skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
On aggregate, I think we're past the point of "just about right", but not so much that we need to fight it too aggressively; IMO we need to trim regulations here and there (and extend them a bit somewhere else) and stop the forces creating superfluous ones.
Awesome article. I have been thinking about setting up a RPi as a server lately as well. Do you know if RancherOS will run on the Pi2?
A more academic paper can be found here: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20o...

One of the more surprising findings is that ethnic and gender stereotypes are a lot more accurate than social psychology papers (see table 10.4). I haven't double checked the meta-paper that derived the first column, but if true, this is a scathing indictment of social psychology.
You're projecting and/or reading meaning that isn't there. Most of us congregate to learn and open our minds. A small percentage come to prey on others. This is just how it is, no good or bad.

My book The Psychopath Code (http://psychopathcode.com) makes it quite clear I don't consider psychopaths as enemy or bad guys. It's much more fun than that.
The day after the US invaded Panama, some NPR affiliate led off a piece with a snippet of the piano work from that. I wonder how much of the audience got that.
> You don't see a problem with a new automation that when breaks basically brings down your website?

A TLS cert change doesn't bring down your website. Swap the old cert for the new and reload. Done.

> Or any problem with letsencrypt basically giving you only <90 days to generate a cert with somebody else?

Look at the folks behind the project. Take a good look at the folks running and funding the project. They know how to run an essential Internet service. Moreover, they will give you more than 90 days notice if they ever need to shut Let's Encrypt down.

Frankly, you can level this criticism at any vendor that's a potential SPoF. It's not a good complaint when it's so general.

> Because a compromised host can now generate new certs for himself at zero cost as well...

Because -AIUI- CRLs don't currently work well -in practice-, a 90 day window of cert validity limits the amount of time a given cert can be out in the wild, impersonating your site.

> ...what's the real point behind the 90 day limit? Giving NSA less time to crack your key?

If I might snark for a second:

1) If your box is pwnd, and your private keys aren't in an HSM, then there's no need to try crack your key.

2) AFAIK, there is no non-brute force attack against the public part of a correctly generated TLS keypair that will reveal the private part of the key. (Or am I totally wrong about how TLS works, and there's only a private key? I can't remember. :( )
The download link on the sbcl.org site links to sourceforge, which I am reluctant to use as a download source. Anybody know if there is a canonically accepted alternative dl location?
Yup. Though before that, they'd be listening to their iPods, before that to their Walkmans, and even before that they'd be reading newspapers.

Isolationism in public transportation is not a new phenomenon.
One usecase is a server that intercepts traffic for multiple domains. For example, a load balancer. I use AWS ELB/cloudfront for SSL termunation and they only except one cert, but they can send to multiple back ends. Then the server is routed on the host based on URL.
The generic filter in CUBA Platform – Excel filters on steorids
I'm not expecting the notation to catch every subtlety. That's not happening in music either, still one can write down very complicated musical pieces and it's still very helpful.
Before we venture into whether it's good or bad, here's a couple of observations.

1) The point of insuring is to reduce tail risk. If you have a 1/1000 years chance of your house getting flattened in an earthquake, you want to spread that bill over 1000 years. If you don't you might get away with it most years, but you'll have a new house to buy if you're unlucky.

To contrast, if your house is flooded every other year, someone insuring you will ask you for roughly half the likely damages each year. That's not smoothing it out by much, and you might as well save up for the inevitable.

2) If you're going to smooth out risk, you need to know what the risk is. For that, you'll need information. For instance if women are less likely than men to get themselves hurt while driving sports cars, you will want to know whether someone is a man or a woman. If old people are more likely to get cancer, you want to know how old someone is.

3) If you do not heed the above observation, there's something called adverse selection that will get you. Suppose you have a bunch of high risk people mixed with low risk people. You'll calculate a premium that's somewhere in between the two pools. The problem is the low risk people will look at it and conclude it's expensive for them, and they'll be less likely than you'd realised to sign up. So you then get a bunch of high risk people who think it's a great deal signing up, getting killed in accidents, and costing you more than you thought likely. It also means if you as a low risk person got into an accident anyway, you'd be without insurance.

So is it good that insurance companies want more and more info? For the most part, yes. It lets them price the premium more precisely, which helps everyone get insured. We'll be able to pay for unlikely events at a cost that reflects the likely average. And you wouldn't be paying for people who are more risky, and you wouldn't be receiving anything from people in lower risk groups.

One thing to look out for is how we treat expensive-to-insure people. Even if there's going to be a more accurate price for them, they may be very small groups whom the insurance companies decide aren't worth the effort. For instance if we know that 80% of people with the BRCA2 gene will get cancer by age 50, you're going to calculate a huge cost for them. You'd be collecting money from 5 people to hand it out to 4 of them, plus the expense of handling a claim.

