skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Can't pulse nuclear (Orion) get there in about as close to practicality as exists? 133 years based on what I've read.

And that doesn't do antimatter-catalyzed fusion, which seems near-term practical.
I thought the issue is not a TOR server behind a CF but how CF deals with TOR users going to regular non .onion sites.
I'm completely with you. It makes me grin every morning to realize I live in a world where hundreds of millions have been spent to elect corporate shills, and they're either barely hanging on, or out of the race.

But populism has historically been a negative thing. When people get angry they're willing to do some bad stuff.
Does this use a mesh network?
Everyone forgets about Pac-Man, that was another huge contributor to the crash. The 2600 couldn't handle 5 sprites, so they used one sprite for all the ghosts and showed one per frame. The flickering ghosts against the bright blue background was physically painful to watch.

They estimated 10 million consoles were actively being played, so they made 12 million copies. They sold 7 million, and that's before returns. 7 million people who would think twice before buying another Atari game.
You forgot merit-less, ineffective, and for the sole purpose of looking busy or justifying a budget.
It sounds to me like the algorithm is deliberately trying to outsource some of the "free" shipping cost to customers.

It's sort of like that bank transaction-ordering scandal from a few years ago, where banks ordered transactions unintuitively to maximize overdraft penalties.
There's no easy solution because Tor refuses to do anything that would allow for anything that works within current technology. This is not a new problem. If the Tor guys really want to stop being frozen out of large parts of the internet they need to

1) Tackle abuse

2) Go work for one of the large networks for a while so they see things from the other side, and then do a lot of research until they find a solution they know can make everyone happy.

In fact Tor have repeatedly gone for solution 3:

3) Attempt to publicly shame employees of big networks and get them to lower their abuse defences by implying they're idiots who hate privacy, whilst simultaneously demonstrating little understanding of what abuse teams have to deal with. This never works.

Tor is a trivial fraction of anonymised traffic to most major networks (VPNs are far more popular). It can be banned entirely with ~zero impact on any large business. Taking approach (3) just annoys the employees and makes them less likely to want to donate free engineering time to the Tor project (because that's effectively what they want/need). We can see this clearly happening on the linked thread.

E.g. comments like this one:

It's also unreasonable to maintain a "reputation" for a Tor exit node.

... just send a powerful message that Tor isn't serious. Sorry for the harsh words, but I've been round the block on this one too. Tor want to run a network that ignores abuse yet is openly welcomed by the worlds biggest content providers. Not gonna happen.
> Some finite number of human beings at Apple have the ability to create such a tool on their own initiative, e.g. were they disgruntled.

Is that true? I mean, wouldn't those employees need the root signing certificate... something I suspect is very tightly protected even within apple.
I've been bitten by some poor TurboTax UI design before. It took me over an hour to figure out how to remove a particular form it had auto imported from the previous year.

But aside from that i've been pleased with them. But then again my taxes are very simple.
The mathematician John Baez is exploring the mathematics of complex systems with his students. Here's a place to start reading[1] but a caveat: it would take a lot of patience and link-following to grok this research from scratch.

[1] https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2015/04/categories_in_c...
I agree that some labor protections are needed. However language barriers, cultural differences, and time zone gaps add enough of an overhead to communication that most companies willing to pay my rate won't hire foreign programmers just to save a bit of cash upfront.

Then you have the legal issues I mentioned. Contractors in other countries are for the most part outside the reach of US courts in the case of contract disputes.
Unfortunately (and as you know) the world is more complex than this and, in some cases, you will not meet legal requirements. Yes, what you suggested is _a_ best practice; however, I'd suggest some of the more "standard" directions would be (for example) a standard RBAC design (similar to those from NIST or Ferraiolo / Kuhn 1992 or INCITS CS1.1 standards update 2012).
http://venturebeat.com/2016/02/22/google-rcs/
My suspicion is Machine Learning (IMHO)

You can feed a lot of data then try to derive (maybe human readable) results
Thanks, that doesn't make sense so I made an issue to remedy it https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/13676
The idea that because someone doesn't have specialized skills means that they don't deserve a living wage is a bit silly. You're appealing to free market principles as a justification of free market principles. You're attacking this specific person for her poor financial skills but ignoring the larger issue of ALL the people Yelp hires and pays less than $10/hr and all the people in the country in similar positions. As long as we accept that someone has to do these jobs and that the unemployed and underpaid have very little leverage then this has to be seen as a systematic problem and not an individual failing.
I think the implication is that Apple can push an iOS upgrade with security holes, and without an open-source system, we can't know if it has security issues or not. (At least that's the impression I've gleaned from the other comments)

I don't own an iPhone, so I don't know how the update process works.
It irks me that this person stole the comparison chart then had the gall to watermark it. Original here: http://www.taylorkillian.com/2013/08/sdr-showdown-hackrf-vs-... Flagged this because of that.
I had a hybrid system at one point that included this "access level" in addition to the roles system. So a person could have multiple roles, but only one access level. The access level was only for admin things like this, so most people were just "users."

