skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Secure messaging has to work. All the time. If your threat model is criminals, Gchat will protect you just fine. You use encrypted messaging to prevent governments from reading your messages. Look at the Telegram/Iran fiasco for an example of this.

So: my recommendation is, never use any secure messaging system that boots off a web page. No matter what they claim to do to mitigate the risk.

I'm actually, for a bunch of specific reasons, not super comfortable with browser extension applications either. But at least the browser tries to protect an extension you have to explicitly install and explicitly run.
The True Story of the Gender Pay Gap: A New Freakonomics Radio Podcast
That piqued my interest. Do you know the name of any of the Japanese niche brands?
The real scary question to ask is if we've already back door ed this and don't want another country like China to know.
Your target audience is still going to read his name, have an intuitive negative feeling, and associate that negative feeling with your article.
A UBI is very similar to an EITC in a lot of ways. To me, the benefit of a UBI is cleaning up a lot of the crap kludges in place that it can substitute better for. Similar to how single-payer lets us get rid of complex insurance subsidies and market places.
"And a guaranteed income would be instead of a whole lot of existing welfare programs."

It's a proposal to simplify the social support structure.
That essay seems unnecessarily ad hominem and I find it hard to read with the unnecessary amount of neologism. Certainly people are welcome to find ideas advocated for by fairly socially well-off groups to be suspect, but it doesn't make those ideas inherently bad.
Best question about UBI I've heard. Usually the argument is that poor people won't work.

I don't have an answer, actually, I just wanted to say that your question is reasoned and not politically charged, so thanks. I'm also curious about this?
C++'s templates are untyped. Rust's templates are typed. Most people aren't aware of the difference, and they naturally think that templates "have to work" like the ones in their favorite language (dynamically typed if coming from C++ and D, and statically typed if coming from Java, C#, or most other languages). But the fact that Rust and C++/D picked different sides of the tradeoff is the key source of the differences between them.

C++ and D programmers, like you (and Andrei), look down on Rust generics and give examples of all the things that you can't do with Rust generics that are easy to do with C++ templates. But there's an equally strong counterargument, in that Rust generics never give errors at template expansion time and are guaranteed to expand to valid code. This makes code easier to understand, improves the experience for users of your generics, and also simplifies the implementation, leading to potentially better compile times (since you typecheck once instead of after every template expansion). Of course, this is a tradeoff: it's more work for us to implement the features necessary to do the kinds of sophisticated metaprogramming you see in C++ and D, and there will always be some things you can't do in Rust that are easy in C++ and D. But that isn't a slam-dunk argument for untyped templates vs. typed generics any more than easy reflection is a slam-dunk argument for dynamic typing like Python vs. static typing like Java.
I like your answer but it genuinely wouldn't work. Suspect, most of us know those things already.

I don't think you can tell someone who suffers from analysis paralysis that it's irrelevant.

You can tell them, but it might not matter. I 've come to the conclusion that the only thing works is an "authority". School, parents, work, boss, client. Basically anything that directly controls your life.

Not to diminish anyones experiences, but indecision from analysing things it's like a drug, at least for me. I feed off it, and suck and impacts my life, but not instantly. Over time.

I can't pick a project to finish because I only have 4 days, but then 4 days pass, and you still haven't. Now increase that into a weeks or months.
Somewhat off topic, but does anybody remember when MEGASync (a MEGA desktop sync client) came out and the Linux source code was "on its way?" It's been over a year (maybe 2?) and I've seen nothing. I have no reason to trust the security of the file storage backend until then.
"...if they do nothing for 364 days then convinces the team to change programming language to a 2x more productive language."

If you bike-shed programming languages then I'm throwing you out the nearest window.
That seems uncharitable. Going to a prominent school is a big boost—would anyone deny that?—but it doesn't cancel years of personal or family trauma, or economic or social adversity like the poverty the article is talking about. Indeed the article is all about how those things persist and continue to affect one at depth. If you'd read it with empathy, I think you'd agree, or at least phrase your criticism differently.
The sort of webcams we're describing are very recent. For $50, you can buy a CCTV camera that includes a network interface and a web server. That has only been possible for a few years thanks to cheap smartphone-derived SoCs.

The IoT is turning consumers into inadvertent sysadmins. For the first time in the history of computing, inexpensive consumer products are functioning as servers. These servers are often dreadfully insecure, e.g. internet-accessible root access with a default password.

