skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Look at what he's saying, it's not a deep insight but there is a credible amount of truth to it.

At the bottom entry level units do defer. Boots stick around for morning formation after weekend leave still buzzed drunk because they're just told what to do and face consequences otherwise.

But then in the Corps the TIG promotions tend to weed those types out so that the motivated and qualified ones go upward the chain as NCOs. Then TIS promotions tend to be push those more qualified into SNCO roles.

To say that every single boot, or that every single service member is immediately capable of stepping up to be field officers because the one charge that was saluted all the time got sniped off is a ridiculous assertion.

But it is heavily incorporated, and more specifically in the Corps, for lateral movement up, or even down, a few ranks.

That's setup to optimize for the resiliency of the organization whereas in a corporation that's fragile because people working there are merely linked by bank account and therefore inspire no loyalty.
Blockstack
> Sometimes teams are more efficient and innovative when truth wins over harmony.

I'll just quote what the Rust team said about their code of conduct, because it's spot-on: "The Rust community doesn't subscribe to the notion that there's a dichotomy between intellectual discourse and kindness."

That's pretty much it. If your team considers those two mutually exclusive, you're headed for trouble. It might not be today or tomorrow, but you will pay for it long-term.
This startup has a radical way to save businesses time on menial office tasks
Thanks, the "issue" was an illustrative example, however I am a relatively tech savvy person and I use google frequently and I didn't know about this feature. I would be interested to know what percentage of searches leverage it relative to people who type recent year/date into the box for just a quick and dirty statistic about visibility.

I don't actually want to filter backend technology, but I would like to communicate to the search engine that I do not trust (nor want to have returned as a result) any wordpress, blogger or medium website, and I want their rank to be negative.

That is another extreme example, however to discover new things is hard and to find useful information, when communities of bad actors have spent years incentivized to rank higher but not produce quality, it could be easier to simply delist everything and gradually add websites you trust to have authority.
A lot of people abandon loop for precisely that reason (it's un-lispy) and use Iterate.

https://common-lisp.net/project/iterate/

Even the ITA/Google style guide says to avoid loop if possible:

https://google.github.io/styleguide/lispguide.xml#Iteration
If you aren’t affiliated with a university, scientific papers cost something like $30/each to read.

If papers can be accessed for free, then the only expense required to follow cutting edge science is time, and everyone with an internet connection can join in. At $30/paper, suddenly only the rich (or those with rich patrons, such as tenured professors at rich universities) can afford to play.

Researching a topic, it’s easy to skim 100 papers in a couple days, trying to figure out which ones are relevant and which ones aren’t. Paying $3000 just to sort through and find the 5 out of 100 papers which bear closer scrutiny is very expensive, even for someone who isn’t “financially struggling”. (No, the abstracts alone aren’t sufficient for this.)

And it’s not clear that the money is going anywhere useful. The scientists who wrote the papers never make a profit: all the money goes to a couple of rich corporations, who will use the money to further impede scientific progress.
Former Apple employee here. My impression is that Tim and other high level management are really committed to user privacy in a very Jobsian way. It isn't something that's being driven by some marketing person (although they are clearly using it that way). Honestly, I doubt their business would suffer if they caved. It's their philosophy. I saw it at all levels within the company. I think their stance on user privacy is a natural outcome of the need-to-know company culture within Apple.
not really, because AI isn't really our species, and given all of the other creation we've been doing - having to do with other animals, taking care of them, nurturing them, and eventually supporting 150 billion of them dying each year

plenty of times when we had a chance to incorporate what science calls "homo something" (neanderthals and the like) members of our family, we've exterminated them due to looking weirdly and behaving differently from us - just because we had some more superior characteristics

we couldn't respect our fellow evolutionary brothers, how can we respect something that was a pure materialistic creation

it took centuries for slavery to be abolished, there's still parts of the world where it's accepted

it'll take a lot for us to shift from seeing that cleaning lady robot that we chat with every single day, as something that is equivalent to us in spirit and that it deserves to have a right to freedom of movement, right to avoid pain (physical or psychological).

