One-time Password Algorithm" or TOTP for short. Even ignoring all the open source code and libraries, it actually isn't really at all complicated to do yourself. The hardest part is generating the QR codes for Google Authenticator (which, yes, we did utilise a library for). Even the storage requirements are low.

Our current passwords rules are:

- Minimum 6 characters

- Maximum 256 characters (for DDoS protection reasons, long passwords cause a high CPU load on our micro-instances)

- We technically allow a "weak" password but bring up a pop-up (strongly discourage it).

- We do have password expiration (90 days) and history (3x) due to unavoidable organisational requirements

But overall we're pretty liberal. You can use sentence based passwords and typically they're marked as "secure" in the traffic light score system.

> Forget about the now famous XKCD strip that proves a long lowercase password is more secure than a short dollar-sign-riddled password.

Technically what it proves is that you can replace one character in a complex password with one word in a sentence based password and get similar (or better) levels of security, even if the attacker knows you utilise sentence based passwords.

For example, a En-US keyboard has approx. 100 characters on it. A child's dictionary has about 10,000 words in it. But in reality less than 1/2 of those keys are ever typed, and less than 1/16 of those words regularly used (plus you have predictable words like "The" "A" "I" "And" etc which have less security value).

So a good rule of thumb is: If you move from random character passwords to sentence based passwords, keep the letters in the former the same as the words in the latter (e.g. 6x characters = 6x words, 8x characters = 8x words, etc).

This gives you the best chance of remaining either as secure or MORE secure while moving to lower case sentence based passwords.
Exactly. Their prophet raided caravans, fought against anybody who did not want to convert to his new religion or even sanctioned slave owning and stoning of women (it's all in authentic hadith that belong to mainstream Islam). So how can muslim distance themselves from such things? They really can't but they try anyway by saying "has nothing to do with my religion" to avoid the argument.
A better solution would be that they would acknowledge that their prophet isn't a good role model and that some sacred verses and teachings must be discarded as they are not compatible with human rights. But no, they repeat the great marketing slogan that "Islam is a religion of peace" and hope that one day it really is.
But without self-criticism it will never be one.
>that right now GCHQ is monitoring spider threats from high end adversaries against 450 companies across the aerospace, defence, energy, water, finance, transport and telecoms sectors.

Soo... German Samsung, Boeing, Iranian power plants, Gemalto?
That's there if you want it though.

val customer = new Cat(): Animal

I can see arguments against inter-method type inference, but I think there's no real argument against type inference within a single method (requiring explicit types on method boundaries). If you have a billion-line method you have bigger problems.
Not every invocation of forsome calls find_i. It calls p(find_i(...)), but p can return a value without actually evaluating the inner find_i. So yeah, it relies on laziness, though you can translate it into a strict language by inserting lambdas in a bunch of places.
The government and business have built a state of surveillance far beyond anything dreamt of a couple of decades ago, with massive continuing investment.

Yet the tool of surveillance was unable to stop this attack. Now they want more surveillance, but maybe it's the wrong tool for this job.

Surveillance seems to have reached that place on the technology adoption curve where people get a little over-enthusiastic and blindly think it solves every problem, and they haven't yet realized it's a tool which, like all tools, is good for for things but not for others.

(That ignores the massive cost to individuals and to our societies of surveillance.)
Encryptr Now an Official SpiderOak Product
>Maybe you should join the counter-terrorism forces or intelligence community instead to help your country, if that what you're actually after, not just blind revenge

I posted it further below, but the reserve corps are not what you seem to think they are. Reservists patrol cities, especially airports and train stations.

I'm not going to war; I just want to be on the front lines when the war comes to me, because someone has to be the trigger-man and I'm capable of doing it. I should add that I have no desire to kill another human being, even a daesh soldier. From what I've heard it's a burden you carry for the rest of your life. But, I'd rather do that then do nothing for a third time.
It's true that the NYT pulled (or dramatically rewrote, close enough) an article claiming: "The attackers are believed to have communicated using encryption technology..." You can see the original version here thanks to Archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20151115191248/http:/www.nytimes...