The market for a $50 IP camera is inherently different to the market for an $800 IP camera.
Yes. One need only consider that the threat of starving to death is an incentive to sell yourself to another person in order to dispel the euphemistic and misanthropic rhetoric.
The explanation would go something like this (I think, but I'm not a proponent of the system):

You'd give them the same payment, but you'd take back a much higher payment in taxes. Giving people $40k just to send a bill of $100k seems inefficient to me.
Some want to do the first, some want to do the second.
As a bit of an aside, I actually came across this from a tweet by Adam Savage of Mythbusters fame.
The big problem with an algorithm like this on is that there is a fair chance that someone will come up with a substantially faster method. This part bothers me:

>These bounties are to expire at the end of 2016. They are admittedly modest in size, but then claiming them might only require one or two insightful tweaks to my existing implementations.
> Providing a UBI would seem to end up increasing inflation of basic goods and services.

I don't understand where this argument comes from. A basic income doesn't create money. For the average (literally average) taxpayer, the tax required to pay for the basic income will exactly match the amount of the basic income and it cancels. Higher-than-average income people would pay more in taxes which money would fund the basic income for lower-than-average income people.

The only argument you can really make is that lower income people are more likely to actually spend the money. But that is true of anything that increases the income of lower income people.

Moreover, most of the goods people buy today are either not of the type you consume significantly more of when you have more money, or are not rooted in scarcity. If you give lower income people more money and they buy more iPhones, Apple is not going to run out of iPhones and have to raise prices to ration them, they're just going to make more iPhones.

The goods that actually are scarce, like housing and food, would be affected in theory, but we already artificially prop up the prices of those things. If we wanted the price to go down then there are obvious things we could do, like not impeding high density housing construction or not paying farmers to not plant crops.
Yep, and considering that extreme poverty leads to all kinds of avoidable crime, I'd much rather live in a society where people are doing something unproductive (like playing video games all day) rather than going out and hurting each other, themselves, and their communities.
And Haskell gave up rich control flow (break, continue, early return) by doing so. If you trace through what having those statements means for monads as a first-class concept, you find that the situation becomes very much not that simple.
At the risk of downvotes, why can't you? At some level, personal responsibility must come into play. There's a limit on how much you can protect people from themselves, though where that limit is can be a very political topic.
> A vulnerability I discovered a bit of a year ago allowed local privilege escalation for any user with access to write to an XFS filesystem.

So, mount any existing xfs file systems read-only, and move rw systems to ext3? I'm not saying it would make sense - but sounds like a prime example of something for which there was a work around...

(I'll concede that for those that need(ed) xfs, there'd probably not be many alternatives at the time. Possibly JFS?)
Based on what I've read, inflation is one of the weaker arguments against UBI assuming that it was implemented as a pure redistribution. (i.e. no increase in money supply, deficit, etc.) That said, given the scope of such a hypothetical program, it's probably reasonable to assume that there would be some demand shifts that could drive up certain wages and certain goods (perhaps housing in some areas).

Or not. With, presumably, no more minimum wage and everyone with a poverty line-ish income without working, maybe Walmart doesn't need to pay as much to get part-time workers who just want to earn a little extra.
What if the regulation largely ignored the technology and instead focused on responsibility: prohibit license terms requiring arbitration or restricting class action cases, setting minimum warranty terms which treat software support as a primary requirement (no selling a washing machine with a 10+ year hardware lifetime but ending software support 6 months after release), and restricting liability disclaimers so a company can't completely shirk responsibility the way everyone does now?

The one which would make the most sense to me is something like a souped-up CERT: researchers report vulnerabilities to them, staff grades the severity, and a company has increasingly strict penalties if the fix isn't shipped within certain timeframes. Imagine if e.g. Samsung, Lenovo, etc. executives knew that their personal assets would be frozen in the U.S. if they continued not to support all of the millions of vulnerable Android devices?

The main thing I'd hope an approach like this could avoid would be the PCI bureaucracy you mentioned where a company might choose to avoid riskier areas rather than being required to expensively audit a process.
Sorry, but I don't feel like paying more in taxes so that people can "create art" and take care of their own families. When did it become my responsibility to work harder so that they can do that?

Taking care of my family involves me working hard, so why are you willing to make me work harder so that others can work less?

An no one thinks taking care of your own family is shameful or morally wrong. Taking more money from me to pay you to take care of your family, on the other hand, is morally wrong.
How about smart TVs? Give it a few years and you’ll have hundreds of millions of TVs with a camera on them exposed to the wild.
Ed Yourdon obituary
Why are people on HN supporting basic income so much? Do you support 'Guaranteed Basic Sex' as well? You know, there are guys like Elliot Rodgers who would be thrilled with something like that.
On #5: This same thing happened to me. A junior dev came up with an ingenious solution for something that would have taken weeks and been a major maintenance headache going forward. The team had been putting off developing it for months because of that. She proposed the idea to me and asked if it was an awful hack and my initial reaction was "yes", but then I swallowed my pride enough to add on "..but here's how we can make it work".
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2005/10/03/does-the...