One interesting thing about this new information fountain is you can lose money by having tests done. Say you have a parent with BRCA2, and people who aren't tested have a 40% chance. WTF do you do then? You will either pay a huge premium or barely anything.
That's how it should be.
I think it's more likely to get an insignificant amount of readers from medium, especially on a recurring basis. They don't publish page views on posts but it's an open platform, the median post is going to get nothing but what you provide yourself.

You may end up marketing medium to market your blog to market your site which is a lot of steps for someone to take to become your user.
1. Entropy is a broken measurement

2. This is incorrect

3. There is no concept of entropy for a specific finite sequence

Do you see what you did there? Entropy is limited concept if you want to advance compression beyond certain limit.

General note: There is tendency of commentators to nit-pick blog posts as if being in debate where the goal is to win. It would be more valuable if we would read the article and try to interpret the intended meaning behind them favorably. Of course there are parts that are over-simplified or incorrect. This is just writing in the blog, not fully thought out edited and peer reviewed writing.
I tried parsing it several times but from what I understood, they established an Internet connection out from the air gapped network, without coming into the facility with a big reel of network cable. So it seemed the network wasn't physically disconnected after all?

An air gapped computer is pretty easy to create -- just disable the radios and don't connect any network cables to it.

A network would be much harder but the key has to be that there are no other non-air gapped machines in the same facility. If someone wants to bridge the gap it should be obvious by the cable coming in the door and running all the way up to the machine.

Obviously the kind of air-gapped networks I'm talking about are computers never involved in any internet business at all, the kind that operate power plants (or centrifuges...).
You're right, this part is thin. In terms of penalties, there is only exclusion, or law enforcement. We can expand on the procedural part later.
Race relations have deteriorated since the 1960s? I agree that they aren't superb now. But watch a little footage of what happened to protests back then, or the reaction to Freedom Summer.
Letsencrypt implemented as a shell script
>You know "campaign contributions" are an euphemism for bribes, don't you?

Sure, US democracy is badly implemented, but that doesn't mean the idea is inherently flawed. If you want to argue that it is, feel free. But until you do, please stop pretending there is no alternative to your false dichotomy.

>Do you sincerely think the main reason why people don't steal from others is that they'd be punished for it?

No, but most people following the rules of their own volition is not sufficient for the system to work. If you make it truly "voluntary", then anyone who doesn't agree can just take whatever they want.

> if you actually have a problem with "coercion in the distribution of resources"

I don't, as I said it's inevitable. I just object to libertarians pretending they can avoid it.
As a complementary paper, and something that affects everyone doing business with other cultures: "Cultural Biases in Economic http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/finance/papers/cultbiases120...

We need to talk about this instead of this.
That makes more sense.
> Let's not think about big "evil" insurance companies for a moment. Say there are 10 Amish guys who want to form a risk pool to provide emergency health care for their families. They were just about to finalize the contract when one of them proposes that they take a medical exam beforehand. It transpires that one of them has lung cancer. Why would the other nine allow the poor guy to partake in their risk pooling?

We aren't talking about big "evil" insurance companies, we are talking only about the measure of success in a capitalist economy - and from that point of view insuring the 10th guy will constitute a loss.

On the other hand as a society we actually can afford to treat the 10th guy with cancer and if that we aren't doing so is an ethical failure not an economic one.
Now that's a clever trick. I just tried it on a random subdirectory here (a website source) and it actually made the resulting file larger so it may not always work but the idea makes sense. Wonder why it does not work in this case.
My son was looking for something he could play to accompany a report in 8th grade chemistry class, and after he failed to download more than the intro to some song or another, I suggested that song. He reported that it was a hit.
>Except that no one asked us if we agreed.

And in your world, no one asks if we agree to property rights.
> Many people apparently did not have this expectation of technical conferences, based on their experiences.

Or they did and were quickly disillusioned.

> Really? To me it says "these are our expectations".

Indeed. "Murder" is strictly legally defined and the definition is relatively universal, not so for some other behaviours. CoCs simply take the RFC option of defining what they're going to talk about beforehand so all participants can be on the same page.
Apple: "Samsung willfully stole our ideas and copied our products.”"

Apple has forced developers off its own iOS ecosystem by removing their app from the store then introducing its features in the next iOS upgrades. Hypocrites.
From a societal point of view, I feel that healthcare should be available to everyone regardless of ability to pay. That makes it more like redistribution than insurance. Describing it as "insurance" is just a way of selling the idea to people who believe in markets, and it backfires in exactly the way you describe when insurers begin to discriminate.
In the US, seemingly, no laws apply to police officers.
No mention of Margaret Hamilton? Inexcusably lame.
https://github.com/rancher/os/issues/417
> Most of us congregate to learn and open our minds.

