skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Looking forward to FreeNAS 10 when it is available. Thinking about rebuilding my HP N54L microserver currently running Windows Server 2012 R2 with a 'virtual' NAS, Ubuntu + ZFS, running under Hyper-V (yes, this is unnecessarily complicated).

It would be great if whatever virtualisation is built into FreeNAS supports the AMD Turion II the N54L uses but support for AMD virtualisation sometimes seems a bit spotty (not supported in SmartOS for example).
One concern would be around tools that fetch from github automatically. go get for example would need some sort of structured metadata if it wanted to surface an error to a user that a library is deprecated.
As someone who is:

* OSS user (and signee of the Dear Github letter)

* paid user

* user of an enterprise installation of Github

I can honestly say the problems I see in OSS land, are the same shape as those in paid, and the enterprise installation.
The difference is, due to the volume of usage the enterprise installation suffers from these same issues even more.

Now, we may not see +1 DOS often (on the enterprise side of this), largely because its seen as bad manners and/or the goals are already shared via some other disjoint medium. But this doesn't mean the issue isn't present.

Being able to enforce additional semantics (such as priority/interest, reviewers, blocked by etc.) would be a big win
The author jokes at projects leaving GitHub for BitbBucket.

I would have actually recommended GitLab! It has all the features of GitHub and more, and is actually open source (https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/)
He's not saying that. He's saying that while he understands people will infringe his copyright, he still wants to help. He's not saying you can't use the answer, just that you need to use the answer under a license he chooses.
Install adblock?
Ok, I'll add some modifiers: BitCoin is the first global peer-to-peer distributed cryptocurrency actually in use.

And yes, I did read it.

Step A is realizing that the political processes aren't working, and Step B is figuring out a way to make them work. Step B is not throwing up your hands and quitting.
Or just means Redhat went Docker crazy.

At some point they were being made fun of for being slow, old fashioned, stuck in the early 2000s. They have to be obviously for stabiliy, but you know word spreads. So around RHEL 7 time they went all crazy trying to show the tech world they are still hip and cool, looked around, saw what the cool kids were talking about -- Docker. So they got themselves some Docker. So now it is Docker, Docker, Docker all day every day.

Naturally now it is uncomfortable to say "yeah well LXC is there, can use that as well or instead of Docker", but that would kind of backpedaling on their Docker bet by having something that competes with it. So they are stripping it out.
Legal and ethical issues aside, if I'm straight-up copying code from Stack Overflow, it's probably because I don't quite understand it, so I'm going to keep a link to the question (and pray that it doesn't get deleted for being non-constructive) just for future reference. Shame, shame, I know.
Gitlab is FOSS and does everything Github does (arguably) better.

The only reason one would use Github is for network effect.

Personaly i believe the ethical trade off to be too great, and I believe FOSS supporters should agree with me.
Not since the US left the gold standard, no. Plus fractional-reserve banking, and the amount of money in the world economy is always increasing.
That question provides zero insight into my character but it does shed some light on your lack of intelligence.

I don't actually care who you associate with - it was a thought game - you are saying that you are for guilt via association (or at least I assumed you were) which I was I tried to throw that principle back in your face. Jeez, do you need jokes explaining to you too?

The fact you think my inability to talk about some secret work I have done means that I've done something unethical is ridiculous.
LTE is a protocol/standard with more efficient methodology/tech right? -- my main issue was the involvement that certain agencies have with the basebands put into mobile phones and the resistance that people trying to develop completely open-source basebands encounter.

LTE doesn't seem like a solution to this problem, it sounds like just a more efficient baseband. Even if it's easier to reverse engineer, use of it might still be outlawed (as is an issue with the neo9000).

Does LTE use some publicly accessible/modifiable spectrum that I don't know about or something?
How  Startup Funding Will Change in 2016
I've never seen Elements Alpha or heard of sidechains, that's a really interesting project! Thanks for the link.
You're changing the topic. The fact that such arguments are "fully and repeatably refuted" does not dissuade people from making the arguments as much as you might think.
>>If the free tier isn't nice to use, why would you pay for it?

The free tier is good enough, and has been good enough, to use long enough for users to convince their orgs to move to the non-free tiers. Mission accomplished for GitHub.

Julian's point still stands: paying customers with complaints and suggested improvements have the best hope of influencing improvements.

Hopefully these propagate to the free tier.
You mean they'll be rejected by the minority of miners who voted no?

Because if so, it sounds like you can buy your way to raised thresholds.

EDIT:

Oh, I see... Can you really call it a main branch if you just added all the capacity that is immediately forked? Or is it really just an independent unrelated project at that point?