See also http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10933/why-do-we-s... with several good answers.
Forensic Analysis of “No Silver Bullet”
Sure, there's also stuff regarding disabilities, health and probably way more that simply didn't slip into my mind right now. That's why I phrased it as I did.

However, I suppose the existence of basic income could also change the character of those remaining social programs. If someone spends their entire income on lottery tickers, they probably need different kind of help than more money from welfare.
You maybe mean higher prices?
Weather for Chrome
On top of that, if actual harm comes to users of these devices as a result of these devices then we already have plenty of consumer laws protecting them.

The trouble with this is that "actual harm" in a legal context tends to mean something that can be proven in some specific context and have some specific monetary value attached to it.

Personally, I think harm is also done if someone knows their financial details might have leaked and then worries about their credit record and future financial security, or if someone discovers that a creep somewhere in another country has been watching their baby sleeping, or if a "smart" TV has been transmitting personal conversations of whatever nature from the living room to someone else. However, if we're only talking "actual damages", how do you decide what financial compensation is appropriate in such cases?

In reality, the most damaging violations probably aren't the ones with tangible financial losses attached, because financial losses can at least be made good after the fact. You can't make up for lost time, though maybe you can at least assign some nominal value to compensate for time spent on things like updating credentials after a breach. No amount of money can make up for the kind of distress caused to a teenager if a compromised device leaks something like their diary or an intimate video of them getting changed and the results go all around their school.

If security and privacy implications for the Internet of Things are to be taken seriously, I suspect the laws will need updating so that (a) there is a presumption of harm in cases where personal information leaks to an unintended party, and (b) there is a punitive value attached to leaks that cause non-monetary damage, with that value being very high for leaks that cause severe and/or ongoing distress.

I don't think this needs regulation. All it needs is a scale of meaningful penalties, leading up to company-destroying fines and/or jail time for executives for the most serious infringements caused by gross negligence or malice.
People aren't responsible though, especially not people who are needing social services like welfare. People think short term, and some need to be protected from themselves.
What happens when someone sells their EBT for money and spends that money on $addictive_substance? Fundamentally, forcing adults to not die requires quite a bit of coercion.

There will still be soup kitchens, which will have low demand anyway. If we really want to, we could just send those folks to CCC-style work camps I guess?
Runs in Chrome current stable and above.
90% of web users are on Windows, where there is no sudo. Malicious add-ons make money by injecting ads, overriding default search engine settings, capturing login credentials or even local files, or installing zombie spam relays. sudo is unnecessary for these attacks. How does one make money with sudo?

And as for locking down sudo, OS X is now "rootless" (System Integrity Protection) by default, preventing even sudo access from modifying some system settings.
The world built 106 skyscrapers in 2015. Just two were in the U.S
Study Shows Decongestant No More Effective Than Placebo
It's just an accounting movement, you don't need to actually transfer them the money so that they can pay it back. You calculate their balance and just tell them to pay $60k.
I was just reading your code, which interests me since I've been interested in lock-free programming for a while but only recently started learning about the C11 and C++11 memory model and atomic operations.

I had some thoughts, which I'm offering in hopes of clarifying my understanding, and possibly helping to improve your software in the process.

I don't see any correctness problems in your code, but I do see what look like several opportunities for optimization. Though please take these with a slight grain of salt, as I am still learning the C11 atomics.

Your aring_give() ends with a release barrier and your aring_take() begins with an acquire barrier. That makes sense to me, as a way of ensuring the sequencing of the reads/writes to aring->rb and to item. However I don't see why aring_give() needs to begin with an acquire and aring_take() needs to end with a release. I think both of these could be changed to memory_order_relaxed with no change in correctness.

But I think we can go a step further actually. Your atomic_fetch_add_explicit() and atomic_fetch_sub_explicit() operations operate on a shared aring->items member. Both the reader and writer write to this variable, which requires expensive locked operations and which will degrade under contention. I don't think this is actually necessary.

Instead you could eliminate aring->items completely and simply compute it based on aring->head and aring->tail. Only the writer writes to head and only the reader writes to tail, so you could use just atomic_load_explicit()/atomic_store_explicit() with memory_order_relaxed on these variables to read and write them. Then calculate the number of items present by comparing them. This could make the overall queue significantly more efficient.

