skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The authors comment about algorithm, which is "Personalized, in this case, not by a cold, unfeeling algorithm, but by your past self"

The hilarious thing is that most of the problem addressed in this article will hopefully be solved by algorithms, etc. Also, yes, I know that quote was talking about UI/UX, but it is still funny that this cold unfeeling algorithm will be the one that will help OP the most about his futuristic pondering.

Also, I'd like to point out that OP makes a great case about not re-inventing the wheel. Let's think about that for a moment.

How many cases do you guys know about wheel re-invention?
We could argue over whether that qualifies as "legitimate", but in any case that doesn't require doing it silently and showing sites as secure. Browsing on such a network should show persistent warnings about every site whose traffic appears potentially intercepted. You can then knowingly continue browsing on that network if you consider it legitimate.
> from my own personal experience with supporting hundreds of laptops

I'm curious to how much hardware support goes into this, since most Apple machines are designed to not be support friendly (eg. non-replaceable and/or difficult to replace normal wear-n-tear components).

> routinely break the charging port on the computer if they get yanked on too much

Yes, most laptops have this issue, although it's not nearly as common with modern laptops as it used to be. However, I contest that's a design fault in the laptop, not the charger.

> which is of course far more expensive to replace than a new charger

Not always true.[1][2] DC jacks can often be bought for less than $5 online, and then it's just labor to solder it into place. A search online turns out quite a few services for $75 inclusive of the DC jack cost (your local repair shop probably does it even cheaper now, since no shipping involved, etc). Apple's cheapest adapter with magsafe cable on it is $79. A Thinkpad charger will only run you $59.99.[3]

> You're bitching a lot about my evidence being anecdotal because it's only based on hundreds of chargers, and you're right, but your evidence appears to be based on, um, a single Dell charger that you think is awesome. That seems pretty weak.

It's difficult to comment on this without resorting to some sort of "fanboy" argument.

> I think it's stupid and a step backwards and I wish they had retained MagSafe on that model.

I think we both agree on this. Worse off, if that single port breaks, you now cannot charge your laptop, nor use any peripherals (and a peripheral is more likely to break that USB port than the charger in my experience - such as a USB thumb drive hanging out and someone smacks it on accident). Even worse off, that port isn't easily repairable, so it's back to apple (who will replace the entire motherboard as their "fix", or if it's out of warranty, it's time to buy a new laptop).

[1] http://www.apple.com/shop/product/MC461LL/A/apple-60w-magsaf...

[2] http://repairmydcjack.com/

[3] http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/web/LenovoPo...
Ah, so killing isn't bad? You can call it morality or whatever other name you have for it, but there are actions that society shouldn't tolerate for entirely secular reasons.
You got the URL wrong, maybe try again? :)
I appreciate the reply :)
I eagerly await the point where we finally start treating the generation of MITM certificates by any CA as immediate grounds for permanent revocation by all browsers.
...corporate welfare, tax breaks for favored companies / industries, patents & copyright, eminent domain. I take your point though, and I think is a valid criticism in a lot of cases.
> It's political suicide for a man to publicly stand against radical feminism

Standing against feminism is becoming more and more viable. The amazing thing about these radicals is that they only have the power you give them. If you refuse to resign, refuse to apologize, and refuse to listen, they just go pound their fists uselessly, and you can get on with your life. Is your ideology beach body ready?

> for men to control the public discourse and women be trivialized? That's not what I want. I want actual equality.

Strawman, and you know it. I want equal treatment for all. Today's feminist errors in assuming that unequal outcome implies unequal treatment. That's the part where feminism diverges from reality.

It's not useful to suggest that I must either support feminism (whatever you say it means) or support male superiority.
The artist Damien Hirst does not make any of his own work, he has a team that do all that for him. Nonetheless, everything out his studio is 'by Damien Hirst' as in the artist, not one of his 'artworker' collaborators or business managers.

I wonder if one could work as a scientist or an inventor like that? Which inventors, e.g.Edison, actually did?

The art movement of the 'Blair era' could be described with only the names of half a dozen Hirst type artists mentioned, yet all those names have teams of helpers. Maybe the invention scene a hundred years ago was like that to a certain extent?
The odd thing is that the cable going to the laptop is probably too thin/not stress-relived enough (I've "only" had one fail but it seems a marginal design). However, at the same time, the alternate plug with the extension length of cord attached practically looks and weighs like something I'd attach to a mainframe. I don't travel with it for that reason. It's always seemed to me as if the two different components were designed by engineers who didn't even talk to each other--and it's been that way for years.

