skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I'd be interested to hear what other products people here consider a must-buy-organic.

Then you want to take a look at the Dirty Dozen or the Dirty Dozen Plus. Actually, it's better to view the complete list at http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/list.php.

Btw, Carrot is at #25, so it's not even the worst offender.
Could you tell me about your problems with Dreamhost?

I've had minor problems with Dreamhost, but nothing major yet.
When it comes to emergencies, SPOT got nothing on Resqlinq.

The latter has 5 years shelf life, no subscription fees, communicates distress signal with GPS coordinates to a much larger array of low orbit Search and Resque satellites(so works better in canyons), if GPS fails to acquire position (again in a canyon) the satellites can also figure out an approximate position using Doppler effect and trickery with multiple receivers, has a homing beacon for S&R aircrafts, has a strobe light, is buyoant and water-sealed.
It's true. In my DNS code I have zero unsafe code. Though I did need to add some new unsafe code to the Rust OpenSSL library, but that's really because of the FFI to C. That too would be unnecessary if OpenSSL was rewritten in Rust.
Honestly, I don't know why you didn't have SSO years and years ago. You encourage crosslinking between products that have distinct session lifetimes, I feel like I spend all day typing in my password again.

(Also, can you take the fucking 'remember me on this machine' button away? It's a cruel, cruel tease. It has not worked a single time on 4 different installations I've had accounts on over the years)
Rust has major unsafeness around low memory that make it unsuitable in this libc type role.
See: https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/2mthq2/how_would_a_ru... and https://lwn.net/Articles/644708/

Due to this issue that the rust authors seem unwilling to address, I fully recommend against rust for the precise roles it's intended to be good at.
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8693705&cid=514191...
What's wrong with continuing to pay? All the time companies pay for support for open source software because they want the "insurance" of having someone to call when the $hit hits the fan.

You don't want to pay anymore, go back to glibc...
Huge respect for Turbo Pascal and Delphi. What later came out of it, essentially was contrary to the spirit of those two, as others pointed out.

Turbo Pascal in a way is still way more featured environment than many available, with step debugger and profiler and decent editor. It touched a lot of developers and for that I will always be grateful.

I think it is about time, it dies and not soil any more memories of glory days.
Re: amount of low level code needing unsafe blocks, its worth checking out this series that documents creating a bare metal kernel in rust that has lots of type safety and uses shockingly little assembly or unsafe:

http://os.phil-opp.com/
There isn't any fool proof way to single out this device from any other. There are certainly ways they could try and build something that relied on checking the serial number, or something of the like reported by the hardware.

But then someone could just build a hardware level hack, to make any other device report it's serial number as if it was this phone.
"They were pretty clear that there are major differences in the case in the article you linked to."

No, there really aren't. From the article:

"The cases are different, but the underlying legal question is very similar," says Alex Abdo, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. "The question in the New York case is whether the government can rely on this very old statute to conscript Apple into government service."

Moreover, the "ask" in this case is nearly identical. Apple is being asked only to bypass the 10-failed-attempt device wipe, so that investigators can enumerate all 10,000 codes:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/02/encryption-isnt-at-stak...

...which means that it's effectively exactly the same thing that Apple has done in previous cases. The only technological difference is one that has been manufactured by Apple.

This whole thing boils down to a question of whether or not Apple should facilitate a brute-force attack on a single phone, under a search warrant, for a known criminal. And they've done same thing 70-some times in the past.
No, it is not "chocolate as in cacao". The study says this:

"Most clinical trials have used dark chocolate as the source of cocoa flavanols. In 2012, the distribution share of chocolate in the United States by favourite chocolate type was 57% milk chocolate, 35% dark chocolate, and 8% white chocolate [1]. We can therefore make the assumption that the majority of chocolate consumed in this sample was dark or milk, both containing cocoa flavanols to varying degrees"

But given this, another recent study comes in my mind:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/oped40/Lustig.pdf
(which just tells that sugar kills you with or without cacao)
Or that Apple's financial interests, moral interests, and the interests of their customers are all in alignment on this issue.
They probably could build a version of the OS that worked only for single devices. In the latest court case about San Bernadino, that's what the FBI is asking for. There's a unique device id, as I understand it, that the OS could detect. I believe that Apple is opposing it on principle, and out of concern of the precedent that it would set. Once it's been done once, the fact that it's been done will significantly lower the bar for it to be done in other circumstances.
Ask HN: Any good resources
I have 3 days to basically prepare an hour long presentation and become an expert on autonomous vehicles. Are there any resources you can recommend to get me up to speed on startups in the space, what the market is expected to look like, where the technology is today, etc?
There seems to still be too many people who cling to the romantic notion that Free Software must be produced for free, as a pure labour of love.