people will consider AI as pure machines, while on the other hand they will accept their biological machine as a miracle, both machines are giving spark to intelligence but one will be more worth than another

damn, we have the needs for water, food, shelter, companionship, procreation, we understand the world around us, otherwise we wouldn't survive, the same is true for almost every other non-human animal, and we have no problem with their massive deaths

i really hope that our morals, mentality will get the same exponential shift that technology brings, the past evidence seems to point to bad stuff, but I guess we're just on the knee of the curve :D
Neither of these are even the article I was thinking of. There was one with the same method written in Java and Perl, doing the same thing, and both obviously correct. But the Perl one was much much shorter because you didn't have to type any types.
> That's a distortion of what I meant.

It's really not. GP (or whatever) was saying that perhaps there's a reasonable difference of opinion. You responded by stating the author was wrong becuase "there [is] one best way to serve the people" and accusing GP of relativism (which is clearly a Bad Thing).

> So respecting natural rights and popular sovereignty are not the right way to serve people?

Natural Rights: There are reasonable conceptions of natural rights which allow for the FBI's interpretation of the All Writs Act. The exact scope and meaning of natural rights has never been and never will be resolved. Anyone proclaiming otherwise is just wrong. Hell, the philosophers who originated this concept had heated disagreements about their meaning. Things have only become more convoluted as we've tried to apply this idea in scaled-up settings.

Popular sovereignty: It's not at all clear to me how what the FBI is doing violates popular soverignty. In fact, it seems to me that they are fully engaged in a PR campaign designed, precisely, to leverage the legitimacy of popular sovereignty...

More generally, "natural rigths + popular sovereignty" is not a deterministic algorithm. It's entirely possible for people to adhere to both of thse philosophies and still vehemently disagree on the best way to govern. I might excuse a philosopher for not being able to foresee this fact 2000 or even 300 years ago. But clinging to the notion that "natural rigths + popular sovereignty" is a panacea to political disfunction after the past 200 years is rather astounding.

I happen to strongly agree with Apple and loathe what the FBI is trying to do. But I also think the argument you're making here is dead wrong. The case against the FBI here is not based upon natural rights. It is either based upon constitutional rights, or it is based upon pure pragmatics. And the final answer will almost certainly the latter.

> Your perspective on this was the point of Professor Bloom's book, The Closing of the American Mind.

1. No, it really isn't...

2. I was educated in exactly the style Bloom suggests. Suffice it to say that actually reading the classics has a way of undermining the authority that staunchy old conservative men try to get out of their particular interpretations and applications of ideas expressed in those books.

2a. Damned marxists bastardized Nietzsche and also rock music is for flooseys. lol

3. If Bloom's opinions were at all sincerely held, he would likely have agreed with the observations about natural rights and popular sovereignty given above.

> I don't personally care what ill-informed people who are victims of the American Historical Association think about classical liberalism and human freedom.

Don't worry, I use tin foil bookmarks.

> The FBI will not exist in the future

Okay.
I don't think that's accurate to say. The White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in his briefing a day or two ago that the administration backs Comey's efforts. US attorney general Loretta Lynch said she backs Comey too. Obama is the only one who hasn't made a public statement about this issue.

Chain of command, by the way, is Obama > Lynch > Comey. They're certainly in communication and agreement about this issue.

You might think Obama would feel differently given his rebuke of China last year for attempting to set the same kind of precedent. But no, he fails to see the similarity. It's scary. The highest ranking official who understands this issue is Ted Lieu.
Finally! Somebody rooting for Free Software!
I found two: one is not working anymore/abandoned: https://github.com/kirbysayshi/ghembedder, the other seems incomplete/abandoned: https://github.com/cloud9ide/snippets

But there was one which worked, I think I used it somewhere some months ago. Perhaps it was discontinued also. I can't find it.

