skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The iPhone does grant real security, it just requires the user to choose an encryption key that isn't trivially brute forced. (And depending on the circumstances, forego use of the fingerprint reader.)

If the dead attacker had a twelve character passphrase, any amount of help from Apple would be utterly useless. Apple could write all the back-doors they liked but if the content is encrypted and the key is unknown, brute forcing is the only option.

The addition of the secure enclave makes it potentially infeasible to extract the UID so that the brute forcing could be performed on a powerful supercomputer. It depends how well the enclave has been hardened against firmware changes. Can the enclave receive a seamless firmware update while in a locked state? Can the enclave firmware be rewritten to output the UID to the main CPU? We don't know.
Playing Swarm Simulator with a bot in Elixir (part 2 – some OTP)
Interestingly, this thought experiment kinda works for company managers, too (try firing the CEO of a company where you're a minority investor.) Perhaps things converge to a state where, regardless of who's the nominal owner (citizens/stockholders/etc.), we are ruled by mostly unaccountable managers.
This kind of reasoning has a certain universal appeal at first blush. Something deep about calling out the hypocrisy of those who profess to disdain the very thing they are co-opting.

But it is a vacuous and illogical argument and subtracts meaning from the discussion at hand. The leap of assumption made here is long and unfortunately negative.

We need to make value judgements to make sense out of reality. That is an irreducible aspect of thought. But the original post was about asking people to be more aware of their own biases, and not about condemning people in the vein of in-groupers and out-groupers with fascist tendencies.
1)There are a couple alternatives. There's TOML, axon.

2)It can be whatever you want. It's your language. If you are reusing a current format it will be easier for devs and sysadmins to keep the current syntax
I really appreciate your response.

>Idealist me thinks that Wall Street should invest in those companies they believe in and wish to assist in achieving their business goals.

It seems that the general trend is against banks taking proprietary positions. I guess my knee-jerk response is that I agree with that trend as I don't want my deposits used to fund someone's investment thesis. If I did, I would put my money in a mutual fund or other investment vehicle rather than a bank. At the same time, it's certainly not against the law for banks to make longer term investments.

>but who is okay with a computer crashing a market becasue it was profitable

I am certainly no fan of banks, but this does not seem like an accurate representation of their role in the markets.
Historical accident.

I used to do systems programming back when the only OS written in C was UNIX.

C wasn't the first systems programming language.

Burroughs B5500 was written in Algol 68 with zero lines of Assembly. Just one example from many others in the pioneering days of computing.

There are other approaches to writing OSes.

If UNIX community ever wants to divorce from C there is a way, but there needs to exist a will as well.
This Chinese Company Moved Production to South Carolina to Save Money
> The 4th amendment doesn't say anything about "private matters"

The 4th amendment may not say that directly, but Chief Justice Roberts did in the majority opinion for Riley v. California:

Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience.
With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many
Americans “the privacies of life,” Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S., 630.
The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such
information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy
of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the
question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized
incident to an arrest is accordingly simple—get a warrant.
Majority of Americans Support FBI in iPhone Fight: Poll
Why building the wrong features impacts growth and valuations
There are no rules among nation-states. Any that you believe to exist, exist only at the whim of the most powerful states in the system. The only true international law is the law of the jungle. Many argue otherwise, but the minute that the survival of their freedom or prosperity hangs in the balance, they would unleash the most barbarous terrors on their enemy for a chance of victory.

A nation that doesn't spy on others is irrational and suicidal. Your enemy will not reciprocate your naivete. They will exploit it and enslave you.

A nation that doesn't punish spies (or their masters) caught within its territories is similarly irrational. The fear of death (or imprisonment) makes your enemy cautious and less effective.

The only morality in the international system is the morality of your own victory and what you do with it. In victory, you can spread peace, freedom, and prosperity to your heart's content. In defeat, your ideals are worthless.
It is available to VS 2015 Update 1 users.
The only way Medicare will have an negotiating leverage with respect to price is if they create a formulary and deny access to certain drugs.

I can't see Medicare doing that.
Clean rooms are not perfectly clean. I've always wondered if Intel, which is famous for wanting all of their fab cleanrooms to be the same, also infects them with the same bacteria and mites...
Another alternative that just searches google (or bing if you want to go crazy) and extracts commands from the search hits: https://github.com/jimmyppi/searchcmd

$ searchcmd "unzip bz2"
.....
tar xjvf (michaelangela.wordpress.com, superuser.com)
bunzip2 filename.bz2 (cyberciti.biz, linuxquestions.org)
tar xvjf filename.tar.bz2 (superuser.com)
bzip2 -d filename.bz2 (superuser.com)
bzip2 -dk filename.bz2 (superuser.com)
"[Other safe languages] require complex runtime support that doesn't fit in certain contexts (e.g. kernels)."

