skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
My answer to your question is "No, it doesn't open up the personal cell phone conversations to monitoring". Because a personal cell phone is a personal device and there is an expectation of privacy once you start using the word "personal", regardless of who owns the device.

I would actually add a bit more as the judges were trying to differentiate between work accounts and personal accounts:

"He argued that his right to a private life had been breached when his employer had read a log of messages on a Yahoo Messenger account he had set up for work, as well as that from a second personal one."

"Despite claims about the second, personal account, the judges only discussed the work account in their ruling."

"The device used to send the messages was owned by the employer, and the judges did not elaborate on whether it would have made any difference if he had used a personal device."

The missing piece of this article is what does the company policy say? In addition, it's clear the judges are saying that if you are using the work (corporate) network, you should not have any expectation of privacy, regardless of who owns the device.

What is unclear thing is who defined/authorized the personal account he created while using the work network? If the company authorized it, then they cannot log it and there is indeed an expectation to privacy. If they didn't, and he is simply personal making accounts using the corporate network, then he would not have an expectation of privacy in my opinion.

I'm also surprised only 1 judge said "One of the eight judges disagreed with the decision, saying that a blanket ban on personal internet use was unacceptable."

There should always be some room for personal use e.g. calling your doctor, kids at school, etc. A blanket ban is not practical at all and can never be fully enforced.
The only useful strategy for choosing numbers is to choose numbers that other people are not using, so that you maximize your chance of not having to split the pot in the unlikely event that you win.

I think I read that numbers below 30 are vastly overrepresented in lottery ticket number choices.
42% Of Marriages Now End In Divorce
Cookies (over SSL) can work if you only have one site, to store a session id or such. Since cookies could be replayed, they can't be used with multiple sites (that would be analogous to using the same password on multiple sites). Also, cookies are generally stored unencrypted on your hard drive.

Client certificates can be used with multiple sites, do not need to be changed if one of the sites that you use gets cracked, can be revoked from if stolen, etc. Also they are typically stored encrypted, either on a smart card or encrypted in your browser, unlike cookies.

Some of these problems with cookies can be solved with a central authentication server (a trusted third party). In that case the central authentication server would generate an unique session cookie for each site, when the user logs in, and send the cookies to each of the sites. All communication still has to be encrypted in a way that prevents replay attacks.
Media demonstrators in Turkey demand release of 32 journalists
If the content is in line with the prevailing opinion of the crowd, it will be more likely to get a pass. It's just how us humans work in social situations.
> What's wrong with using "isinstance(lst, str)" when necessary?

In order for it to be like the Perl6 implementation I would have to check against every type of iterable AFAIK. For example, a generator would be perfectly acceptable, but is there a unique function I could check with hasattr?

Clearly you feel that sigils are intrusive in Perl 6, but having written a bunch I find it quite enjoyable, and they're pretty easy to find in the documentation too. Ultimately, you can use variables without sigils, but with caveats: http://doc.perl6.org/language/variables#Sigilless_variables
Horizontal History
thx, your comment sums up the article quite good > Problem already solved, PaaS probably not needed. Is in return DigitalOcean only for hobby projects?
No doubt, but it's a problem I'm willing to struggle with :)

I think it's part of the worry people have had for ages and ages: what do you do idle? Do you find things to do? Or just stop doing things? Or do you create and/or learn a skill? Do you work harder to leverage it all for power?
It's not really for security or trust, but rather a temporary credential to avoid having them create an account during that precious first impression. They'd probably have to add a traditional password and email later on, but they could get started using it without needing that burden right away. I'd even be okay expiring the certificates after a week, since you should have a permanent account by then.

One time, I automatically created 'accounts' for people based on their IP address on a toy project, because I didn't want to manage emails or passwords. It made it really convenient to use, but there's no way it would work as a permanent solution. I was imagining client certificates for a slightly more durable replacement, but for the same purpose.