But then the NYT doubled down on the terrorists-and-encryption angle in a separate story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/world/europe/encrypted-mes...

Which says in the second sentence: "Obama administration officials say the Islamic State has used a range of encryption technologies over the past year and a half, many of which defy cracking by the National Security Agency..."

HN discussion of that second story is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10579201
So when the feds go in and raid a company and demand hard drives to investigate illegal activity which criminals typically know to hide and try their best to hide, you think that's futile and agencies are better off not relying on this kind of data because criminals are unlikely to make any mistakes in covering their tracks?

So agencies are doing things backwards by relying on this kind of operational data search? They should be doing more stakeouts and rely more on people ratting them out?
There is a limit on selling more than ~30 to a person per day or something. Most* packs are 16 or 32.

*Obviously you can get premium products where you get 6 or so because they are in a package with metallic pain and bright colors.
The entropy count for each word represents picking one word at random from 2^11 choices of words. It doesn't have anything to do with the characters.
> If you naively extrapolate from the 2013 Pew Poll The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society (which in principle represents nations with a total Muslim population of about 1 billion), 40% of these think you should be killed for leaving Islam.

And, if you actually read the study, you find this number is 28%, not 40%.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/infographic-the-worlds-mu...
>then there would be no reason for good guys to have guns except to fend off wildlife.

Ignoring the issues such as fending off bad guys (so what if they only have a knife, I'd rather bring a gun to a knife fight), hunting wild life, shooting for fun, owning collections, any many other reasons. Outright dismissing all of those is like just dismissing the need to protect private electronic communications.
Yeah, i'm the same with the non-SQL HTML generators like Hugo etc. I can't believe how many websites get owned through a blog when all they need is static HTML.

It's almost like people are getting used to the idea of reducing their attack service...
All those things will come as those languages mature, and until then neither has much library or tool support.
> it just feels wrong

Here's the answer to your doubts. You know that my argument makes sense but you let your ideology and emotions get in the way of making meaningful policy adjustments.

First, I am not American and I live in a country that restricts the lawful acquisition of guns for legitimate reasons but I can see that arguments put forward by gun rights advocates make sense from a defense point of view. I think that imposing reasonable restrictions on guns is a very good position to take that strikes a good balance between ensuring national security on one hand and individual security on the other.

I must say that I find it interesting that left-wing people are spearheading the fight against gun rights given that weapons were a central theme in the French Revolution, October Revolution and other emancipating movements in the 20th century when they're supposed to be the ones championing the cause and fight the encroachment of the state on the people's rights.

Please note that guns are not available to everyone in the US. There are still regulations in place and also not everyone would like to be a vigilante but if people would love to volunteer to defend themselves, their family or community, we should not get in their way for the illusion of security that proved very non-existent over and over again.
The Most Extensive Face Transplant in Medical History
> no matter where but that freedom of speech automatically implies freedom of religion and so it's here to stay and will have to be accommodated, in all its forms?

Depends on the way to go.

If you're going for 100% freedom of speech then you'll have to accept things like the WBC or Neonazi hate speech

Now if you're going for what happens in Europe then going agains hate speech should work for all forms of hate speech, including hate towards any groups and the country itself. Tolerance goes both ways.

> Note that there is a fairly direct line between the Iraq invasion (which France was adamantly against, remember the 'surrender monkeys' and the 'Freedom Fries'?), and the attacks in Paris.

Yes, and I agree with the correlation, but they were against it and got the short stick first.

So damned if you do, damned if you don't? Might as well do it then

> Action begets reaction, so before you react without considering the consequences you should hold still.

I agree. But you can't predict all consequences. Saddam was a ruthless dictator but he kept the other ruthless wanna-be dictators in check.
His whole point was about intent! You're the one who doesn't see: The intent on both sides is to tear down a system that has values different from theirs. The fact that Bush had an army and Bin Laden didn't doesn't change that.