Complex runtimes are also unsuitable for libraries. If you write a great openssl replacement in Haskell, it's only useful for Haskell applications. Because nobody wants to link the Haskell runtime into many of the applications that use openssl.

For widespread libraries, the choices are basically C, C++, and now (hopefully) rust.
It's not a request for evidence. If it were, there would indeed be no leg to stand on.
It's a request to do work. It is a legal compulsion to build something against their will.
If you opt for making your declarative language a subset of JSON or YAML, presumably it will be a proper subset, with some further expectations and constraints. It makes total sense to use a custom file extension — say, `.mdl`, "my declarative language", for the sake of discussion. Users will be able to easily find their files written in your language without having to wade through all possible files of the superset format. A `.mdl` file really is its own thing, it's not just a .json or .yml file. It may be the case that a `.mdl` file is a just `.json` or `.yml` file, but the converse will not be true.

The only advantage I can think of that accrues from using the more common extension is editor support: a user's favorite editor may well provide syntax highlighting and checking, auto-indenting, etc. for `.json` or `.yml` files, but not for `.mdl` files out of the box. You might want to develop `.mdl` profiles (sic) for popular editors.

Any decent parser for the 'true' format will accept either a string or a full filename (including extension) and shouldn't expect a fixed file extension.

Regrettably I can't think of a single example right now, but I know I've encountered many programs that use custom file extensions which have turned out to be just some familiar format after all.

That said, it's another question whether either JSON or YAML is a great choice. I agree with your reservations about both. In fact I've had the very same problem in a couple of development projects, one recently. JSON is friendlier than XML, true, but it's not really a language to think in, even declaratively — too much clutter. YAML is certainly versatile enough, but it provides probably more than you need, and it is... yes, obtuse. Of course, it depends on your intended users; I found it was too "programmerly" for mine. I ended up developing a custom parser for a language with more syntactic sugar than YAML, which has its advantages and disadvantages.
Corporations make good PR so you can trust them with more of your personal data, while PRISM still is operating, Facebook and Apple are still cooperating with NSA.

The more and more NSA friendly corporations back Apple the less I trust all of them.
No offense, but the article got PBMs entirely wrong.

Any savings from rebates is typically passed back to the one paying. In fact, it would be odd if an insurance company didn't have that in their contract.

I'd say PBMs have done a ton on keeping drug costs down. Hell, look at HCV! Express Scripts cut a deal with Abbvie on their new HCV drug and excluded Solvadi and Harvoni from their formulary.

What happened? Gilead came out and offered a 20-30% discount on their drug to pretty much every other PBM and insurance company.
How I wish people understood this when we were comparing Ada, Modula-2, Modula-2+, Modula-3, Pascal dialects, Oberon, Oberon-2, Active Oberon, Component Pascal,... to C.

Apparently we were the fools.

But this will never happen in UNIX OSes.

The culture is married to C, regardless how many memory corruption exploits per days might get a CVE entry.

However I hope to be proven wrong.
What would you propose to do instead?
not sufficient for a substantial marketing campaign against a well-funded adversary

Most states have mandatory generic substitution. That is, if you bring a Rx in for Lipitor, the pharmacy is required to fill it with the generic version.

You don't need much marketing for that.
I don't know, the way he talks is a little confusing. On another site it quotes him saying,

"It is no different than [the question of] should anybody ever have been able to tell the phone company to get information, should anybody be able to get at bank records. Let’s say the bank had tied a ribbon round the disk drive and said ‘don’t make me cut this ribbon because you’ll make me cut it many times’," Gates stressed. [1]

I think that means Gates feels this is only a single case situation, and he does not believe Cook's assertion that Comey is trying to set a precedent.

Unfortunately the full interview is behind the Financial Times paywall.

[1] http://sputniknews.com/us/20160223/1035197491/bill-gates-sup...
why is this article behind a paywall?
How does the NIH decide what research gets funded?
I think the interesting question is why can't Italy (or Germany) keep foreign agencies out of their networks? Or can the US not either?
There isn't one "real" problem. You are talking about one problem, and rust solves another. I don't see any reason your comment needs to be framed as a contradiction to the OP.
> I would also add that the NYT simply has the best online newspaper. The site itself is beautiful, and I am continually impressed with their innovation in interactive features and design.

Interesting. I would disagree, or at least I think being the "best online newspaper" is sort of like being the best WAP web browser. I think many bloggers do better.

Note that we call it an 'online newspaper' - often you can instantly identify news websites are made by former newspapers as opposed to other news sources, as if the UI of their website should depend on the archaic medium they once used.
From second link:

> Obviously on OOM you usually want to abort _something_. It's just not always the entire thread or process.