Then again, OAuth logins seem to give something about as good so maybe this isn't necessary anymore. I never really bothers me to log in with Google.
This is helpful, thank you. We're not a small startup by any means--we are a company that predates the Internet by about 100 years, literally--but we are a small team (seven devs).

Do you have a formalized pair programming process, or is it just "Hey, who can help me with this?" We're the latter, and while people often try their best, it usually devolves into "Let me do this for you".
The link you just provided says this:

> have a couple of choices according to the license requirements […] You can keep your app closed-source, but you provide to your users all the object code of your application necessary to re-link your application. That means for example all the .o and .a files. Most people forget that this option is in fact available to iPhone app developers.
The comments mention that the rules were changed to disallow out-of-band bargaining after this event, which is important because this is one of the core solutions to the Prisoner's Dilemma (which is what they're playing, and is not a zero-sum game). The solution in general is contract law.

The verbal agreement "If you do this and I do that then I will split the money 50/50 with you after the show" is a verbal contract which (due to the cameras recording the event) is nevertheless indisputable. You are giving them a task to accomplish in exchange for a promised financial reward. They have all rights to sue you in court if they did what you asked and you didn't pay them for it.

What's really interesting is that he promises to split 50/50. In theory a rational actor who could commit to these things absolutely would say, "Look, I am pre-committing to steal, and I will give you $100 after the game if you choose split." Then it is still rational for the other guy to choose "split" (getting $100) rather than "steal" (getting 0). However most people, in study after study, will be insulted by the disparity of only getting 1% of the winning, and the insult is magnified by the camera: it is public shame. So in some sense being insulted by unfairness introduces out-of-band costs that also tend to pull you to splitting the money, and splitting it more fairly.
Compile it yourself if you prefer: https://github.com/thomaspark/flexboxfroggy
Ask HN: Make money on cash/BTC or become homeless
Obviously this is a throwaway account. Due to various reasons I cannot legally get job(based on Texas). I'll become homeless within a month if I cannot make my rent. I've looking for job I can do for Cash or Bitcoin to make money. Online would be preferable. I'm well versed in making web apps (Java, C#, Go, PHP, Python, Ruby, Node, Javascript, HTML, CSS), mobile apps(Swift and Java), understand and know DevOS etc. What can I do HN, to make myself some money to sustain? I tried elancing etc but never seem to get any offers as I get undercut by people working under minimum wage.
Agora é lei: lista de pacientes que aguardam por serviços do SUS terá de ser
If I understand correctly, it's a nice literal syntax for a vector/set hybrid data structure?

If you wanted, you could get pretty close in ruby with only a sprinkle of ill-advised metaprogramming.

> junc{5|4} + 1
any(6, 5)
> junc{5&4} + 1
all(6, 5)
> x = junc{5|4|3|2}
any(5, 4, 3, 2)
> puts "yep!" if x + 2 =~ 7
yep!
> junc{(2|3|4|5|6|7) & (3|4)} + 1 =~ 5
True
> junc{(2|3|4|5|6|7) & (3|4)} + 1 =~ 6
False

would be possible.

I guess I'm just curious if this is a situation that comes up often enough to need a built in literal syntax.
If I learn this, is this all i need to use for CSS layout from now on?

Or is there more to learn?
Yeah. Tinder was willing to acknowledge and work with the fact that in seeking out new partners, the first thing that people notice and care about is physical appearance/attractiveness. If you can't get past that, there's little chance of anything happening no matter how awesome the other person might be in all other aspects.
Who forces the antivirus?
Nice looking site! I'm in a doctor's office so I can't watch any videos, but I noticed something a little jarring in the experience and thought I'd report it.

Environment:

- iPhone 5c
- iOS 9.2 (fully up to date).
- Safari

Scenario:

- Load the page in landscape mode.
- Turn to portrait mode.

