skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I double-checked my memory by going here and doing a cmd-F on "lost," "weapon," "warhead," and such:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accid...

This includes a lot more than just incidents where weapons were lost, but that may be a feature for you rather than a bug.
FreeBSD jails can absolute have just the application you want sandboxed (and its config, datafiles, and linked libraries, and the library loader), at work I have a couple jails like that. We also have jails that have a full os.

It's not as obvious or well documented how to set it up this way, but it was maybe a couple days work, including my first rc script ever, and the script to assemble the jail in our environment (you could probably have a tar file with the contents of the jail, and just add the conf/data files)
My main issue here is that each new wi-fi standard requires new hardware. I remember reading something within the past few years about revolutionary new wi-fi antennas that will be able to adapt to any frequency such that new hardware wouldn't be an issue. I wonder if anyone has seen anything similar?
Thank you for sharing your awesome story. I've learned a lot, and I agree that swallowing one's ego is probably the toughest part, especially in an environment where I tend to be the youngest/least experienced.
https://github.com/mschultheiss/Charme/blob/7634cd89febbe288...

Please see:

https://paragonie.com/blog/2015/07/how-safely-generate-rando...

--------------

https://github.com/mschultheiss/Charme/blob/c8eb501f1ac0c607...

https://github.com/mschultheiss/Charme/blob/7634cd89febbe288...

please see:

http://codahale.com/how-to-safely-store-a-password/

https://hynek.me/articles/storing-passwords/
> efficiency really matters and costs real money.

Sometimes.

10 million times $.02 is only $200,000.

And the probability of you shipping 10 million units of anything is vanishing small. 10,000 is more typical--at which point the savings is $200. Not having to think saves you more money.
The analyzer is just for show, this is the code that runs it:

http://pastebin.com/w00xTRrU

If you look at max_errors there looks to be always at least 7 errors.

I think a better way of doing it would be to make the error generation deterministic on the url input.
Did you fire after they finished development or during? At what point did you realize that you did not have enough income to support that many? How much were you expecting to make by this time?

You seem freindly but these questions are often left unanswered. Im usually led to believe companies are looking for contract workers but hire sallery because what is available isnt what they were looking for. Nothing personel, just a pattern
i did also thought about something like a P2P hybrid network
This would also hopefully solve the 'splotchiness' seen in some of the images, which presumably comes from the network optimising each pixel independently without caring about continuity.
Yes, this.

It seems like there are far more programmers creating back-end for this kind of thing than there are designers working on good concepts and front-ends.
Forward-mode AD doesnt't really scale. Reverse kode AD is useful for the backpropigation algo in machinelearning however
The founders and employees are embarrassed to admit that after years of hard work and mediocre compensation packages, they're seeing nothing.
I see this is 900MHz, how will that fair in countries that utilise GSM900 as that may certainly be a restriction in adoption for some countries due to frequency clash, would it not?
Is it really that hard for someone at X.org to figure out how to escalate to an exec at NetSol to get a domain renewed?
If only. i think it's actually higher Than that.
It's not just cordless phones though. Our baby monitor says it uses 900MHz. I don't know how many types of devices use 900MHz but it seems crowded to me.
D is also primarily garbage collected. You had an option to create scoped classes (allocated on stack) but it's apparently deprecated now.

I think Swift would be a better example here. Or objective C with ARC.
I personally have made a lot of decisions oriented around the inevitability of this dynamic. I let friends fall away after they move across town or just otherwise lose the ability to stop seeing me regularly. I've walked away from commitments where I'd lost every single reason why I'd made the commitment in the first place, I don't do this lightly. I've let myself become estranged from family for the sole reason they didn't adequately value the effort I went to to see them.