Surely you want to abort _some dynamic extent_. The fact that it's (currently) a full C thread is an implementation detail that can hopefully be improved. Requiring manual OOM handling on every single operation is not a scalable solution and will lead to bugs due to laziness or fatigue.

Exceptions aren't necessarily bad/evil. A lot has been learned about the challenges of exceptions/conditions/effects. Language designs will evolve to have better versions of what is a foundational idea in the theory of computation.

In the meantime, a try/catch block is only a small macro over thread::spawn, thread::join, thread::catch_panic away. It would be nice if the language supported that without the weight of a full thread.
ArcChat.com – Live chat for small business. Cleaner UI and simple pricing
ArcChat.com is intuitive live chat software built with small organizations in mind. And it's all built with ReactJs :)
This is the most insightful comment in the discussion. It should have been obvious, but it wasn't until you posted it.

First, design a sound language that solves problems other languages don't (done). Then, optimize for adoption ... because the world only benefits from that new language once adoption really takes off.

Rust has done half the job really well. And a decent start on the second half -- mainly because the first half was done so well.

But if the Rust team were to prioritze adoption the way the parent post espouses, they'd be changing their priorities significantly, and it's probably the most effective way to make sure Rust fulfills its potential.
> if you enable the "window list" plugin for shell

And add minimize/maximize buttons and applications ("start") button. I have no idea why Gnome has to experiment, they have lost so many users unnecessarily. At least it's configurable to something sane. They are far from catering to the same feature-averse audience of iPad so there's no use in trying to (poorly) emulate its minimalist design language.
"Writing computer code, or at the least being conversant in the firm’s program of choice, OCaml, is a requisite for all traders."

nytimes... why u so noob?
The iPhone is secure when used with a complex passcode (something like 11 years to crack an 8 character password), even if Apple aids the FBI. So individuals who know and care enough, like terrorists, will still be just as secure.

But common people won't. So no, Apple should absolutely not destroy the security of hundreds of millions of individuals just because some government agency wants a shot at access to some dead guy's phone.

What happens when the PRC or Saudi equivalent of the FBI demands the same for an FBI agents phone? Why should the populace and Apple have to suffer for making the world more secure?
People don't consume health care as a typical commodity. Choices you make around health care are existential. It's not just a cost calculation. So without a state actor you would still not have the behavior of an efficient market.
I understand your point. But I think too many people have already hosed down the idea of true backdoor features inbuilt for all phones to get around encryption. It was raised previously, and smacked down by the majority, including from many voices within the government.

I think honesty is the best option. Apple should say "yes, we can help this time, but we believe in privacy and security, so in future our phones will not be able to be cracked by this or any method". Apple gets to be the good guys for customers, AND help the FBI in this instance. Win win.

In future, the FBI couldn't ask Apple anything because we all know their phones are unbreakable.

But Apple have dug themselves a hole this time by refusing to go the full distance even though it's technically possible. Probably not the best move IMHO.

I'm of course only presuming it's possible to make such an unbreakable phone in future.
So if I shoot at you and miss, it's all good, right? No harm, no foul!
How much did Albert Einstein make compared to Babe Ruth? Why is the highest paid employee at most large public universities not the Nobel Prize winning scientist, but the football coach?

Even in theory, many conditions are required for free markets to function efficiently. Regardless, we don't live in a free market, and many other factors determine income.
If your primary incentive is the per-word fee, I imagine hacker news is not your target market. I mean, don't get me wrong, there are a lot of programmers who enjoy sci-fi, both in creation and consumption, but the differential between market rate for programmer time and writer time is so great that until you are huge, what you get paid as a writer is symbolic if your dayjob is at a bay-area tech-company.

I am a wanna-be writer of fiction who works as a computer nerd. I have written a technical book, so I have some experience, and I really want to write some fiction. (I have a whole series of elaborate fantasies surrounding the idea of rejection letters) - but I write for ego, for self-actualization, whatever you want to call it. I write for emotional, non-financial reasons. Sure, sure, if I do luck into a '50 shades of grey' I want a piece of the action, but in the ordinary case, any payment is symbolic. If you want to compete for my work (and I'm not saying you do; my fiction, so far, is so bad that I'm not willing to admit to any of it,) then you have to compete on something other than money.

Assuming you aren't going to assign me an editor who will ride my ass until I finish the goddamn thing[1], the things I will look at are prestige and distribution. The prestige you give me is largely dependent on how good the other authors you publish are. Distribution is also an incentive; but you have to convince me that more people will see my work if it goes through you than if I just release it for free online.