So not to feel safe and protected, like when we were children?

> I don't consider psychopaths as enemy or bad guys

But you consider them "bad actors". Furthermore, you simplified everything by declaring that every unsavory character suffers from the same pseudo-psychiatric pathology. And you're supposed to be an authority on the matter because you wrote a book?
Something is seriously FU with scrolling on Wired.com if you zoom in on the article. Please don't re-implement browser / OS features on your own. OK, I'll try to read the article now. Autoplay video ads! I give up.
In theory, part of being an adult is being able to take care of yourself. This includes being aware of your personal safety, leaving when a situation becomes dangerous and calling for help in the case of an emergency.

Sometimes police have to be involved, but in the vast majority of situations people can handle issues as they arise when they are at a supermarket, a public park, a bus stop, a bar or even a tech conference.

Involvement of authority figures and police monitoring at every single public gathering might slightly reduce certain problems, but the price is too high.
It's moot.

The train of the discussion, if you go and read the OP's link and inner links, is like this:

- Singletons are bad
- Why are singletons bad?
- They're not "real" OO, they're global state, they obfuscate dependency, etc, etc, etc
- But what if I just legitimately have a ton of global state?
- Use a database! Use a filesystem!

The last point in the chain admits that the first point is mistaken. "Use a database" is just saying "use someone else's code to solve your problem". What if the database is implemented using singletons? What if it uses code that isn't OO at all? All you've accomplished is to say "OO can't solve your problem, use something external". In fact, my problem is solved just fine by using a singleton.
Thanks for the recommendation, that book looks interesting.
Countries can withdraw from the treaty at any time. This complicates the argument that they are giving away any sovereignty.

Sovereignty is more about where final power rests, not about where immediate control happens to take place, so I think withdrawal is a useful counterpoint to concerns about giving up sovereignty.
Universal boilerplate for creating libraries
For the people who skipped the article and assumed that the case was about some stupid office policy:

> Valle was also charged with violating the CFAA for accessing a police database to look up information about people without a valid law enforcement purpose, in violation of NYPD policy.

This is not a typical "employer policy". This a policy about access to sensitive private data that is only available to the government. Wouldn't you want improper access to such data punished?
the chance to spot larger particles never before created in a human-made particle accelerator

smaller, right?
@nikolay Thanks for posting.

@ALL I am Rahul from EasyEngine team. If you have any questions about EasyEngine, I will be happy to answer. :-)
The law of Torts...
Check if the original was compressed with a higher level than you just did. Decompress the file and recompress and you should get the same file size.
Doesn't the UK Official Secrets Act apply to matters of national security? The closest U.S. equivalent is the Espionage Act of 1917. Records from a city's criminal database are not national security secrets.
I just created a quick hack which is essentially at this level but I would try to improve upon it, it can be found at:

https://github.com/baruch/sortedtar
Feeling safe and learning aren't exclusive.

The term "bad actor" is widely accepted and understood. If you have a better term, I'm all ears. The term is accurate when seen from the perspective of the majority, which is the perspective I'm taking in this article.

As for my authority, no, all I can say is I've studied this dynamic in depth for many years and have a lot of good data on it, and tools that work. You're free to use those tools, ignore them, etc.

And it's not a pathology. It is something far more profound than that. If you're interested, and perhaps you are, read just the first chapter of that book (the PDF is free to download).
Gros Michel bananas have been gone long enough that if it comes back, people will miss the flavor of Cavendish bananas. Oh dear.
This brings back memories of my first website. I hosted it on my white iBook G3, and I used dyndns to get a free hostname for my dynamic IP. The website was only accessible when I was at home, and plugged in (we had no Wifi yet).

It was pretty popular with my classmates for some time -- there was a self-written forum on it where you could upload photos, and people used it to share holiday pictures (this was before Facebook allowed everyone to share stuff online)

Unfortunately at some point the HD crashed and I lost the database since I had no backup of it -- I just didn't know where MySQL stored its files.
It played pretty nicely with using map followed by a scanLeft (which prepends its starting element) on the input. Happy accident...
This is a good approach to severe acts of harassment in real life meetings of people. In particular social events involving beer.

But these acts are rare in tech events. The most common acts of behaviour we see that some people call for Codes of Conduct are not this severe. The most common types of things would include: telling lewd jokes, being loud and argumentative, questioning particular religious or political beliefs, or being not politically correct enough.

In short behaviours which do not fall into a right and wrong objective morality, but which depend greatly on the thoughts and feelings of those offended. They are subjective. These are the behaviours which I think many proponents of Codes of Conduct in tech events are thinking of.
Colombia treasure-laden San Jose galleon 'is found'
But i have come to understand that he no longer holds commit rights, or at least has the grace to develop his plans via a branch called NextBSD.