It works fine, but you need to document what is going on, or at least put some good comments in. You are definitely going to confuse future developers (including yourself) as to why you sometimes check one set of constraints and sometimes another.

I got rid of this once the system got more heavily used though, as it's just too much overhead to keep track of two systems. So if you really do plan on staying small it's fine, but if you think this might grow, just stick to roles.
You can turn off the SMS fallback in Settings.
Maybe I shall starting offer 1m USD dollars for leaking this said software to me. O.k. I am just kidding, but just imagine how much some organizations are willing to offer to get hands on this. Will you ever trust Apple again if it known this software is leaked? What if such software is leaked to a competitor corporate? What is such software is leaked to an enemy spy agency? Apple will be very doomed.
Inside the Microsoft Open Source Programs Office
The Mir Space Station
Just for scale: $200k 1982-dollars is $491k in 2016-dollars.

So he was probably quite motivated to get it done.
Amazon Drops Support for Full-Disk Encryption in Fire OS 5
What were you compiling? The official client is written in Python.
Countering one of your points, and yet bolstering your statement here. Even in a DevOps environment, packaging is important. Same as a system image or random artifact, a distribution package can provide consistency and repeatability.

If I had to wait for a rebuild of the entire operating system to test deployment of a single application, how much confidence could I possibly gain in that application's deployment process?

Also... it seems the author is suggesting that newer software always has fewer bugs. Hmm... .
The Mood in Silicon Valley Is Like the “Moment After the Titanic Hit an Iceberg”
AFAIK, the most important law of medicine is "First, do no harm." The rest is basically the details.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere
The last part of your question looks more like business rules for the management of users.

A complex scheme such as AWS IAM policies increases the chance of definition errors.

The business rules don't seem like they would change much over time so coding them in your user management module might be a good compromise.
Not quite.

Considering an inelastic collision, the impact would dissipate roughly mv^2/2 worth of energy, so...

1/2 * 100kg * (10^8 m/s)^2 = 5 * 10^17 Joules of kinetic energy.

In contrast, the amount of solar energy that impacts the Earth each second is 10^17 Joules.

For a more relevant comparison, the Tsar Bomba (50 megatons) released ~2*10^17 Joules. So, worst-case, the probe would cause the equivalent of a ~100 megaton explosion. Hardly a planet-killer.
Did you read the article? Mint blocks many security patches because of the mish-mash of packages it has, makes updating impossible.
I was not trolling. The question he asked was a baseless setup for anecdotal personal attacks. I simply added a tangential point to the conversation. Asking a question like that only serves to debate by way of cheap anecdotes.

"Well if you DID experience an ant colony invading your home, you would change the value of your binary view"

Its a cheap shot and I'd actually take your entire comment and point it at the unreasonably coy question intended to create a rift in what should be objective logic.
I smell over-engineering. It sounds like you would like to keep your authorisation logic nicely decoupled from your code, stored away in a database. As you are starting to notice, you can only get so far with that approach and as you try to make your configuration more powerful to handle more and more edge cases, you will inevitably end up with some sort of Turing complete configuration system. My advice is to stick with something simple and just hard code the edge cases in your code. It may feel dirty but at least you won't end up with a monster like AWS IAM in your side project.
That was something that I complained about even before letsencrypt. It's insanely difficult for anyone except crypto experts to figure out a sane selection of cipher suite, so why can't they not just include one or two sane presets with the application, that get updated along with it when algorithms are broken and new ones emerge?
Access to a single device. Access to other device would (if the "weaponized" iOS is written correctly in this regard) be impossible without Apple's private key to authenticate a modified version of the software.
Those two weren't programmed with the laws. They were just smart. They worked out physics from first principles within minutes of speaking to each other for the first time...
What happens if this high-skilled labor pool chooses new goals?
Will Valve Accept Bitcoin Payments on Steam?
Effects of reiki in clinical practice
This is the piece of information that makes it clear to me that this case is not about this phone in particular. The FBI is trying to use an act of terrorism to acquire the tools to hack iPhones. They can't actually expect to find anything valuable on the work phone the attacker chose not to destroy.
> In other words, perhaps we should fix compilers (and eventually the standard) to match reality instead of the other way around.

Without an analysis of the performance loss from removing this optimization, that would be irresponsible.

The authors of GCC were not stupid. They understood that these optimizations can be important for performance, and that's why they implemented them. When this came up on the mailing list several years ago, Ian Lance Taylor found several places this optimization was kicking in in GCC itself.