Result:

In portrait mode, above the fold, I get the top bar, four videos and the bottom bar. In landscape mode, above the fold, I get the top bar, one very large video title and the bottom bar.

Personally, I'd do a bit of work on your style sheet as the landscape experience doesn't work terribly well for me. With attention spans being what they are, I worry that only one title will lose a huge number of your potential users.

Otherwise, nice work - you've got some great videos on there.
Your points are valid. Stronger than that, I stand more to your view than the parents. Although I certainly understand the desire of the parent, I've been on both the Ops and Dev side of that fence, and on call REALLY SUCKS (I almost feel dirty in this post agreeing with a statement of "I should be on call" but it is what it is :) ) but it sucks worse if as you say it's entirely on the backs of the ops who are also handling sysadmin style work, and are kept more isolated from dev as is typical in "throw it over the wall" shops. (In writing this I realize I want to clarify that I have other thoughts entirely about having ops specialists instead of suggesting a merge to totally unified devops, but that's an entirely other discussion). Also as you say, ownership/responsibility/etc is also an ancillary benefit.

What I actually wanted to say from all this however, is that despite the truth of your argument, I'd take a third angle. No on call is bad, but similarly, _unpaid_ OT is bad. The common rhetoric from this soapbox is that if employers are accountable for this time, it'll incentivise them to have processes and hold values that don't abuse an expensive resource. If something is on fire; the on call employee still _will be there to handle it_, but the fact that it's become a pro-bono assumed part of many of our jobs in the tech sector is the part I take issue with more than doing the task itself.
Scala.js is simply amazing: powerful, performant, acceptable compiled code size, easy interoperation with JS, lots of well-tested libraries, a good community, and excellent IDE tools.

I am very tempted to start learning Elm and Purescript. They both seem very elegant languages, but I keep postponing it until there is an IDE with good code completion, to ease the learning curve.
> Steven Landsburg has pointed out that the problem is a bit underdetermined, and the usual solution is far from unique. For example, "the first pirate gets all the coins and everyone else votes yes" is a subgame-perfect equilibrium which is just as good as the usual solution, because no pirate has an incentive to deviate unilaterally (one vote can't change the voting outcome). There are many other equilibria like that. The moral of the story is that games with more than two players seldom have unique solutions, unless your assumptions are very strong and explicit.

I don't follow. If pirate A assigns themself all the coins, the other pirates may as well vote against the plan - doing so risks nothing, and might result in them getting more than 0 coins if others happen to also vote against.
Completely agree. Also, the fact that Visual Studio Community edition is free, whereas Jetbrains is now on a SaaS model for their products means this is pretty much dead on Windows.
I made a raytracer the other day (A necessary rite of passage for any developer) and happened to add a Wavefront (.obj) 3D mesh file file to my solution. Then clicked it. VS just shat out what was essentially a mesh viewer with some pretty advanced capabilities. No wonder it's huge :D
For those who did not read the article: these questions are from the article itself! These aren't my questions.
Not manually, but at least in the early days I got the feeling (from sitting through one of their presentations in college) there was a lot of hand optimization for specific clients.

But it's enterprise, so not unexpected. Enterprise contracts love to see "people working". Who cares if smarter software could eliminate most of that -- they want to see the people they bought.
What triggers a flash of actual nostalgia is a memory of the days when you met someone in the real world, perhaps at an activity that both of you enjoy, perhaps someone who wasn’t even supposed to be your type. That person might have caught your fancy, and the first order of business was to figure out whether he or she was, like you, unattached.

Honestly people, you can still do this. Nothing's stopping you.

You know what my best "dating site" has actually been? Facebook events. Whether it's something public, a meetup, or friends' parties and the like, I meet people who know people and sometimes those people are attractive and then I ask them if they want to go out sometime.

I have gotten more dates that way in the last 6 months than I have in the entire history of using online dating websites. The whole experience, even in its' ideal, is so utterly artificial, compared to just meeting someone in person. I am on the verge of just dismissing the concept as a sham. They seem to exist mostly as an outlet for desperate men to harass women in bulk volume.