It's absolute nonsense - so many of the most successful free/open source software projects are those with salaried employees working on it, and this has been the case for many years. The problem today is of course finding a way to fund open source contributors whose projects aren't quite aligned with the needs of a major company.
It's not, it's a republic. In fact, the Founding Fathers considered democracy a terrible form of government.

"Democracy is the most vile form of government" (James Madison)

"A simple democracy is the devil's own government." (Benjamin Rush, signed Declaration of Independence)

"Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy..." (John Adams)

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." (Thomas Jefferson)

Many, many more at http://www.godtheoriginalintent.com/democracy_republic_quote... (sorry about the choice of web site, but the selection of quotations is impressive.)
Even if he wins, he will lose, in the sense that he is vilifying himself by trying to abuse the legal system against the "spirit" of the CA law. No one's going to love him for doing this.
For most applications, moving to modern C++ is going to be a better option than rewriting in Rust.

I wouldn't bet on that.

Companies which go with a language like C++ don't do it for "safety" or "performance" or reasons like that (at least, most of the time they don't). They go with it because they can get something written once, then run it for the next half-century and only have to spend engineering time on new features and the occasional critical bug. Telling them they need an intrusive rewrite of their entire codebase to use modern practices will simply result in either (A) no action taken (most likely) or (B) the rewrite happening in a language that isn't C++.

This is incidentally what happened with quite a few significant Python codebases in the 2/3 transition -- rather than rewrite their code to Python 3 standards, they said "eh, we're rewriting anyway, let's go to Lua" (most often, though some other languages were the "let's go to" option as well).
Funny, I've just been thinking the same.

Originally I thought it was just joe-randoms-query lib I used in project at work.

But the last year I had time to look at more desktop bound programming and see that it really is the whole stack.
Two Superpowers We Wish We Had
>We need to have incentives for maintaining this foundational software.

It's my opinion that contributing to free software is a public good, and so we should have state-funded employees whose full-time job is to work on this software. I think something like this is already done in places like France and Europe, but to my knowledge the majority of paid-for American contributions to FLOSS comes from corporations.
Do we know enough about physics at the atomic level to be able to predict and simulate these combinations of materials? Or do we still have no clue and it's left to experiment to be able to validate material design?
It is just as easy to do in this case. iOS 7 does not include code for extracting data from a locked device. Apple flashed a special build onto those phones to do that. Similarly, Apple is being asked to flash a special build that allows PIN brute-forcing, and if they don't want the build to leave their premises, they've been given the option of brute-forcing the PIN themselves.
Is this release going to make any significant difference on the hosted projects? The last time I asked about Gitlab.com in a thread people mentioned that it's not more popular due to performance issues.
>Just gonna throw this out there: what if instead of working on creating the myriad of "better languages" we focus on actual mastery of simpler languages like C.

Relying on people being careful does not work for security, where one exploit is as good as many. OTOH, simpler languages can work well for performance, features and almost everywhere else; where even if you don't have specific language features to guard against common mistakes, the impact of an oversight is fairly localized or correctable.
Interesting definition of perfect preservation. Also, I have a nit here. Why do these types of articles show like 1 shot with the actual object (typically out of focus and in the background)?
It seems very straightforward to draw a right to be secure in one's papers and property from general warrants, and pretty easily extend that to data on one's phone or computer for the same kind of data. The 4th wasn't written to protect your sheets of paper. It was written to protect your data and your private matters from authorities on a witch hunt.
The HPV vaccine is working: infection rates in teenage girls dropped 64 percent
The US Department of Justice has very publicly made that claim, it just fell flat.
I don't think anyone "loves" VCs to begin with. Respects? Fears? Sure. Loves? Not anyone outside his family and close friends.
Backdoor is not what is not mentioned today but it is what will be sought when Apple does make an unbreakable phone.

If a loudly media backed ruling to force Apple to comply with the FBI is then followed by Apple making a phone which makes it impossible to comply with such requests in the future, it will much easier to get legislation or rulings requiring the all phones have an inbuilt backdoor.

This is why the FBI is forcing Apple specifically to do what they or another organization (eg McAfee) might do. Especially since the phone in question, while spectacular from a media perspective, probably has very little interesting on it.
That interpretation doesn't seem to line up with what apple stated.

> "Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control."

The part about being able to guarantee such control seems to indicate that future requests may not require Apple's involvement.
Template your base files and generate them from GitHub
Unfortunately since they've mis-priced their offering, her replacement will be run into the exact same problem.
I'm really trying to figure out what this case is really about, vs. what the players are saying it is about.