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this.
Nobody who has money in hand and is starving is going to buy lottery tickets instead of food.
Okay, here's an extremely unscientific rebuttal to your sports analogy.

There are 13,700 professional athletes in the United States [0], compared to
670,000 amateur athletes in the Amateur Athletic Union [1] (there are surely many more outside of that particular group but let's go with it). That gives us a 2% rate of 10x athleticism.

Let's assume that 10x engineers occur at the same rate as athletic exceptionalism (yes, that's silly but why not). According to another questionable statistic, there were 1,114,000 software developers in the US in 2014 [2].

Now we've already established that outstanding engineers occur at the same rate as professional atheletes. What does that give us? Tens of thousands of professional 10x engineers.

[0] http://www.bls.gov/ooh/entertainment-and-sports/athletes-and...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_Athletic_Union

[2] http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/s...
Exactly. Once the government takes responsibility for something society will never let them take it away. Basic income with no other welfare might be plausible, Basic income on top of all the existing welfare is a socialist dream
As optimistic as they seem on the surface, calling for GBI is, in a way, a call for throwing in of the towel by the human race. It's a hasty concession that continued human well-being is no longer compatible with nature or morality. Oddly, such defeatist calls invariably ignore a raft of dreadful and immediate societal effects: the end of meaningful work and self-esteem as both an option and a goal for the masses; the justifiable resentment of productive people whose living standard will be forcibly degraded; and the institutional bifurcation of the human race into producers and parasites, with the reduction of the whole to a sort of government-managed bi-pedal livestock.
10x engineers definitely exist. Know a few and have hired a few. They are not 10x compared to anyone ever, but generally 10x to their currently aged or experienced peers.

They learn for fun. They are endlessly curious. They are incredibly humble and get things done.

They do get more done in their part time hours in the evenings than a full time equivalent. More importantly, 10x really helps with building the quick things quickly and growing them as quickly as possible.
Yes you can export the models into a standard 3D format used by any number of engines and loaders.
I've standardized my shirts on the Uniqlo Crew Shirts and they seem to have very little change from wash to wash compared to my Banana Shirts.

The Uniqlo shirts are a cotton/polyester blend while the BR shirts are 100% cotton, which explains the help that durability of the synthetic materials provide.

It would be great if we could get some data on which brands have the most and least variance and which brands expand and shrink the most over their lifetime.
Saudi-Arabia and others fund their regime and frankly, standard of living, primarily through oil profits, in the same way that Google finances self-driving cars R&D and other projects through ads.

So sure, they can profitably extract oil at $20 price point, but that doesn't pay for their state budget. They really need a price at $80+. Meanwhile, western producers don't care very much; if the price is high, they can export, if the price is low, that massively benefits their other industry while the oil part hibernates.
Dope Books – Netflix for Books(ish)
Basic income will not work when fiat currency drops and devalues our dollar to be worth almost nothing. Everyone surviving off of it will have to fend for themselves. National debt continues to skyrocket and quantitative easing cannot continue to happen without severe inflation coming. This crap is just a nice idea but will not work in reality when our economy goes into the dumpster.
> My test for the power of a language's type manipulation is how easy is it to write an implementation of apply(Function f, Tuple t) which will call f with the values of t. I would be most interested to see how Rust will implement this kind of metaprogramming.

That's kind of a weird litmus test of the power of the language's type manipulation: it only applies to languages where functions take multiple arguments, it's a pretty niche use case (since the workaround in Rust is straightforward), and there's nothing particularly sophisticated about variadic generics (what you need to solve the problem). I could equally say that my litmus test of a language's generics system is whether the compiler prevents errors during template expansion.

Anyway, to answer your question: that's really easy in Rust, as long as you're on nightly. The FnMut trait (and friends) allow you to call functions with tuples as arguments. https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/ops/trait.FnMut.html
Hah, Superdry is overpriced rubbish bought by 45-year-olds who can afford it because they think that's what 25-year-olds wear.
The benchmark should be re run with proper PostgreSQL configuration parameters. PostgreSQL's default configuration is very very conservative. This benchmark is like trying to see which is faster, a Ferrari or a Lamborghini, on a single-lane road with heavy traffic.

At the very minimum, shared_buffers and checkpoint_segments need to be adjusted.
I support Universal Basic Income. In my opinion, the main problem a UBI would tackle is non-participation. We can get more people to take benefits if we show that everyone takes the benefits.

Of course, other supporters will talk about the savings with decreased bureaucracy costs but those are like nice bonuses to me. Personally, I want everyone who is eligible for a program to enroll and benefit. Yes, this could mean increased taxes but I think it will be well worth it.