I still glance at Tinder occasionally, and I have an OKC subscription I keep forgetting to cancel, but in the former case it's become little more than a mobile version of "Hot or Not" to play when I am bored (the rare response is almost always spam), and in the latter it's more of a "well, if I hit a lull, maybe ..." sort of a thing.

I'd much rather just meet actual humans face to face and give us both a chance to see what we're really like in person. That's where a natural connection is going to come from anyway.
If possible I'd claim it in secret. I've heard that you can create a trust to do so but I'm not sure if there's truth to that or not. I'm also not sure how I'd be able to secretly help friends and family so it may be moot or just a temporary measure.
Former Uber driver won a $15,000 legal settlement
https://www.producthunt.com/tech/productmap#comment-211473
With the recent incensed discussion of Python 2 vs. 3, I thought this would be about the `print` statement.
No, the implicit self can be made explicit in the caller. Or you can have a non-self function.

This is no different from having a function which takes parameters in a different order from what's expected, and is not specific to Rust.
I am curious what Richard Stallman (or generally FSF) can say about this, This is clearly one of the best thing happening to FSF.
Let be honest, with Gtk's lack of modernity (I don't know what to call it, but despite being gnome guy myself, we should be honest Gtk falls behind very badly these days in almost all category, ease of development is one of the important one), FSF needs a modern Toolkit and Qt can be the one.(Personally, this does not mean I love Qt, no, It designed very tidy, but I hate MOC, changing language is always bad idea in my perspective, you should play by rules, I don't care who does this, Microsoft or anyone else, and MOC does this.)

p.s. yes I know MOC is preprocessor step, but my logic is sound . Programmer does not program in pure C++ when he/she program in Qt. He/She program in Qt version of C++(and compatibility with existing C++ compiler does not change this fact).
> And it has to be a language feature in Perl 6 as there you don't have open classes as in Ruby or an equivalent feature for overriding operators or adding functionality to standard lib types.

I'm not sure what makes you think this. I'm not very familiar with Ruby's internals but Perl 6's MOP certainly supports modifying classes, you can add your own operators etc.

Could you provide a more explicit example?
Totally agree.

Calling the game a ripoff is unfair. Ripoff is a deception, yet Powerball is completely honest about its mechanism.

Participants understand that they are playing a game with a low chance of winning, but they do get a lot of value out of the ticket. Otherwise, with so much information available, why would they play?

If we worry about participants not being able to "understand" these sorts of large odds, we might be better off worrying over much graver yet common situations. Do we understand the price of not paying attention in elementary school math class? The pitfalls of not having various kinds of insurance? Or even driving on the freeway?
Cloudmark Trident
The search for the killer bot
Yes but we've established the concern is someone knowing who you are, not what you are doing.

A MitM at the local wifi shop is going to know you are and what you are doing.

A MitM at a VPN you paid for with a gift card you paid with cash is just going to know which wifi shop you were at. If you never go back, odds are they can't figure out which customer you were.
My comment doesn't assert that programming is always art.

Slathering paint onto a surface isn't always art.

Big Oh has to do with large N.

"If a program manipulates a large amount of data, it does so in a small number of ways." --- Epigram 5, Alan Perlis

"For every polynomial-time algorithm you have, there is an exponential algorithm that I would rather run." -- Alan Perlis

"Don't do things that scale" -- P. Graham
No one wants a hoo-haa on these levels.
> This will have to be very good to be better than Visual Studio on Windows.

Having worked with VS for many years, things not so glorious in my opinion. The main criticism is an increasing lack of stability and error prone refactoring. I've basically given up on automatic renaming with VS2015. The IDE crashes more often as it should, especially during debugging.

Furthermore the solution/project-file concept (instead of using just folders to organize projects) is ancient and a real PITA when working in a team repository. I understand that this will hopefully be better in the future with .NET Core.