It is not OK to just randomly avoid doing optimizations allowed by the C standard because they might trigger bugs. C depends on undefined behavior for performance. You depend on these compiler optimizations to get good performance out of the programs you run every day.
Quite an interesting approach to mapping, and it sounds pretty useful for the intended purpose. Conversely, I'm in the 'Lazlo Hollyfeld' boat of wondering what the purpose might be for the actual goals of Facebook, which isn't connectivity and internet altruism, but generating revenue. In this regard, I wonder what comes next, because looking at evidence of human activity will probably relay more rural and dirt-poor settlements than ones with disposable 'leisure time' and monies.
> if Apple produce a signed iOS version that allows the passcode retry limit to be bypassed on a single device, then in what meaningful sense does it operate on another device?

What prevents the iOS image from being loaded onto another device?

Apple isn't magic; the code they write to verify device identity isn't going to be the first perfect, unbuggy, unexploitable code written in human history. if(device_udid == terrorist_id) {...} might seem infallible, to you, but the reality is that the device_udid is just SHA1(Wifi MAC + Bluetooth MAC + ECID + Serial). All of those are writable, some via the Baseband and some via physical access. Generating SHA1 collisions is completely feasible for ~$1,000,000 of computing time, which is chump change to nation states.

There is no infallible way for Apple to make an iOS version for one single device.

Edit: And stories like http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/york-da-access-175-iphones-... make it absolutely clear that this is not stoping at a single device.
IBM Swift Package Catalog
No, unfortunately not. We recommend 2GB of memory to run GitLab https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/doc/inst...

If 512MB is a requirement for you please consider using Gogs.

Glad you like the Todos feature!
What? Maybe she deserves more money because she works full time and can't afford to eat? Where are you getting this jealousy angle from?
If it wasn't for Tim Cook...all the other tech giants are failing ethically.
Hi Twitter: Fire Jack and Disband the 'Trust and Safety' Council.  Here's Why:
I believe the parents point is that Apple having a signing key is no different in principle than them making an operating system and signing it. Apple possesses information that can compromise a phone, and if it's possible for an signed OS image to be compromised, then it's possible for the signing key to be compromised.
One question for the FBI: why so much investigation over a crime committed by someone who is dead?

Based on the nature of the crime, I'm guessing there weren't many accomplices. The one guy who helped him get the guns is probably where they need to be focusing their investigation and interrogation. If ISIS helped him, how? He took a gun to work and killed people. That's not an elaborate scheme.

It does not benefit the FBI to lose goodwill with the American people over this case.
This really doesn't satisfy real world usage.

Let's say I'm on github and I have a number of repositories. I want admin access over my area, the power to create and delete repositories. I do not want other people to be able to create and delete repositories.

And then I lastly want to be able to have access control over some repositories completely (private repositories).

How can you have authorisation that means that I get to sometimes create and delete repositories, that other people can have some permissions for, without having more than 2 levels of authorisation?

Just saying "groups" is just hand-waving the question away, all the complexity of role-based vs attribute based authorisation is hidden in "use groups".
Suddenly "Fantastic Voyage" [0] makes more sense: when I was a kid I thought it would work better as a side-scroller rather than an "up-scroller", because there was wasted space on the sides, and you'd have more time to react / could see farther ahead.

It of course never occurred to me that by having so many scan lines being the same, they could save a lot of work.

[0] http://atariage.com/forums/uploads/monthly_03_2012/post-2618...
Google Cloud Dataproc Now in GA
Just because you can never get full coverage doesn't mean it has to be easy. For example, here are some things that could be imlpemented to make firmware backdooring harder:

* Certificate Transparency-style public ledger for all firmwares that Apple has signed. Refuse an update if the firmware version has not been published to the ledger. This would make these backdooring attempts public, since we can assume people would watch the ledger and ask questions in case of an unknown version being published.

* For open source firmwares, reproducible builds are a great tool to make sure the distributed binaries actually match the publicly reviewable source code. Third parties could recompile the firmware and attest (through signing) that they get the same result.

I don't know any implementation of either of these two systems, at least publicly available (hint: Bazel does reproducible builds, and you can guess what is driving this requierment). Debian and Mozilla are experimenting with reproducible builds but I don't know that it ever reached any useful conclusion.
It could be impossible for Apple of the future to break the security of a device sold by Apple in the present.

Apple can hopefully win this case based on the forced creation aspect. But they'd likely lose the next iteration where the FBI subpoenas technical documentation about the key derivation function, and builds their own hardware to talk to the hardened chip. Of course the FBI has little interest in doing this, because the whole affair is a psyop.

If you want to fully protect your customers, don't design backdoors into your products in the first place!
For C++, I follow whatever is the standard for the code base, or the latest I can support on each planned environment -- which of course is not always the latest C++ standard out. I think that is a standard practice for most people.