Let me lay those semantic issues to rest by noting that my original post was not in any way a serious proposal. I was just thinking through the implications of a few individuals with fiat over the voting.
Does anyone else not have a problem with procrastination but instead following through and finishing projects ? Like you get 80-90% of the way there but for whatever reason drop off before completing the job?

This seems like the worst problem because you do 80-90% of the work with 0% of the benefit of accomplishing what you set out to do...
I have always felt that Bitcoin was doomed to this sort of fate, for the simple fact that the "specification" for the Bitcoin protocol was "whatever Satoshi's client does". The community repeatedly failed to encourage a diversity of implementations, and as a result they effectively ceded control of Bitcoin to the maintainers of the one and only implementation.

By the time independent implementations did begin to develop, it was too late to introduce diversity into the ecosystem.

The result is what we are now seeing.
Alright, so I think you have 3 points here:

1. Uber has a track record of noncompliance

2. You don't want to invest in them because of #1

3. Enron also picked a fight with CPUC

So responding to each point:

1. True, and they probably should be fined for the late report, but as a public entity you can't go fining people exorbitant fees due to unrelated actions. For example, if I made some public bigoted remarks and then a police officer caught me littering they can't just go fining me 20x the normal fee because of what I said. CPUC should evaluate the fee solely on the basis of the infraction that caused the fine in the first place.

2. While I don't disagree with you, this is irrelevant to this discussion. Perhaps it belongs it its own comment thread?

3. This seems similarly irrelevant to this comment thread. A better comparison would be how much Enron got fined for a similar offense against the CPUC.
> Meanwhile, with most credit cards, the entire interface is that you hand out the secret directly. Maybe they'll even make a carbon copy of it with a click clack machine depending on where you live, and this is acceptable. So acceptable that here in 2016, on-the-fly credit card numbers is a niche service offered by a few companies and you need to install a desktop Adobe Flash app to even use it.

You're overlooking something here.

Ignoring the fact that the merchant won't typically see the credit card number if I am using it physically, you are correct that I have to offer it up to them if I am using an online store. However, there is an important distinction between a credit card number and a Bitcoin private key that you're neglecting to look at here.

A credit card number is just a reference to an account between the card holder and the issuer. In a situation where the credit card number becomes exposed via negligence not on the part of the card holder, the card holder themselves in almost all situations is not liable for the charges incurred that were not of their own. So if Target for example gets breached like they did in 2014 where millions of credit card numbers were exposed, the account holders of those affected cards are not on the hook for any purchases that they did not make. In fact, issuers and payment processors were largely able to determine who was affected and issued new cards very quickly.

The only situation I can easily recite where you are on the hook for your credit card number being exposed is if you willfully expose it to a third party. It is at this point that the credit card issuer can tell you to effectively "buzz off" and pay for the undesired purchases.

In the situation where the card becomes compromised, the solution for the issuer is to issue a new credit card number and then to deny all use of the previous number going forward. All charges are then reversed and it's a matter between the payment processor and the merchant to flesh things out. In a few days the consumer will have a new card and even in extreme cases with certain classes of credit cards, they'll have a card hand-delivered to them within 24-hours.

With Bitcoin, if the private key becomes exposed (and there are many, many ways for this to occur), then there is no recovery nor any third party to rely on to get the coins back. You're effectively out of luck and must then generate a new private key and public key and start anew.

Also with Bitcoin you need to install a third-party application on your phone or computer in order to make use of it. I can easily send a payment via credit card via telephone, Internet, or in person.
What is the impetus to trust assertions of independence given both processors are still on the same die?

Mobile phones have a readily available control/backhaul channel and there's a long history of carrier enforced device control and state mandated telecom surveillance effecting [sic] the design culture. Qualcomm obviously works with the NSA, if only to protect against infiltration by other intelligence agencies. So it's really a question of whether the NSA is willing to have their root kits require physical installation or not.
Mike Hearn has been doing all the quite politicking, technical writing, code prototyping, message board and mailing list discussion, and etc that you would expect a mature OSS project to require to do a technically contentious change. He lost the argument, decisively, but not for lack of trying reasonable steps. This is not Step A nor Step B. This is not even Step F ("fork the codebase and network with the idea of forcing Bitcoin Core to accept a new ground truth"), which he and collaborators tried unsuccessfully. Quitting is Step Q.

It may be helpful in evaluating the above to note that I'm an open and notorious critic of Bitcoin and believe efforts to save it are poorly advised, but I'll happily function as a world-readable notary to say "Yep he really did try doing that; I watched it happen."
When you have to spend even 10 hours a year maintaining that vps, I think most PaaS pay for themselves.
Bitbucket actually does many things better than GitHub. The pull requests, for example, are better in many small ways.