I mean, I guess the plan is to release an issue #1 with either known-good authors or really good unknowns... but between now and then, I'd suggest talking up your distribution.

[1]If you are willing to do that, I'm sold. Sign me up.
And unless you are using your computer only for media consumption it's also unethical because you are only delegating that insecurity onto your customers/users.
Juicing Is Bad for You and the Earth
dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11144896
Maybe do both? Rewriting in Rust and increasing incentives.

Writing security critical software in c++/c is not the sensible thing to do in my opinion (even though it is the standard right now). Humans in general cannot handle it without making a lot critical errors. And the people working on those projects are already really smart in general. This has been shown again and again.

If c++ was a car, it would force you to place your foot in a special position in between breaking and accelerating. If you do it wrong, your foot will get squashed in the exposed drive train.

Of course for the point of the argument I am exaggerating, but I really applaud the efforts Rust has made in order to advance the security of software.
Should people be allowed to walk down the street with a suitcase full of explosives? Serious question.
> The only true international law is the law of the jungle.

Probably you are thinking of the "survival of the fittest", but that doesn't mean only survival of the fittest country, it also means survival of the fittest alliance of countries. In that sense, cooperation and reciprocal help leads to increased chance of success for a country.

When applying to humans, "the law of the jungle" is just half the story. People who are in groups that cooperate well are more likely to survive, too. Humans are social animals, we cooperate to get things done. Just being the fittest one single man does not necessarily make you more successful.

A better model for survival is ecology, which puts a big emphasis on the complex interdependency of species and individuals.

Or, to make an analogy: even if a cancer cell is the most fit to reproduce in the body, it will soon lead to the demise of its own organism and, as a consequence, live shorter than a regular cooperating cell.
I wouldn't mention carob, unless you had expressed a distaste for everything having to do with the sourcing of chocolate.

I don't, by any means, assert you or anyone else should care about the welfare of cows. I also don't assert anyone should care about minimizing environmental damage. However, if you do claim to care about those causes, it strikes me as the height of irrationality to choose to support an industry so massively at odds with them, especially for something as trivial as a sip of milk. When you care so little that it's non-distinguishable from not caring... you don't care.

I'm not trying to pick on you. So many people today just seem to "care" about things only because it's trendy, and then only the minimum amount necessary to be able to consider themselves caring individuals.
Haha, I suppose that's true. There will always be the few tidbits where there is enough evidence to make factual statements about what is found at a site. The rest is going to be speculation; some of it based on educated guesses, and some of it pure imagination.

I can understand the wonder and excitement that comes with imagining how the pieces fit together. Everyone likes to dig (pun!) their teeth into a mystery. If an article is going to contain more than the proven facts, I just wish they'd lay out multiple possible scenarios rather than a single "it was probably this one convoluted option".

Then again... as long as they explicitly label all the conjecture with "maybe/possibly/probably", they're at least not being outright misleading - which leaves room for each person to wring their own brain for other options. I guess I want the people who know the most about these things to lay out more reasonable possibilities for me, instead of making me put in the effort to imagine it all for myself. :D
I disagree. First of all "Appetite" for which this article was accepted is decently ranked (whatever you think of these rankings). It's in Q1 for both Nutrition and Psychology. H-Index of 80 is pretty solid. It's the 179th ranked Psychology journal which isn't bad for such a niche journal. For Nutrition it's ranked 23rd [1]. So as far as food related cognitive science is concerned I'd call this a pretty decent journal.
Since it is accepted it has gone through a successfull review process already.

More importantly though...why is it bad that unpublished research is linked to on HN. I'd rather read it and make up my own mind than wait for it to go through a review process. The topic at hand is at least tangentially related to core HN content, too as eating chocolate might make you a better programmer/entrepreneur.

[1]: http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=29994&tip=sid&c...
It has a (whatever you think of these is another matter)
Juttle is Open
Ignorant question but could this be useful for companies like D-wave who are trying to build quantum machines? They're cooled to well below the superconducting temperature as it is.. I guess I'm not sure what function the graphene semiconductors serve.
Shellpy – A tool for convenient shell scripting in python
The Bettor's Oath
I'm not much for conspiracy theories, so I decided to make my own.

<tinfoil>
What if the FBI's request is just a ruse to obscure the fact that the NSA has already unlocked & decrypted the phone and found evidence needed in the criminal charges?
</tinfoil>
It's a demand for invention, and the legal precedent it sets is that the government can just tell a private company "we tell you what you have to invent, because the law says you have to turn over all information we need."

Except that invention != turning over information.

The Justice Department would like to change this, so that complying with the Writs act literally means doing anything they tell you to do.

Which is a massive, blatant power grab.
You might think that you're joking, but I agree with you. A pox on both their houses.