Another thing are licensing issues, which is really a uprising problem at MS (this is also the case for other MS products). You're not allowed to open your IDE when the license - falsely - expired.

I really enjoy working in VS code nowadays, which seems to be the more future oriented product.

Don't get me wrong, VS is still a solid IDE, but not as stellar as often claimed in my opinion. As others already said, competition is a good thing.
What kind of place is this?

My kid would be taken to the hospital right away. I know because it has happened to her classmates. The school even has my waiver signed allowing them to do this in case of emergency as defined by the school nurse.

That place has to be beyond ridiculous.
They definitely do some interesting things but last time I tried it, it played a lot more like a prototype than a game in development for nearly a decade.
This is stretching it, but if you accept automata theory as a part of CS (not very controversial) and accept cellular automata like the game of life as a branch of automata theory (not very controversial) and accept some research methods involving experimentation and observation of the behavior of random seeds as part of cellular automata theory (not very controversial) then the very extended argument stretches from hard core CS to 'stick a random seed in the CA, run it, and ta da, we observe the un predicted existence of gliders!'. Its stretching it but I think its acceptable.

I was going to list some formal percolation theory studies in as an applied version of imaginary network routing protocols or could be seen as a very weird emulation of a CA, kinda, but that's probably going way too far. Practical simulation of a specific algo is obviously cheating, but simulation of an abstract concept is maybe not cheaty. Possibly there is, or will be, an analytic topological pure math theory that could be applied to mathematically prove constants currently only discovered by experiment in perc theory. If you're ever bored and want to run some simulations, perc theory is very project euler like in that a short(ish) question quickly results in "I guess I gotta run it and see".

Another "stretch the limits" is there is no unclassified explanation of some peculiar corners of some crypto algos. Hard to know if they're truly random, determined by experimental runs against possibly classified cracking techniques, or intentional back doors, or intentional classified design techniques. But relying on military intel classification "we can't rule out experimental methods being used in secret" is kinda cheaty in the spirit of the discussion.
Things You Should Know About Building Web Application in 2016
I hear this as "blanket advice" all the time, but very rarely is there a discussion about what is reasonable to expect from a "normal" employer who isn't draconian or looking to find an excuse to fire someone.
No, install uBlock Origin - the one operated by the original developer.
"Never tell me the odds!"
-Han Solo
Last Attempt to Contact Philae Fails
"more or less what art meant"

To which I reply: Did you actually read the essay? Since you started the ad hominem argument, I feel free to continue in that vein.

What is interesting is that most "programming" is exactly "capturing and distilling human experiences using allusions and associations to (re)create those experiences". What else is coding a front-end to an application that saves time and/or labour, and/or makes possible things that were, before the program, impossible? An Art, a Craft or a Science? From your very definition, "Art" would be the answer.

And yet, you begin your criticism with "It's simply nonsense"
For the curious, at the current jackpot level, with a cash lump sum payout of $930 million, the expected average return on a $2 ticket is $3.50.

Unfortunately, that's before tax. After tax (45% for estimation purposes, this will vary by state) it's $1.93. After taxes, the lump sum payout would need to be around $970 million for it to average a $2 payout on a $2 ticket.

This doesn't include the possibility of you splitting the money with another winner, but it also doesn't include the additional value of the money if you invested it wisely, etc.
Cool, This is what I am talking about, This could end up very well. But they should put "Official" tag on it. Good job Jetbrain.
'Gigantic chasm under Antarctic ice'
You should read The Invisible Hook. I bet you will have a different opinion by the end of it. You also forgot to put a value on self-determination.
It's not outside of civilian control and democratic restraint in the US. It's just an extremely convoluted route from that to the end product.

In fact, we'd probably get a better deal if there were less so. The amount of money wasted on politically-supported but infeasible/impractical systems is mind boggling.