There may be a UL thing going on at the 120/240V side of the charger but it still seems ridiculously overengineered.
I have. I bought a replacement magsafe from one of those little outfits that buys "old macbooks in any condition! ca$$h today!" and refurbishes them. I paid almost full price for it thinking it was OEM, but when I got home and matched it up to my extension cable, it was obviously a cheap knockoff. Worked well enough even though it was unsightly and difficult to use (the extension cable was really hard to slide on and off), but at $85 compared to OEM at $90, why bother?
Some people may have died, therefore have a hard time opt-out. Exposing them after their death is so wrong.
You're right, that table was inaccurate. I've corrected it to use your numbers. That's more consistent with the other data I was reviewing, which suggested that most homicide was intra-racial rather than inter-racial.

"For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." (Thomas Jefferson)
Instantly promote your business over 10 data sources
It's very unlikely the FTC hired Wright without being familiar with his work, meaning they had to read it and be influenced by it in some way.

You're correct that it's not a slam dunk indication of guilt, but that's never the case in situations like this.

At the very least it's suspicious, and everybody involved should have known better.
> The general prison population is subject to more pre-conviction scrutiny before it ever gets into court. People aren't charged with crimes by drawing straws from a hat -- but capital crimes are closer to that model than petty crimes are.

You've asserted, without evidence, some speculation about a motive that could result in that, but neither established that that motive and no counterbalancing force actual exist, nor established that the effect you attribute to that speculated difference exists. In any case, even if that difference in pre-charge scrutiny existed as you describe it, it wouldn't necessarily tip the overall balance of pre-conviction scrutiny in the same direction, since there are important things that happen in criminal prosecutions between charging and sentencing.

> Your response doesn't address anything in my comment

Except, you know, its argument about the overall balance of pre-conviction scrutiny.

> unless you think people are assigned public defenders before being charged with a crime.

I think that they are assigned public defenders between being charged and being convicted, which makes the quality of representation potentially quite important to the balance of pre-conviction sentencing.
The thing is that a SPA doesn't correspond 1-1 with some REST endpoint -- it's comprised of many calls to different endpoints.

So the SPA's state is different than just "we're now pointing to this resource" -- much more full and complex.
Those numbers don't come from the table, they come from the EJF.

The link has exactly the data it was supposed to have, and a citation to where it came from.

https://web.archive.org/web/20081110012913/http://www.ejfoun...
He's gone. And I only have the anecdotal info from colleagues he worked with. MANY scientists are swept under the carpet due to the recognition power play that occurs at the high institutional echelons. I can't prove that either. My dad was a modest man and never extolled his past successes. So, I'll never really know.
That looks to me as smart way to earn some aftersale money. Notice that it's not MacBook that's breaking so it's not sending wrong message that they break often. Charger is still nothing compared to price of whole set. Third party chargers I'd assume are detected by ton of electronics inside MagSafe plug and motherboard and charge slower or not at all. Bonus points: for cable breaking you can always shift blame to customer "bad handling".
that's why awhile ago I proposed the high-IQ basic income. It's like a government Mensa that pays its members. But it would also be very un-egalitarian
I usually say it will cost "this" much and then it's no longer about whether it's possible or not. I always tell my clients almost nothing is impossible, it's just a matter of time, effort, and cost.
> Except that's exactly what the author is doing.

What specific person is the Author accusing "of being a government spook intent on weakening security"?

I find Palmer's assertion to be flawed and full of hyperbole and misdirection:

> To try would be futile,

This is like saying that because perfect security is impossible, all security measures are futile.

> and would necessarily also violate a crucial digital rights principle: The computer’s owner should get to decide how the computer behaves

In no way is it necessary to violate that principle (unless you view the hardware manufacturer as the 'owner', which does seem to be an increasingly prevalent view)

> it’s not something that a web browser can fix.

Except that we've had at least 2 specific instances that the computer browser could have mitigated by warning when HPKP is violated.

> Today it's pre-installed certificates, but tomorrow it'll be some malware that hijacks the owner's machine in some other way.

I do not find your 'slippery slope' argument at all convincing. I'm not asking the browser to fix my ACL permissions, I'm asking it to tell me when my OS asks the Browsers to do something that is potentialy insecure (use a certificate other than the one pinned).
Well, they don’t have database access – they use BLOX, a "website as a service" system.
> It's very unlikely the FTC hired Wright without being familiar with his work, meaning they had to read it and be influenced by it in some way.

The FTC didn't hire Wright, Wright was appointed to the FTC by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. The FTC doesn't choose its own commissioners any more than the Supreme Court chooses its own members.
I wonder what ratio of people who, after making it and being able do some of the creative things they wished they had the time and resources to do, actually go out and do them? Do most just fade away?
> Male doctors outnumber female doctors nearly 2 to 1.

Matriculation in US med schools was ~47% female this year.
Yeah but that isn't at all what mainstream "right-wing" politicians support.

Everyone likes the concept of libertarianism in economics. The right wing loves the rhetoric, but actual support of the ideas is basically absent in government, unsurprisingly.
>Essentially, people aren't rational.