The government says it just wants to unlock this one iPhone. But is it really just looking for a legal precedent in a case that the public is likely to support the unlocking?

Apple says is it afraid of creating a "master key" that could fall into the wrong hands. But doesn't it already have such a key, in the form of a signing key controlling what payloads the iPhone will agree to load? Is Apple primarily concerned with both precedent and perception of security on its phones?

I personally feel that any mechanism by which iPhones could be unlocked with a warrant -- but only with a warrant (ie. the gov't physically lacks the capability to do it themselves) -- is a good compromise. It's in Apple's interest to push back on such requests, so you have two powerful and well-funded entities adversarially fighting to define the line of what can get unlocked and what can't.

Now NSL's, those are a whole different kettle of fish.
Not working for me. :-(
> trying to abuse the legal system against the "spirit" of the CA law

How is using the legal system "abusing" the legal system? He makes his arguments for his position, and the court rules, one hopes, according to the law.

The law should be a stable foundation on which society can rest. If the treaty in question does actually govern property rights, and the people who bought property relied on the fact that it does so, and has done so in previous cases (thus establishing precedent), then it is unfair and abusive to change the status quo out from under them arbitrarily by popular opinion. That's not justice, that's tyranny by the majority.
As if your everyday person is capable of verifying or validating or even making these decisions if left to them.

I work in tech and I wouldn't feel comfortable making all those decisions.
Agreed, most products above the $500 range can be found cheaper elsewhere, with the possibility of saving $100+ when compared tom amzn. that's why im working on https://percht.com.
So there are no access road to the beach beside going through his property? Or is this because the city finds a brown man owning the property unpleasant?
You may laugh.. But you want to know what kind of milk makes cows most happy? Soy milk
Or almond milk. Or cashew milk. You know, the stuff that's often in the same cooler as the organic milk? The stuff that's healthy, that can be bought organic, that tastes great once you get used to it, and that doesn't involve the cow being suctioned (without antibiotics to treat its almost inevitable udder infections) for its entire life until it's slaughtered?

It's probably not really about the cow being happy though, is it? It's about what is better in your cereal.
It's not too often I see /pol/-speak (or /pol/ usernames) on HN.

>German Jews during the party's rise were also an inordinately powerful group in German industry, finance, and media.

The German Communist Party had a very low percentage of Jewish membership. The Weimar KPD was only 0.7% Jewish in 1927. At the end of the Weimar republic, only about 1.5% of all officers were Jewish, and only one of the leaders was Jewish (Heinz Neumann). A year later, Hitler gained power, and there were no longer any Jewish leaders of the party.

Judeo-Bolshevism is a myth no matter how you look at it. There is sometimes a disproportionate amount of Jewish representation in certain movements around the world, but these can be explained by factors other than conspiracy.

You could say that Nazism was, in part, a reaction to the spread of communism. But it was an irrational overreaction, and also partly a pretext for Hitler's overall racial and societal ideals. Hitler would have still wanted to implement much of his plans even if communism never existed in the East. He just would have been likely to rise to power.
Snapchat: On Demand Geofilters for People and Businesses
The problem is that there is no mechanism by which iPhones can have a back door, but only for the good guys and only with a warrant. That does not exist. And it never can exist.

There is no grey area for compromise here. The encryption is either secure and free of known backdoors—and thus it grants real security—or it isn't, and it doesn't.
we focus on actual mastery of simpler languages like C

We've had 44 years for people to master the "simplicity" of C. Turns out, writing C is simple but writing safe, reliable C borders on the impossible even for the most masterful masters who ever mastered their mastery of the language. Better return on investment would be to work on killing C with something that doesn't have C's problems.
Yes, it's clearly on principle, or more likely for PR. But the problem is, there is no principle here. What, that a company should be able to refuse legal requests for evidence? I would HOPE the barrier to entry would be lowered after this. The FBI shouldn't get a rubber stamp to search information like this, but if they DO have probable cause, of course they should have access. Apple has zero legs to stand on here.
How would we decide what specific projects are actually worked on?
Discussion from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11147275

(Stefanie Williams's article was originally published on medium.com.)
How do you suggest that Apple do that? Somewhere there has to be some code to check if security passed. It is always feasible for Apple to remove/disable the security check in a custom version of iOS.
I don't know what they are. But do you think it's a coincidence that after a dull two years of leaks, this leak occurred in the same month the UK ignored the UN ruling in his favor?

He's playing his next card. I have no idea what his motives are, do you?
> honestly, the spelling's not that bad

No, spelling is really bad and pronunciations are far worse! Pronunciations are just absurd.