Anyway, I think yours is much better (although I haven't used it yet).
I have worked at some very politically charged places, where I was solicited for PAC donations, and declined. It had no effect on my career.

And it makes no sense that employers would even want to retaliate. All PACs want from employees is money, and individual donors are limited to $5,000/year. Anyone who can afford to donate $5,000, would probably cost more than $5,000 to replace, in recruiting, training, and lost productivity.
Tinyletter is also a Mailchimp product. So I'll have to avoid using that now, in case they decide to fold it in with a paid Mailchimp sub later. Fool me once ...
He's saying that Kotlin is similar enough to Swift, but integrates far easier with the Android ecosystem and development environment, such that it's probably a better choice for a lot of people wanting to make Android apps with a modern "swift-like" language. I think that's pretty relevant.

You're doing that nerd thing where you're assuming we're divided into groups based on the technology we're using. We'd waste a lot less time if we simply tried to find the best tool for the job, rather than joining with a group and sticking with them blindly.
I do mean suppressing ideas before they take root. I don't think getting caught is a necessary part of it.

The most worrisome example of today is China, which has an iron grip on the spread of ideas within the country. If China deemed Sci-Hub to be an issue, they would shut it down (via DNS poisoning) and incarcerate anybody who spoke in its favor.
Appreciate the response and with this news I totally get how busy you must have been lately. Also didn't know you had a hellban system; that's smart. In that case, all is forgiven :)
I do not think we get AI in the near future. What we have at the moment are more like 'Intelligence Amplification' tools for humans to use/direct.

But there are 3 concerns:

(1) Maybe, although the chance is small, it is so bad that prob x payoff is large enough that we ought to worry/think about it?

(2) If it happens that jobs lost to AI are not replaced by other work (hard to say) then we have unemployment & social problems.

(3) The current deep learning breakthroughs in image recognition, speech recognition, etc, make it much easier to process all that surveillance data that is being gathered. When surveillance tools, and e.g. drones as well, can be controlled by small numbers of humans, you should be worried.
Historically, governments have usually required the support of a fair fraction of their populace in order to stay in power. Ordering soldiers to shoot their fellow citizens has always been risky for governments. Soon that might not be the case.

In the past, a nation's power depended on its level of technology, its capital equipment, and the number and skills of its population. There was an incentive to have a skilled, well fed, and content populace.

Maybe a large part of the populace will no longer be 'needed'?

I guess you could counter points 2 & 3 by saying "Yes, but our democratic institutions are strong and our politicians are caring and intelligent - our societies will deal with these changes."

For myself, (3) scares me. You should be afraid of ending up like the Scottish Highlanders turfed out of their homes by Chiefs who replaced them with sheep, or like the cart-horses who were replaced by the internal combustion engine (and were shot). There is no need to fear an AI taking over, it is humans you need to be afraid of.
Destruction of evidence, a felony!

Except the person in question is already dead, so there isn't much punishment the government can mete out here.
UTSL. avr-libc's random is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehmer_random_number_generator with n = 2^31-1, g = 7^5. It's not great, but it's not so bad that it wasn't standardized as a generator in C++11 (std::minstd_rand0), though with an alternate value for g. I didn't determine whether Arduino replaces this with an alternate implementation.

notably, out of the range of uint32_t, it'll never produce the outputs 0 or 2^31-1
Other things are going on too they are just not so faddish.
No quote from Apple itself, of course, but:

Former CIA Agent Says Edward Snowden Revelations Emboldened Apple to Push Back Against FBI: http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/25/former_cia_agent_says_...
What has happened to Mandrill?
We're thinking of offering a "lite" version of Registrar in the future, likely bundled with the paid version of our core service. Won't have all the bells and whistles of the "enterprise" version we launched this week, but it will be more secure than anything you can get from mass market registrars.
Spark is a great Mailbox replacement
That is easy to disprove. If CDDL did not care, then one could follow the conditions in GPLv2 and the two licenses would be compatible.