To expand on this, people with proclivities towards committing serious crimes tend to be highly irrational.

Thus, employing a deterrent that relies upon the rationality of such individuals makes about as much sense as using a flamethrower to mow the lawn.
I agree with your points. Medical security (within the scope of reasonable medical practices and expectations) and legal security (being able to mount a reasonable defense to occasionally quite unreasonable circumstances).

I've experienced the medical situation first hand. And, it is a slippery slope. Untreated or poorly treated -- or "put off" -- one problem can lead to second, and the next, and a spiraling decay of health. And health is the foundation upon which all else is built. It seems ridiculous that a society the professes to and insists upon "the best" from its members, makes so little concerted effort to foster that foundation.

And, unfortunately, in a society that seems to be increasingly focused on the self and attitudes centered around some sort of zero sum gain perspective, reasonableness and compromise seems to be supplanted with legal warfare. Where, like all warfare, (personal) resources play a primary role in determining outcome.

There were things I wanted to achieve, but they were never focused on financial outcome, until I fell increasingly behind these eight balls.

Simple things -- the beauty of a day and place; good company; the comfort and well-being to fully enjoy these -- have always been the most enjoyable to me. The creative focus and accomplishment I used to experience before the health issues increasingly limited it -- and it used to be strongest when what I did helped someone else.

I've had to rethink some of my early education and training -- and it has not been an easy course. Because generosity, while still a primary force in the world at large, is NOT always reciprocated. And these days, it is increasingly NOT a reliable rule in areas that have a primary, profound effect upon our lives.

And THIS, perhaps, is a real sign of decay in our society. Or, I was raised under a delusion borne of some short-term aberration in how the world works.

Either way, I reflect more often on the adage: You can't take care of others until you've taken care of yourself. Perhaps I still don't want to consider that as primarily a financial dictate. Neither, however, do I any longer wish to have financial constraints threaten my ability to take care of the basics in this regard, for myself or for my family.
And that is why they have an internal kbase article talking about that cable fraying, and have safety kbases on that as well, or did 5 years ago when I worked there.

- Former apple support guy
Learn how to get into Harvard through Ivy Launch
If we were to grant your premise that GMU is a conservative university -- why the hell would that matter? What argument are you trying to make?
This wouldn't be an issue if Apple's chargers weren't so proprietary to the point where third-party developers can't even manufacture their own devices.

I wonder if they'll allow non-Apple USB-C chargers. I think they'd have to.
> ElasticSearch is usually less work to install or manage than the average node app – it completely belies the Java stereotypes.

Wow, that is definitely the opposite of true.
On a second reading, you're absolutely right. My bad!
What would be bad about donating to a right wing organization?
Alchemy: open source AI
Scientists Analyzed Spiderweb DNA, and the Results Are Super Creepy
Look at it from the other way around - if you were to enter someone else's property and steal, would you expect to be sent to prison for being caught? If yes, would that seem fair? I would say yes.

Would you expect to serve time for being caught riding a bicycle on a pavement? No. Otherwise would not seem fair, particularly if there were no warning signs...

The law is a system with predictable penalties if you a) don't live somewhere with utterly absurd laws and b) can put yourself in the shoes of the person doing such a crime and think about the expected outcome of getting caught.
Then run the script somewhere else and copy it over? I frankly don't see the point of using a CA-signed cert for a personal device, but it should be doable without spending more than a few minutes every three months.
I had Thanksgiving dinner in space – twice
Billions. IQ is normally distributed, so it's easy math. Lots of cynics think people are dumb or we don't have enough smart ones, but the truth is that we quite literally have more brains than we know what to do with. We are a species of bored underachievers trapped in a gravity well with nothing much to do and no future, so we spend our time fighting and drugging and making pointless doodads as townies trapped in some nowheresville often do.
I don't agree with the article. The author talks about reducing the attack surface, yet there's nothing you could do against Dell abusing its control over the laptops it sells.

The author is saying that Dell would have to "literally install malware on their computers. Dell’s stock would plummet".

Oh, like how they installed a root certificate in the local trust store? How is that any different from malware and where is Dell's stock plummeting because I'm not seeing it.
This one has a simple answer: reduce or eliminate Prosecutorial Immunity

https://www.google.ca/search?q=prosecutorial+immunity
> Anyway, what is the user supposed to do after reading your (totally easier) message? It still lacks any actionability, because there is no clear action the user can take if their system is that compromised.

Display a "Back to Safety" and a "Continue Anyway" button, and then don't re-display the warning for that site until the browser is re-launched or some period of time passes.
> Private bookmark system
Couldn't you just write one for yourself?
New study reveals mechanism behind extreme mass loss in hypergiant dying stars
> That probably depends on how reckless you were.