As a non-native English speaker, with close to native fluency in written English and slightly (or maybe quite) worse in its spoken form, I do understand the importance of Engish as a universal language, esp. in today's world, but fixing its spelling and pronunciations would really be helpful. I find it strange that there are no steps towards it, or if there are maybe I am not aware of that.

I mean there is no damn reason to pronounce beard and heard[1] differently unless of course because it's just supposed to be so. And did we really had to say creature and create[2] this distinctly?

1. http://www.etni.org.il/farside/funpoem.htm

2. http://pauillac.inria.fr/~xleroy/stuff/english-pronunciation...
Looking at the presentation it looks like you can borrow a non-const reference (in rust parlance) several times, so there's no concurrency guarantee.

You would have to break compatibility with too much existing code to get the same level of strictness as Rust, so that's reasonable, but yeah, it's hard to imagine that C++ will be as safe as Rust. I'm glad these features are being pushed through though.
Meo hay doi pho voi troi nom
It's a fully emulated PC: CPU, memory, hard drive, …
The CPU especially took me very long to get right with all the details to run Windows 98.

The code is here: https://github.com/copy/v86
Kale consumption associated with better cognitive function.

Winning competitive chess matches associated with better cognitive function.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Did you actually read the article? I wouldn't call it propaganda.
Surely there must be a way to securely identify an iPhone by more than just its serial number. If that's not the case then isn't that a security issue on its own?
Does it support github flavoured markdown? Or can we make it support it?
happy animals (milk, eggs), lower chance of toxins (roots, fruits without skins), and higher micronutrients / antioxidents which are produced when plants are subjected to slight stresses that make them "stretch" get all the nutrients they need since they arent being forcefed by fertilizers or bombed with pesticides.
For some years I've been thinking about how to use modern machine learning and artificial intelligence in animal training. Most "automated" uses of animal training involve lab animals pressing some buttons, but it should be possible to teach a mouse/rat to visit a particular place in a cage, or hold a certain pose, sniff out something, or a parrot to hum a tune.

But it would also require an algorithm to score "progress" toward a multi dimensional training goal and encode that into binary reward/no reward signals.
Great to hear that you were able to come out on top. I'm taking medication right now, exercising and taking it one step at a time at the moment. I would love to get rid of it entirely but I'm starting to acknowledge that unless there's a revolutionary break through in medical science then I'm stuck with this condition for the rest of my life. Just have to figure out ways to cope.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11151264
Who rewrote in Lua instead of Python?
> Not really

I'm not clear which of my points you disagree with.

Also, there were three Axis Powers in WW2, and two of them had fought against Germany in WW1. It's overly simplistic to say that post-war suffering in Germany was the sole cause of WW2--especially as there were terrible sanctions after that war as well, but Germany has not gone to war again.
It's not that weird. I know what content is on my site, but fuzzy matching the vast variety of input strings is non-trivial to do well. (Emphasis on 'to do well' because there are a lot of ways to get it working but poorly.)
The kind where we've allowed the GOP and Roger Ailes' propaganda apparatus to demagogue about terrorism and security for far too long without challenging the lies, and so now we have a population which has been thoroughly groomed to accept this kind of dangerous trespassing on our privacy without objection.

So Apple is all we've got left. The top-rank leftists in our politics today—Hillary, Sanders, and Obama—are all failing us.
Some background: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChainedToARailway
Absolutely, I didn't mean to say that improving C++ is bad (we sure as hell need it, esp. given how much of the world runs on C++), and C++14 and 17 have many exciting things coming. I just didn't think it was fair to say that the new standard(s) "steals nearly all of Rust's safety thunder," when several core promises of Rust's safety model aren't possible in C++ if you maintain backwards compatibility.
Unfortunately most Wall Street investment banks would make Zenefits look like preschool.
When property changes ownership, its tax basis bumps up to market value anyway. Properties bought to be flipped don't benefit from Prop 13; it's not like rent control that carries over.
You are making that up. Of course there is such a mechanism. What do you think software signing is but a way for the good guys and only the good guys to run code on your device? It's exactly the same. All Apple has to do is make a piece of software that only runs on this phone and sign it. Then nobody can be attacked except this one phone. And it had to go through a warrant and all!

And to your last point: this software is not secure. That's why we have this backdoor option.
And, relatedly, https://robigalia.org/
You call me dodgy, but this guy isn't? You most definitely a rockstar!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-19/david-einhorns-conf...
Your entire post reinforces the idea that in my list of challenges to writing safe software that #1 is far more the issue than #2.
I feel like C++ has turned into programming language Katamari Damacy. I wonder what it will look like when it rolls up Lisp?