License incompatibility can only occur if two license has conditions which are mutually exclusive. In this case, CDDL demands that source code must be distributed only under the terms of CDDL, and GPLv2 require that the distributed source code is made available under GPLv2. You can not comply with one without breaking the other, and thus we have license incompatibility.
A few reporters, and law folks, might need to re-read To Kill A Mockingbird and think on what they're doing.
SpaceX : SES-9 Technical Webcast
Not familiar with burning paraffin, but of others only hydrogen produces relatively safe emissions (water vapor), the rest produce the undesirable by products.

It would be better for smaller applications to move to electric and produce energy by other means. This requires investment into better batteries/storage applications. I'd rather all the money go to that instead of combustion research.
Torrenting movie is piracy,
this is making something accessible to the public that has been paid for by said public to begin with.

Publishers are the ones doing the stealing (yes stealing not piracy, because piracy at least leaves the original accessible).
some large sites using wordpress

1. TechCrunch
2. The New Yorker
3. BBC America
4. The Official Star Wars Blog
5. Variety
6. Sony Music
7. MTV News
8. Beyonce
9. ebay Inc
10. PlayStation.Blog
11. Best Buy
12. Xerox
13. Bata
14. Quartz
15. ESPN Product Blog
16. Nokia Conversations
17. Ford Social
18. Fortune
19. Time Inc.
20. Facebook Newsroom
21. The New York Times Company
22. Marks & Spencer for Business
23. Google Ventures
24. Harvard Business Review Blogs
25. Larry King Liveblog
26. The Official Rackspace Blog
27. Philips DirectLife Coach Blog
28. ExpressJet Airlines
29. Inside BlackBerry
30. Rotary Means Business – Rotary Club
31. The Rolling Stones
32. The Walking Dead – AMC
33. The Mozilla Blog
34. The Wall Street Journal Law Blog
35. Dallas Mavericks
36. Wil Wheaton
37. Snoop Dogg
38. SAP News Center
39. Wolverine Worldwide
40. Reuters Blogs
We talk about consumer electronics. This encryption is strong enough so your wife can't see who you called last night. But now it's being used by terrorists who plan attacks on a country.

I mean, an iPhone is not a heavily secured server storing Iran's nuclear secrets. If you really need to protect information, you as a user also have a responsibility.
Actually it does. After all the warrant was issued after apple claimed they have the technical capability to do so. I am willing to bet that even judges will admit laws of physics being higher power than them.

Apple screwed themselves by not creating lets say double signed bootloaders - the code must be signed by the owner and by apple to run. In that case the only probable attack is microcode on the cpu or apple saying to the federal government - here are the transistors you need - good luck getting to them - we don't have the equipment to dig in microchips.
HN auto-titlecases things, Afaik.
I don't think it would. I messed with this scammer for a good while and I found that they either use Google Voice or apps like Burner to get new, virtual cell phone numbers easily.
It might help, but it's a bit tricky, because there are virtual numbers (Google Voice), and banning those catches real users who use GVoice (like me). It's a tricky balance, and my sense is that like DRM, it usually ends up hurting legitimate users more than bad ones who will just use one of their many workarounds.

One thing we've had good success with in the past, but just couldn't afford once they raised their prices, was Sift Science. We've been meaning to try some of the alternatives to that.

Zumper also has some interesting ideas about it that they've used successfully in the past, that we're planning on integrating.

Having the time to do this (and not focusing on dealmaking) will be really nice :-)
I'm not too well versed on netsec; how do you fix something like this?
After the Arab spring does anyone believe that internet freedom will continue as it did before anywhere?
I'm curious about a few scenarios:

- Apple hasn't chose privacy as brand strategy.