That said it's also buggy as hell, and Atlassian still haven't bothered to support git mv properly, so GitLab is something I plan to look into when I get time.
Absolutely agree!

I cannot fathom why people are still actively supporting GitHub.

Even if you ignore the ethical reasons, which if you are an open source developer really should suffice, GitLab is better and more customizable in every way.

Supporting it benefits yourself and all of the FOSS community.
Not a good example, if you actually read the article, though. The app dev was clearly trying to provoke Apple in any way he could; for instance, by raising the price of his game to $400.

You mean "persecuting", btw, and not "prosecuting".
This is sadly exactly what I'd expect a senseless product person to say. Obviously the reason Github is Github today is because of the OSS offerings. These OSS developers then go and set up teams of their own which bring their projects and business back to Github.

If people get together and write up an open letter for you to fix things, you really should take it as a warning sign as the same people could easily get frustrated and move elsewhere or someone else could come along and offer a better product. It would honestly take only a handful of high profile developers to cause a mass migration.
> I still believe in BitCoin, however.

What -exactly- does this mean?

Additionally, what does it say about the managers of the project when the Bitcoin Core people decide that (because ever-shrinking available capacity means ever-more unpredictable [and gradually-upward-trending] transaction fees) it's better to allow a transaction partner to silently reverse a transaction they made, rather than increasing the maximum block size to keep up with the ever-growing (due to Bitcoin's increasing popularity) transaction volume?
And the word 'watt' is no where in the article. I'd be curious to the yearly power costs.

I've been the eying the Lenovo Thinkserver TS-140: http://amzn.com/B00FE2G79C with a Xeon E3-1225v3.

Some comments state that it has an idle draw of less then 40 watts. Which is hard to believe. My Dual core intel atom box idles at about 50 watts (of course there is no difference between idle and full load draw with the atom, just super slow either way...)
I agree that the "we’re very good at that!" was not needed. But the rest of the letter is ok to me, not particularly entitled. It is after all an open letter, open letters are designed to pressure people into something. In this case, these people have been asking for changes for years nicely and privately and have been ignored. They are just pressuring them as any customers would do. One may ignore the history of git, but its very existence came to be because a million dollar company called BitKeeper started ignoring its open source customers because they didn't owe them anything. Look what happened to them. Who even remembers BitKeeper? Maybe github should take these millennials hippy contributors more seriously if it doesn't want to end the same way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(software)#History
You can't rely on a dupe filter, especially since many sites (e.g. medium.com, signalvnoise) tack phony fragment identifiers onto URLs to evade dupe checks.

Ideally, people would check before submitting; for example, search for a unique-ish keyword, sorting by date with newest first:

https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Happiness&sort=byDate&prefix&p...

That way, you can see if it was already posted.

The reason that dupes are bad is that any commentary is fragmented across distinct threads; a reader of one thread will generally not know the others exist, and those opportunities to enhance understanding are wasted.
"Why has the capacity limit not been raised? Because the block chain is controlled by Chinese miners"

The author is complaining that Bitcoin is working exactly as designed.

From Satoshi's paper:
"Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it."

If you want to raise the block size, out-vote the Chinese miners.
It's not about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You're suppose to solve some small problem you have and then by proxy impact/solve something big because other people have a similar problem. So advertising "impact" and "change the world" is superfluous.
I take their meaning to be this: right now, the government subsidizes a form of transportation because there's no effective way for the costs of allowing it to be internalized. (Having a toll plaza on every intersection is obviously impossible.)

With driving cars, it will become much cheaper to engage in trade centered around automobile transit. Sensors, tracking, mutuality agreements between road owners and car makers. It's plausible that all existing transit subsidies could accumulate to the road owners through market pricing, not government handouts that we have difficulty establishing the true value of.
You mean like GitLab?
Nice to meet you Jono. I maintain a similar list, albeit a bit more focused on GHE. https://github.com/kevinSuttle/github/issues
I have address as a response to gue5t how creating a chain of trust may not be a doable goal as probably every part of the system is not trust-able.

However I'm thinking a different approach can be taken, suppose we abstract the different ways for communication a device has and use them as sockets or layers and then create an algorithm that distributes the communication through several channels.

For example two cellphones

-one against another using the light on one screen against the camera of the other

-the vibrator motor captured by the microphone

-introducing certain pattern of noise in Bluetooth communication by the other radios

-communication through stenography

-sending huge amounts of information (the more information the more power needed to discriminate, understand)

-abuse how things are not supposed to work (instead of sending packets in the correct order, use ping as a way of sending data by crafting the requests).