Overall, I really like both languages and have bounced back and forth quite a bit. I'd say they both have good and bad things, in different ways, and their overall purposes are different. I'd also say that people who compare the two languages aren't really comparing apples to apples. For the simple reason you cannot remove the .NET eco system from C#, but C++ does stand on its own. The .NET ecosystem is what provides for the majority of productivity and other gains that C# affords. That isn't a knock against either, but I just don't see them as equivalents. To me it is like comparing a race car to an every day driver, both will do the job of getting you to and from the store, your more likely to kill yourself or others in the race car and don't have all the built in conveniences, but both can get you to and from.
Here's my console buffer from the installation: https://gist.github.com/cheald/6002dbe275a379a5f85a

tl;dr: apt-get install gitlab-ce failed with "bundler not found". rvm use system; gem install bundler, apt-get install gitlab-ce and it worked fine.
Overproduction was insane. I believe that they produced 5 million ET games. They thought it would sell more console units and at a sell rate of ET at 100%.
> This is the tip of the iceberg. How confident is any one now that their program doesn't invoke UB? Things many programmer would assume are compiler errors are actually UB. What would happen if gcc/clang exploited each one of these?

This is a pointless question. There is no reason for gcc and clang to exploit these, as there are no performance wins they could get by doing so. The analogy you're giving presupposes that the developers of those compilers like making code insecure for fun, because they're language lawyers. They aren't doing that. They're doing these optimizations because of documented, measurable performance gains, usually because someone filed a bug against the compiler asking why it didn't optimize their code in the way they thought it should.
you have a zero-sum model of things that does not reflect reality well.
Wire taps and other methods of law enforcement snooping on otherwise private conversations are routinely used to convict people of crimes. In a world of pervasive encryption this will no longer be possible.

You're perfectly welcome to argue that pervasive encryption is coming whether the government wants it or not, so it might as well get used to it.

You're also perfectly welcome that the benefits of pervasive encryption outweigh the costs.

I might even agree with you on both points.

But to deny the costs is to deny reality.
I've been keeping an eye on that issue thread throughout the morning and although it doesn't seem appropriate for me to make a comment over there just to say this, I wanted to communicate it somewhere: the gitlab team is really impressing me in terms of responsiveness and flexibility. I really hope to see you keep that culture as you continue to grow and succeed. It doesn't go unnoticed!
I'm not sure about your intuition. Intuitively for me it seemed likely (Africa population growing fast) but for a long time I was educated falsely that population would flatten out for developing countries.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/world-population-w...

A recent one here (just read this a week ago):

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/africa-s-populatio...

Population is a serious problem and for some reason people avoid and eschew it more than global warming or the phosphorus crisis (another one most people don't know about).
Easily one of the most lucrative IP infringement cases in recent memory as well, but people walked away happy with pockets full of money so no hard feelings.
> Not for the encryption. That's done in software. A seized linux laptop with an encrypted partition using a strong key is effectively snoop proof by the definition we're using here.

You can't run the software without hardware, so it has to be trusted. Don't misunderstand me, this is obviously considerably more far fetched than the Apple attacking their own software/hardware combo. However, assuming (a big assumption) that we trust what Apple are telling us at the moment, a seized iphone with a strong password would currently be just as snoop proof. In fact, this includes the phone that has spawned this conversion.

They can be compelled to defeat their own security if you're accepting continued updates to your phone. Under the security architecture I've (loosely) described they can't attack it without the user accepting an update. Of course, you're totally correct in practice because you're most likely just going to have to trust Apple updates as they come out.
How to Design UX Search. The Essentials
Yet doctors routinely do harm - chemotherapy, amputations etc. Its part of many therapies to make a patient hurt. So that's a noble goal, but modern medicine left it behind a century ago.
A short demo video would be nice. Now I have to read and imagine how that will work. Too much effort...
Webfoot to port over 100 free games to Rasperry Pi
GitHub's 98th percentile is still just 414ms though. So you still have a lot of catching up to do.
Professor develops face recognition software that detects CEO emotions
Awesome! It would be great if I could use it to query any stackexchange site, like TeX, for instance. Like `how2 prevent table from floating -s tex` would search on tex.se
1 programmer and 1 manager to see if he is being fed. Not even a tester? A billion dollar companies with zero quality control. No surprise the went bankrupt.
IronPython has been in the community's hands for a while. We do support it in PTVS, but that's about it. Curious - did you consider Qt?
Ha! I routinely dismiss posts that make me view a video. I have no time for that.
Therefore they have the ability to unlock the phone. I mean I knew people defended Apple here but I didn't think they'd demand logic no longer works to satisfy that.
Former Apple PR and Communications Exec Natalie Kerris Joins Twitter