- Apple have chosen that strategy, and either loses or wins the trial

How different it's market share would look like considering that realistically it's largely a prestige brand, and the relatively low popularity of secure Android phones like the black phone ?
Tagove Live video chat software with co browsing and screen sharing
From the article:

> "To realize the many benefits of our DirecTV acquisition, we are leading our video marketing approach with DirecTV," said Brad Burns, an AT&T spokesman. "However, our first priority is to listen to our customers and meet their needs, and if we determine a customer will be better served with the U-verse product, we offer attractive and compelling options."
>> but if Apple creates this tool (that can be applied to any phone (or at least a large subset of their phones)), it's essentially the same as if the decryption tool were present in every phone, even ones sold before the commission of a crime.

This concept I find interesting. If Apple did have the ability to create this tool, then is there much of a difference?

I guess the difference is whether Apple were to give such a tool to the FBI, rather than creating it, extracting the data and deleting the tool. But who is to say that some clever individual can't create their own tool to achieve the same thing.

Until Apple deliver on their desire to create phones you can't decrypt, I would therefore consider all iphones vulnerable.
Its not clear from the article what they're doing for internet access going forward. It sounds like the may actually be increasing the bandwidth, since they no longer have to deliver TV channels on the same line as the internet.

What really surprised me, though, was that DirecTV was actually growing. I thought there was a trend towards watching TV shows via the internet and away from traditional cable/satellite.
To add onto this, in addition to the governmental threat, another point that Cook is trying to make is that security is hard. It's hard for the government, which he backs up by citing breaches, and it's hard for Apple (which he omits, but remember those iCloud breaches?).

I completely agree with your point about future governments and unchecked power, but there is also the point that, if Apple creates it, there is the possibility that organizations (or even just normal people) besides these anointed three-letter agencies may also have the same power to access a good chunk of your entire digital life (and the locations of your friends and family who use Find My Friends) if you were to lose your phone.
The article ends with "What we need is someone who has a clue what they are doing access to sophisticated plotting and analysis software and knows how to use it. Are you that person?"

Not much point to it really...
Fundamentally, I take an economic perspective: the supply of any piece information is now effectively unbounded, so the price trend sharply to zero. That it hasn't is due to artificial market manipulations, which don't concern me.
Marc Andreessen: There aren't enough unicorns
Huge fan of documentaries here. I was thrilled to find about this site and definitely going to sign up.
But as a designer/frontend developer I was disappointed by the overall looks of the site since it wasn't quite par with the competitors.
I had my Photoshop open already so I tought why not give it a shot: http://cloud.vel.lu/2u1c0I0h0f0l
Apple turns the tables – says we can't trust the government
They want the information on the phone right, not the firmware? (well, they want the firmware but the officially want to access the phone :)

I can imagine Apple handing over the information only...
Ask HN: What is the simplest way to check if a similar article is on HN?
I have found that some times when i post a link, their is a similar story but perhaps from a different source. I only realize it when someone comments with a link to a related thread. I would like to avoid this in future. Is there any easy way of checking this?
The ABC interviewer is a fucking shill.

"Dont you think this phone could save lives??"

That guy is literally asking questions written by the USG.

It is completely transparent that ABC is shilling for the USG.
> Just because the FBI bought lockpicks, doesn't mean they can go around opening locks

Similarly, just because Schlage makes high security unbreakable locks, doesn't mean they have to create lockpicks for the FBI that will work on those locks. They spent a lot of money developing those high security locks and if they create lockpicks that can break through them with ease, they lose much of the value of those locks. The unbreakable lock is no longer unbreakable. So the loss of value for the company is not just the employee time to create the lockpicks, but also the loss in value of the product line when they can no longer say that there's no lockpick that can break in.

The FBI is free to study and try to break into the locks themselves, but if it is a truly unbreakable lock, then hooray, the world is arguably safer on the whole, even if a few criminals use the locks to hide their secrets.