One or two children will be all I have, I am never going to start a startup, band, or other such long shot waste of time. I only have so much to give, and I ultimately will always put myself first, because when I put myself first, the quality of what I have to give to the people I truly care about and who care about me goes way up. The people who fall short of that all have their own lives that I am not and never will be responsible for. I've learned this the hard way too many times.
You can order groceries from the door of Samsung's new fridge
Why isn't String class subclassed correctly in ES6?
Slide 27/36, aka. slide 18/23, shows a type of graph which I have also seen in the Google Chrome Dev Tools as well as a couple of other places. Someone told me once the name of that kind graph but I've forgotten what it was. I've never learned how to read that kind of graph. So, if someone would be so kind, please tell me what it's called and how to read it.
Seeing this get huge on Twitter. It's the first I've heard of it. Is it special?
Thanks! There's a feature request here: https://github.com/vektorlab/slackcat/issues/10 and DM should be possible in the next release.
Likely under NDA. Curious why you're curious :)
> It's not 'they', it's 'their cohort'

I would argue it is both: the "drive like a maniac" cohort is likely to see a higher incident rate across the population, and that a given individual exhibiting "drive like a maniac" behavior is more likely to have an incident themselves vs. a given individual that does not "drive like a maniac."

This is driving in the open world, not art you create in your basement. Drivers are not fully in control of their environment, and riskier driving behaviors are risky even for fantastic drivers because they cannot account for how others will react to their "mania", to keep the vocabulary consistent.
That's 7Gbps shared between all connected wireless devices connected to 8-24 1Gbps switched wired ports.
In NZ we have a similar system, but similar laws apply to non-party broadcasts, where unregistered groups or individuals an spend a small amount of money (~10k) and registered groups can spend something like 250k (the three largest parties get more then that each and the rest get less)

If the ECC thinks you breached that they can take you to court, but the results will almost certainly stand.
http://www.brendangregg.com/flamegraphs.html
You mean integration? That's much harder, but has been done automatically. Symbolic differentiation is easy, because you can just keep blindly applying a set of rewrite rules until none of them apply. That process converges on a unique result. Symbolic integration doesn't converge in that way. More strategy is required, and you're not guaranteed a closed form solution. Mathematica has a good symbolic integrator.
The clearest article I've seen on the subject is this one:

https://colah.github.io/posts/2015-08-Backprop/
They call it a flame graph and what you are seeing are call stacks. X axis is time, Y axis is call stack depth.

The very bottom layer is the function you are analyzing, ever layer above is a function called by the one directly below it.
It's funny though as I had a very similar idea some years ago sticking much with virtual machines. I thought that if VM's disk image is just a file represented by sequence of zeroes and ones and what if someone would generate a final number of those images starting from 0...0 to 1...1 and then probe them all on a given emulated hardware what would be a chance to discover some viable/useful software? How would we detect it? How would we know or reverse engineer it to understand what it could be used for and how to use it, interact with it etc.?

So I ended up thinking that it would be a project similar to SETI but on a smaller scale (let's say if the image size would be limited to just 1Gb).
I do not. People who do not work in tech are being priced out of the area left and right. I'd like to see more startups sprout up in places like Austin, Chicago or better yet Charlotte. Better yet, start a company with remote working being the default from day 1 - makes recruiting the right talent much more straight-forward.
I actually think this depends quite a bit on context, unless you have a carefully particular definition of some of those words in mind.
Thank you. Very succinct explanation. I like that.
I think it would have to do far more with the green board and not the antennas. Especially at the home owner router level your not going to put the effort into the back plain of the router. And while most of them aren't really general purpose computers in that, a good part of the functionality is going to be baked into the various chip hardwares on the board. One might be able upgrade the OS but changing the functionality of the radios probably totals the box.