This would be akin to Poettering and crew setting up their own distro, perhaps based on Fedora, to test and demo their creation.

Also, Even in its present state Launchd is far from as invasive as Systemd is. And Systemd is still going full scope creep ahead.
I wish more sites were plain html. You can do better, but it's easy to do a lot worse, to the point of unreadability.
Nice site! I've completed till Day 5 and enjoyed the puzzles. I solved them mainly in JS on browser console, although for the Day 4 challenge I had to run it on node js so my browser won't hang; and also Day 2 challenge in C++ to take advantage of the scanf function in parsing the input.
Reproducible-builds – Provide a verifiable path from source code to binary
In this case, I would either want the NYPD to control access to their own database more effectively (which is perfectly within their power) or I would want the law to be written much more narrowly, so it couldn't apply to "typical employer policy". Essentially, I don't want to have to rely on prosecutorial restraint.
You're seeing the justice process work as intended. The CFAA is absolutely the wrong statute to be prosecuting his crime under. But we need actual, real-world cases to highlight these discrepancies. Now legislators can come up with a law that covers the specific case of government workers abusing the tools of state for their personal ends. Perhaps it already existed, that means the prosecutors screwed up and charged him under the wrong statute. Now they know the limits of that law and so will use the right law next time.

It's tempting to want a perfect judicial code, but it's impossible, iterated law is really the only way.
Here you go Google ..
They most likely meant heavier. Most of these particles do not have a size (like the size of a cloud or the sun is kind of arbitrary and ever shifting).
>Most of us congregate to learn and open our minds.

>A small percentage come to prey on others.

I think you would agree that here you are excluding the majority ("most of us") from a minority (a small percentage") of predators.

> This is just how it is, no good or bad.

This is thus a contradiction. You state that most people are good and some people are bad.

I would suggest that there is indeed "no good or bad" but that it not "just how it is". Rather the same people who contribute, have worth, and are open to learning and collaborating may also have the bad behaviours.
The goal is to correct the conversation (versus messageboard oneupmanship or whatever). I wasn't previously aware of the details of the legal structure of USAA, but I didn't think it was a credit union and went and looked it up. I fear such comments are tiresome, but I guess it doesn't take very many readers seeing the right information for them to be worthwhile.
Yeah, I find it weird that they used CFAA. Maybe that law carries harsher penalties than the others.
The problem with this is that it creates moral hazard. There are lots of individual acts which are fun that I might engage in (e.g., gluttony, gay sex, inactivity, smoking, drugs) but which impose potential costs on others. Why is it reasonable for me to enjoy these benefits while others pay the costs?

One way to mitigate this would be with Singapore-style high deductible insurance - subsidies only kick in after you've spent 10-20% of your income on medicine.

See also "too big to fail", federally subsidized flood insurance, student loan guarantees, etc, all of which have the same problem.
> Harrasement is not a gender issue

It's interesting that it can be true, but not change much in practice due to gender imbalance at tech conferences.

Let's assume that 1% of attendees (of any gender) are bad actors attacking the other gender. If a conference has e.g. 800 men and 200 women, then there will be 2 female harassers vs 800 men, and 8 male harassers vs 200 women. That's a 16 times difference in likelihood of being harassed ((8/200) / (2/800)), just from attendee imbalance, and no fault of any gender.
Yes, and in my article I state that: "The second problem with exclusion of supposed bad actors is that it is prejudicial. Even bad actors add to the diversity of a crowd."

The term is there, I'll change it if anyone has a better one.

Edit: in my experience, the same motives that drive people to be bad actors makes them poor, even toxic, at collaboration.
Measuring how smartphone profits are distributed across makers should take instances of patent litigation, like this one, into account.
This is my experience with Firefox, there will be no sources provided.

I remember using Firefox since I was in college in 2004 and I can tell you what happened when I first tried Firefox 4. The performance was horrible for a very simple reason: the system requirements were increased _tenfold_ and it was pretty much impossible to enjoy browsing using it on older hardware.

Extensions started breaking and the menu options would suddenly change place, function or disappear altogether without any prior warning or explanation. Meanwhile, Mozilla devs would either ignore the feedback or post snickering comments on their blogs.

The constant version change made it so things were rapidly falling apart - you could no longer rely on Firefox to stay one and the same for any period of time.

I saw that Firefox was going downhill, but it was still far superior to all browsers simply due to the wealth of extensions it had. And now, what is the most recent change to Firefox paradigm? Locking the extension ecosystem inside a walled garden.

I currently use Palemoon and I look forward to Edge, which promises a basically open-source environment, which will include extensions. Now that´s irony.