-Custom network stack

-use of a customized version of encryption with extra large keys (think 20480 bits instead of 2048)

-and last but not least use an algorithm that mutates the distribution logic based on certain algorithm dependent on time (in the same fashion virus mutate themselves)... using as key for example your voice

edit: explanation
Would anyone care to actually answer my question, instead of just downvoting? I didn't realize this was one of those "bury anyone who's not anti-Apple" threads.
The right of freedom from murder. I will grant you that rights in-and-of themselves are abstract and somewhat arbitrary in the grand scheme of things, but they are common enough from society to society that patterns start to emerge and one can start to identify what could be considered to be a universally agreed upon inalienable right. All I'm stating is that my right to live free from murder exists whether or not someone is there to keep me from harm.

It seems that you're trying to argue that freedom from murder is a positive right, in that it necessitates that someone else provide you protection from harm. It is, however, commonly understood as a negative right because it requires inaction from others rather than action. And as such, because universal inaction would be just as good as any active protection by a government, the right of freedom from murder does not require that one exists at all. Therefore, it exists outside of societal constructs and is inalienable.
The author touches on a lot of important points, without going overboard, and the article is worth reviewing as a list of things to consider if the SHTF, for whatever reason...

Tailoring a "plan" to fit your individual circumstances is probably the key take-away...

Putting yourself in a position to provide the big four--water, food, shelter, and security--for a month for yourself and those dear to you is not incredibly expensive or time consuming....
> The standard payment for plane crash victims is $170,000 per passenger according to the Montreal Convention. http://time.com/3763541/germanwings-plane-crash-settlement

The source you quoted makes it clear that the $170,000 is a lower bound -- a minimum payment that the families are guaranteed by the convention -- but on average the families get much more, and in fact, the average settlements in the U.S. (estimated $4.5 million) are even higher than the figure I used ($1.8 million).

But OK, the article also has a chart that says payments in Malaysia average $600,000, and since MH370 is a Malaysian flight, then that is what I should have used.
> why they can't just use GPS + Iridium

They'll need to integrate with avionics networks that are crazy complex. The code on these avionics must be certified formally, line by line, with proofs. Then the electronics and code have to work in an insane range of conditions, while being bombarded with radiation, and never get anything wrong. These take a lot of time and money to develop.

Commercial aviation (i.e. in USA) is safer over the last 14 years than ever in history. You are more likely to win the lottery, and then be hit by lightning, than to die on a trip these days. The reason it's safe, is using 20 year old bullet proof technology, which is working just fine, but design.

Sadly, the leading cause of major crashes is now deranged pilots, and war.
Respond "that quick"? Flux has been around for years on all major operating systems. It's even been around for years on the iPhone, and is commonly cited as one of the main reasons that people jailbreak.

It's not really the case that they attempted to evade the distribution system and then play the victim card. They've had no illusions that it would likely remain exclusive to the jailbreak community due to the nature of the platform and Apple's rules.

When Apple surprised everyone by saying they would allow sideloading in Xcode 7/iOS 8, f.lux thought great, we'll post it so non-jailbreakers can have it as well. Apple asked them to remove the sideloading variant shortly after, not because it uses private APIs, but because they were not distributing the source. It's always remained available to jailbroken devices (see https://justgetflux.com/cydia/).
I don't think it's as bad as many people claim. The Australian Netflix has less content, but the US Netflix isn't that much better.

I am not sure there is a single 'Good' region. I find myself switching between AU, US, UK and DE.
Homebrew? That's OS X. OS X doesn't have the restrictions that iOS does. For example, f.lux has been distributed just fine on OS X for years.
I'd rather have a rack-mount, rather than that case. In my opinion, it would be a bit easier to replace faulty hard drives.

Otherwise, it seems quite neat!
Probably Minca. Ivan is great too but hasn't been open 4 years.
GitLab is still centralised (whomever is hosting…), not distributed.
Luckily, with SpaceX hoping to drive down the cost of launches, we'll see more M2M companies like OrbComm pushing down the price of this tracking. That sad, building the constellations, and certifying the avionics, will take time.
More importantly, we need FDA regulatory reform. There is absolutely no reason that approved anti-cancer drugs in one cancer type and stage should be limited to just those cases. You should be able to spin up a direct Phase II study without going through Phase I. And more importantly you should be able to get these drugs when all other options are exhausted.

People need to read the book "The Death of Cancer" by the former NCI chief Vincent DeVita. I agree that we need a cancer czar and that the NCI needs to run the show including drug approvals. In addition, academia needs to get with the program.