Plus, what would they sell you next year? To be sustainable, the company would have to be mostly a software company that people are willing to pay license or upgrade fees for increased functionality or performance. There may be a niche for that, but most people won't upgrade their router or CPE for free. At scale, I doubt that would pan out, especially with increased, upfront hardware cost.
> browser Javascript, which can only be as secure as the server's verified TLS key anyways (and thus doesn't add any security TLS doesn't)

This is not precise. While it does not stop even the most basic active attackers, it does prevent passive logging on the server without changing the served JavaScript, therefore making undetectable mass surveillance on the server harder. The effect is analogous to the difference between TLS with and without forward secrecy: with a similar argument you could conclude ephemeral DH/ECDH does not add any security to TLS, which is not quite the case.
Unlock Netflix's Hidden Categories with These Secret Codes
I am playing the language lawyer game - there is nothing to call out. Is what I say justified by the standard? Yes, or no? There are no other issues involved ;)

I have no idea if C99 runs on any 1's complement systems. I don't know what end-around carry is. I don't care what it is. I don't care about any of this 1's complement nonsense. But the standard says it exists, and must be taken into account, and, therefore, by the rules of the game, I am obliged to assume these things.
Winning Powerball Jackpot Can Be Tough, Winner Could Still End Up Losing
Unicorns and Little Ponies Hit the Slaughterhouse as Maker Media Lays Off 17
It's a flame graph or flame chart. I found this video explaining how to use them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0g4ML4nhPg

I think the basic idea is: say you have some code like this.

function a() { // 6 ms
b(); // 3 ms
c(); // 3 ms
}
Then you might have a flame chart that looks like this:

[-b-][-c]

[---a---]

Essentially you're decomposing the time we spend in a() into its constituent pieces b() and c().
If that limit is 4 mph or 10 mph, I think it's fair to charge more.

The problem is, speed limits in the US are often underposted to raise revenue and/or give the police an excuse to stop almost any driver. Certain studies have shown that drivers doing 4-to-10 MPH over the speed limit are among the safest. The slower ones are often either not paying attention, actively obstructing traffic, or impaired.

I'd be more likely to accept behavior-based insurance rates if they're based on sound traffic engineering principles rather than politics.
I am comparing Go and Rust, not PHP and Go.
> X axis is time

That's not correct from what I'm reading.
> While it does not stop even the most basic active attackers

You just admitted that it's useless!

https://adamcaudill.com/2014/02/25/on-opportunistic-encrypti...
Never estimate the size of someone else's job
> As would the VM's you said you ran previously.

> (though you did earlier complain about having to patch everything in isolation :P)

The problem wasn't so much that the zones needed to be patched, the problem was that they were full installs of solaris. Solaris didn't really have a concept of a 'base install', at least not without a ton of debugging and manual dependency management [0]. This meant that the only easy way to install a working solaris system was to all the packages [1]. This meant that you then needed to patch all the packages.

I think some of that got better in solaris 11(?), but I never made it that far. I think I switched to nexenta and then to debian/kfreebsd.

[0] I tried a minimal install, I got the kernel to panic by trying to enable nfs4+krb5p without having some separately packaged crypto kernel modules installed.

[1] Unless you were a solaris admin. The ones I asked said it was possible, but that I should just install everything.
I would expect that the only "malicious" purpose achievable is a DoS through service degradation. Can you think of something else?
The span on the x-axis is the amount of time spent in a function, but not the passage of time left-to-right.
I think you are overestimating how much they spend compared to Kellogs, Home Depot, Verizon, Walmart, Car companies, etc.

Those big players spend so much money. If the funding river dried up then sure, sooner if there smaller ad-tech might be at risk, but the big dollars will stay put.
> You just admitted that it's useless!

No, I do not believe stopping passive attacks is useless.
Someone pastebinned the list before the takedown if you find it valuable: http://pastebin.com/RgKZuDLq
> You're basically saying that everyone just needs to be a top 0.001% C programmer.

A more constructive/charitable phrasing of the parent's point might be: you should only be allowed to code in C if you're already a top 0.001% programmer. Then, obviously, all C code will be good—not that there'll be much of it.