Let's assume the most generous interpretation possible. I.e. one where I'm at no fault whatsoever by any reasonable definition and pose no future risk to society.

My point is that most people do recognize the importance of intent and future outcomes.

> Results surely must play some role.

The more I think about it I don't think they should.

Why do we put people in prison at all? Revenge is not an actual reason, which is where outcomes would matter. Future deterrence and security is a good reason. Killing someone isn't primarily a crime against /them/, but a crime against society made up by people who'd like to not live their lives surrounded by likely murderers.

If that's the goal it makes no sense to say "oh he stabbed that guy, but missed the heart by an inch, that's OK then". No it isn't.

> if he was trying to kill you using voodoo magic

Now you're just entering the realm of the absurd. I'm talking about cases where actual people actually want to kill you (successfully or not) and what we should actually be doing about that. Let's stay on topic and not bring up silly contrived scenarios.
Ask HN: Do you think self-driving cars are feasable at all?
There are hardly self-driving trains. No self-driving planes, or ships (they always have a watching human at hand, who also performs any non trivial operations). Self-driving is not there yet for every other transportation options which have way better procedure standardization and more advanced technology (with the exception of rockets perhaps).

How is it realistic to think society will embrace self-driving cars in 10-15 years and that they will prove safe if we haven't taken that step with aviation or most subway systems?
PyKafka
What does the 'one child' law have to do with natural selection, and how does your answer relate to the prior 50 years of life in China.
Or not even geniuses, just talented individuals. A very small percentage of people have the luxury to do 1) what they enjoy and are motivated by or 2) what they are good at. We are all, as a society, worse off when we keep massive swaths of people living on the margin.
It's now about repenting and wearing sackcloth. And it isn't even about Eich.

People had just gotten very, very, VERY tired of the pseudo-tolerant stance he was endorsing [1], and didn't want to feel that they were lending credibility to it, by having him at the head of an organization they were a part of. The message they were trying to send was simply, "we're really tired of this shit, and we want it to stop."

[1] "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Those aren't his words, but that's the gist of the religious-based opposition to gay marriage. You have to understand that at some point, people just get sick of hearing it -- or being a party to it.
I couldn't disagree more. Chargers should be durable enough to handle typical usage.

People aren't "FAR too rough and careless." People behave as people behave.

A high end manufacturer like Apple should be design and manufacture their devices to stand up to the rigors that people typically put them through.

Why doesn't Apple? Because their user base (or at least the majority of their user base who winds chargers too tightly, which I apparently fall into) would rather buy a new charger every year or so than switch computers.

It's quite profitable for them.

[Edit -- fixed typo]
You equate "they felt terrorized" with "terrorism." Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians in order to cause fear for political ends. It's not "civilians being scared" and definitely not "civilians modified their behavior." I have no doubt civilians lived (and sometimes died) through horrible battles. In examining the ethics of violent conflict it absolutely does matter whether civilians were targeted or not. If you saw anyone deliberately harm civilians, or use disproportionate force against an enemy that resulted in needless civilian death, you should report it and hopefully that person goes to jail. I have no doubt some people did terrible things. That's a far, far distance from the general claim that the U.S. was "indiscriminate" or "conducted terrorism."
A more general problem is that A LOT of Windows software is actually released on non-HTTPS-only sites, so that any given Windows installation is highly likely to eventually run an executable downloaded via non-HTTPS download.

All the NSA has to do against random Windows users is wait until an HTTP request for a .exe file comes and automatically infect the downloaded executable.
Are there certificates that are "generally unrecognized" and are shipped by the two biggest OSs in use? That seems like an oxymoron.
How digital financial services boost women’s economic opportunities
What would you suggest then as a punishment?
> If you refuse to resign, refuse to apologize, and refuse to listen, they just go pound their fists uselessly, and you can get on with your life.

Or, you can get fired. You don't have to look far for examples of this happening. I don't support radical feminism, but I'm also not ready to martyr myself over it if that can be avoided. Losing your job and social standing does nobody any good.

> > for men to control the public discourse and women be trivialized? That's not what I want. I want actual equality.

> Strawman, and you know it.

You literally said:

> > feminism isn't one set of ideas, but a diverse set of ideas

> Irrelevant. What matters is the people who have social currency and power today, and they're the toxic variety of feminist.

You literally said that all the feminists who are not the feminists you're railing against are irrelevant. If that's a strawman, it's a strawman that you said, and I can only respond to what you say.

> Today's feminist errors in assuming that unequal outcome implies unequal treatment. That's the part where feminism diverges from reality.

"Today's feminist" as you claim, a single entity, does not exist.

> It's not useful to suggest that I must either support feminism (whatever you say it means) or support male superiority.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it is equally not useful to suggest that women either give up the title and role of feminism or support female superiority.