If you start talking about intent like this what your really saying is I share the values of one side and hence find their actions more justifiable. And I obviously even after with you about the west fighting for the better value system, but I would also prefer it would win on its own merit and not because it was forced on countries like Iraq.
The simple answer is that you don't. A bad actor with a success rate of >0% is successful. A website with a protection rate of <100% is a failure. The unbalanced economic underpinnings (cheap to attack, expensive to protect) along with the necessity for perfection in protection makes it virtually assured that _every_ system, in time, will be compromised.

Certainly there are levels of loss - single user information, just usernames, entire user list with banking data, etc. There are ways to mitigate the amount lost, but generally the more secure the system is overall, the more hoops legitimate users must go through to use the system. Then it becomes an economic trade off between security strength and user loss due to onerous authentication requirements. Our society has, for now, chosen a model that is low barrier to entry, reasonably low cost, with some risk.
Low Latency Strategies for SaaS Companies
>there is no need to frame it as a battle.

When trained soldiers are shooting at each other and engaging in combat-maneuvers, it takes a great deal of mental gymnastics not to call it a battle. Would you prefer "skirmish"? I can get behind that, but that's a difference of scale, not nature.

What we witnessed on Friday was a coordinated attack by members of a self-proclaimed state. If you don't want to call it a battle, you're just arguing semantics. It remains a military operation on our soil by a foreign state.

Moreover, let's not forget the explicit message behind these attacks: Daesh can visibly attack (mostly) when and where it wants. The subtext is that this is going to happen again, as it already has. So yes, the only reasonable way to relate to Friday's events is to consider them as a battle in an ongoing conflict against a geopolitical entity (or a skirmish if you prefer).

Again, and I truly mean no disrespect: denying this is so absurd that there's really no point in discussing it further, as we simply will not agree. Denying that this was a battle/skirmish is just as absurd as claiming that this has nothing to do with Islam (as, sadly, some people are already doing).
> It's my sincerest hope that French troops will be deployed to Syria in the near future, and that such an action will prove useful in protecting him, his family, his neighbors and his culture.

Well, the problem is that according to his post, he lives "in the western part of the city [Aleppo] still under the control of the Syrian government[Under the "presidency" of Bashar al-Assad]" and the French Government has been on the side of the rebels. Which means, that if the French army is deployed, and there is no agreement between France (and the rest of the allies (mainly the US, UK and the Arab League) and Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, the French army may end up bombing Salah-Eddin's house instead of helping him.

I wholeheartedly recommend you to read the wikipedia article on the foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War [1], to see how fucked up the situation is over there. And also, take a look at this map [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syr...

[2] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTz8DYEUYAEaCwc.jpg:large
I considered those control schemes, as well as relative coordinates. I think ultimately chose absolute coords because of the 10-15 second stream delay. Absolute means if the group has a consensus they can just spam those coords to be persistent. I wanted to go for the surgeon simulator type appeal.
The previous person was talking about pooled ridesharing. In my case car pooling was only convenient when going to work. It was much harder to coordinate the afternoon/evening trip home. Services like Uber make it a lot easier for 3-4 people to carpool one way and then use different methods to get home.
ARM IoT Security Strategy in ARMv8-M
That's because their leaders either committed suicide or gave up.

Before Japan's surrender they were planning kamikaze operations against the US invaders and believed casualties might be in the millions. They had already launch 2,000 kamikaze operations to that point in the war.

Hirohito ordered his people to submit, and the US allowed him to stay on the throne as a reward. Most of his generals were executed.

If Hirohito himself had been executed, it wouldn't surprise me if there had been a horrific backlash against the occupiers.

I don't know why you mention Vietnam. From their perspective, Vietnam won the war. More importantly, they got the US to do what they wanted: leave them alone.
In my naive thinking, I'd let my computer and the server manage passwords independent of me. Let them share some secret; then my machine creates a 1024-bit challenge and get a response from the server. Why involve me at all? I'm terrible at managing large random things.
I really like the idea behind passwordless [1], where users never use a password but just confirm they are who they say they are.

I always remember Tom Scott saying "Don't store passwords yourself if you can all avoid it" [2] and how you should leverage google, facebook and other 3rd party authentication methods as a way to add a layer of security and remove one way to compromise your user data.

[1] https://passwordless.net/about

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZtInClXe1Q