That's actually a more interesting point than it seems. Programmers generally tend to reject the idea of guilds and "professional" licensing—mostly because, AFAIK, most programs aren't critical and most crashes don't matter. But what if, instead of licensing all programming, we just licensed only low-level programming? What if, as a rule, everyone who was going to be hired to write code in a language with pointers was union-mandated to be certified as knowing how to safely fiddle with pointers? That could probably split on interesting dimensions, like a bunch of regular coders working in e.g. a Rust codebase, with a certified Low Level Programmer needing to "sign off on" any commit that contained unsafe{} code, where the actual failure of the unsafe{} code would get the Low Level Programmer disbarred.
I down voted you because I'm on a phone and my thumb is a bit bigger than the voting triangles - apologies.
When you stop passive attacks, then attackers will just step up their game to active attacks.

If you want to call something secure, you need to design a threat model that doesn't involve an attacker with one arm tied behind their back. That doesn't serve anyone's interests, except maybe the blackhats'.
If you are sampling the stack at equidistant points in time (or, sampling theorem and all, fast enough) and then determine the width on the basis of "seen in fraction of samples", that's pretty close to time. (timespan if you want)
The Free Software Foundation Vision Survey
Maltrail – Malicious Traffic Detection System
i wouldn't take a lottery ticket if you gave it to me for free, but i'd happily join an office pool. for me, the worst part about lotteries is the mental effort required to hang on to and track a ticket; it's sort of the opposite of the entertainment effect that people talk about. but if i could contribute some token amount of money to a social bonding endeavour, and as a bonus fund the entertainment of people who do enjoy keeping track of lottery tickets, and maybe magically have money appear without my having had to do anything for it, it would be worth it.
You seem to be missing it. Let me try to break it down again.

First off, plain and simple, we don't know what we don't know. So straightforward it's tautological. It makes sense to expand our knowledge in every direction possible.

This is the MO of a curious species. And curious species are vastly more successful than incurious ones. To paraphrase Randall Munroe, the legacies of incurious species are carefully discovered, studied, and remembered by curious ones. Curiosity is a survival trait.

Dedicating less than 4 parts per million of our country's enormous economic activity toward studying an important part of our stellar neighborhood seems a worthwhile entry in the activities column of a sufficiently curious people. Moreover, the return-on-investment on unbounded curiosity is so close to infinite that it's hard to view complaints about such comparatively tiny expenditures in regards to their practicality or short-term tangible returns as anything other than laughably myopic.
I ran a free service for a long while... they should just dump the free service or at least not accept any more free customers. They will save a lot of money and since the customers don't transition up anyway it won't really affect their business. A business isn't a charity. I learned that the hard way!
> The real mystery, for me, is: Why was the initial state of our universe so completely non-chaotic?

Here's a possibility: if you "start" at a random state, after enough exploration of the state space, there would be a local minima that was arbitrarily well-ordered. Both directions of time would then view that as the "past", and the other direction as "future".

These perceptions as to the arrow of time would last until a state equivalent to heat death is reached, at which point the "arrow" of time would flip around again.
What's your vision for the Free Software Foundation? Fill out the survey
GSM900 is 890-915 MHz; 802.11ah gets around this by using region specific frequencies that sidestep GSM900:

902-928 MHz in the US (26 MHz bandwidth)

863-868 MHz in Europe (5 MHz bandwidth)

916.5-927.5 MHz in Japan (11 MHz bandwidth)

Limited bandwidth, especially in Europe, will to lead to both higher power consumption and lower real-world range.

>The PHY layer will allow devices and APs to operate over different sub-1GHz ISM bands, depending on the country regulations: 863-868 MHz in Europe, 902-928 MHz in the US, and 916.5-927.5 MHz in Japan. China, South Korea, and Singapore also have specific channels.

Reference: http://www.networkcomputing.com/wireless-infrastructure/sub-...
My experience as a new FreeBSD user: if you're expecting the Docker port stability to be remotely close to Linux, I'd avoid using for now.
I emailed a friend at Network Solutions to look into this... we'll see.
> ... while also not being particularly constructive.

Eh?

The guy mentioned that he switched from using the built-in antenna on his laptop to a honking external antenna and now gets 720mbit/s performance anywhere in his house. That's quite constructive. I guess the only way it could get more constructive is if he mentioned the model of hardware involved... but I expect that you'd get similar results with any AP capable of 720mbit/s transfer to a single client. If your AP is fast enough, then it's all about SNR.
> When you stop passive attacks, then attackers will just step up their game to active attacks.

Not always. It often changes the economics of the game. Especially when facing mass surveillance, considering the potential risk of detectability. Just because some attackers can step up their game for some targets, it does not imply they will do the same for all targets.

> If you want to call something secure...

I don't disagree with your point of view about what can or cannot be called "secure". One can debate that definition. However, stopping passive attackers is often NOT useless and it does add value. Security is not a binary proposition.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10862155
What part doesn't scale?
Yeah, I got the same impression. The mapping it seems to have discovered is:

vegetation texture -> greenish
sky texture -> blueish
everything else -> brownish

...which is not a bad set of defaults for most photos.
It is a proof that we can get what we need to done in a language that is not Turing complete. The hope would be that there is some sweet spot we can find wherein we can say things that are dramatically more useful than "it will finish inside 2^(2^100) steps" without impacting usability tremendously more than "it won't use more than a kebibyte of memory" - which is already enough to defang the theoretical objection.
How are you investing a lot more if you let people go?
What would be the infrastructure this time? Instacart drivers at the ready...? The whole ecosystem that's been pushed seems to be being pushed precisely because there's no infrastructure involved, leading to the asymmetric cost structures so championed by PG/YC.
There are currently 144 unicorns valued at $525 billion

https://www.cbinsights.com/research-unicorn-companies
Forbes forces readers to turn off ad blockers, promptly serves malware
The End of the Taxi Era
The first alternative builds a large tree structure, and then evaluates the whole tree structure afterwards.

So first it blows up the size of the expression to process and then it calculates the result. A lot of those calculations will be redundant

The second one not only avoids evaluating the tree separately, but "prunes" a lot of the evaluation automatically by effectively short-circuiting the whole process. Consider (with the caveat that my Haskell understanding is rudimentary at best and it was about 20 years since I last did anything involving symbolic differentiation) :

Product e e' -> Product e (diff e') `Sum` Product (diff e) e'

Followed by a separate run with:

Product e e' -> ev e * ev e'

vs

Product e e' -> let (ex, ed) = ev e
(ex', ed') = ev e'
in (ex * ex', ex * ed' + ed * ex')

(I pick the "Product" rule as an example because it is one of the ones that blows up the size of the tree)

Lets say you do something simple like Product X X. You get Sum (Product X One) (Product One X) out, and then you have to evaluate each node.

In the second case, you match Product e e'. You process X and assign (x,1) to (ex,ed), and process the second X and assign (x,1) to (ex', ed'), and then return (ex * ex', ex * ed' + ed * ex').

In the first case, you've first differentiated 3 nodes (Product + 2x "X"), then evaluated the 7 nodes that was produced as output, for a total of ten nodes processed.

In the second you've evaluated/differentatiated 3 nodes in one go without the intermediate step of having to evaluate a much larger tree.

In a large example, the number of nodes in the differentiated output quickly explodes and subsequent evaluation would increase rapidly in cost.
Thanks! I certainly hope so :-)
Could LinkedIn sue this person?
I work at a hedge fund. The people who evaluate companies aren't traders, they're called analysts. A lot of them have MBAs from highly ranked programs, but aside from that they have fairly diverse backgrounds. One of the guys who works with health care companies is an MD. One of the guys who works with tech companies was a VC. They have almost limitless resources for research, meaning that they read a lot of third party analysis. They meet with company management. They talk to people at other funds and exchange ideas. We also have a team that does proprietary quantitative analysis to supplement the fundamental process. And of course analyzing companies is a (more than) full time job for the analysts.

Hedge funds struggle to outperform the market. The vast majority of amateur traders underperform it by a lot.
Creating your first Application in Express
How does this compare to 802.15.4? It seems like the two have similar purposes.