skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> 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.

DirecTV is probably largely cannibalizing other traditional cable/satellite (AT&T has been very heavily promoting it and offering big incentives since they purchased it); there's nothing inconsistent between DirecTV growing while the overall cable/satellite market is shrinking.
This is actually a good idea
Full webcast with commentary : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml1RO4IcOG0
That is so, but feds are not looking for evidence, but for operative information and leads.

Anyway - there will be enough developers willing to do that if feds can obtain the source code. The trick is apple to sign it.
>In the physical example, according to the FBI's "just this one iPhone" claim, one would reasonably expect that the company could then destroy the hypothetical master key as soon as it's used. This makes sense in a physical world, but the analogy breaks down completely in a digital world.

Why not? Can't apple just delete it?

>In the digital world, you can't guarantee that the key hasn't been copied, and you can't guarantee that destroying the "original instance" of the key destroys all others.

You can't do that in the physical world either. But you can be pretty damn certain that it isn't done.

>The custom OS that the FBI is asking Apple to build will also take development time, and likely take more than one person to develop, meaning that if there's a security breach during the OS's development, any number of intermediate builds may also be stolen during development, before the FBI can even access the particular phone in question.

Apple already takes this risk with every since iOS release.
No worries -- there are times I feel I reside under a flight path so I'm sorry I sent a jet your way. Regarding the saying, I've probably heard it more often in the locksport community, actually. That's probably what I meant to say instead of locksmithing.
For an argument on why you should build custom workflows on top of Kubernetes instead of using it directly, and how easy that is to do, see http://blog.jonparrott.com/building-a-paas-on-kubernetes/
Thanks :-) Better would be a true hellban system that lets them see it on the map and the listing itself, but lets no one else see the listing, even with a direct link, though. Something to add to the todo list!
Your Phone Isn't That Secure – It Can Be Hacked with Play-Doh
Ask HN: What criteria are important when buying source code?
Marketplaces like www.noodl.io offer a wide range of code snippets and full solutions to speed up your development.

Prior to buying source code, you want to make sure that what you buy meets your needs. As you can't see the full source code before you purchase it, what criteria would you consider when evaluating a product listed on such marketplaces?
I wouldn't recommend using infix libraries if you really want to get into Common Lisp though. They're a bit of a crutch for people coming from other languages, but that's it.

Pretty much the whole language is based on Polish notation. The sooner you realise that + - * / are just function names like any other, the better you'll do.

For example:

(+ 1 2 3)

in plain symbols is just:

(function parameter parameter parameter)

But if I were to write my own addition function:

(addition 1 2 3)

it would also be:

(function parameter parameter parameter)

and so is:

(http-request "http://www.google.com")

(function parameter)

If you use infix notation, you're writing half your code in a competely different semantic to the other half. I can't imagine it helping people really get a proper grasp of how Common Lisp works.
>It's not about trusting the American government to do the right thing. It's about trusting this government and all future American governments to do the right thing.

But you don't have to trust the FBI or today or tomorrow. The court order doesn't require the FBI have access to the modified software.

Apple doesn't have to trust the FBI at all.
wow, this is stellar!
The high value statement that got my attention was this: "Arrogance and vulnerabilities are a bad mix."

This applies to all parties- the ones who are vulnerable and the ones who are discovering.

I totally agree with your statement about reporters inflating the impact of minor bugs. In fact, it is the spirit of arrogance which they exhibit that attracted me to OP's comment!
How strange. My parents just signed a 2-year agreement with U-Verse about a week ago. It's can't be that dead if they're still signing up customers.
Super huge 400% price hike.
To mitigate CSRF on a form, send the user a randomly generated, long, unique token every time the form is rendered. Put it in a hidden input.

Your server must expect the POST to answer back with a valid csrf token. Otherwise, the request results in an error and doesn't go through. Attacker pages won't know anything about the csrf token, so they can't forge the form.
And yesterday we (CloudFlare) protected a free customer against a 400Gbps (that's not a typo) Layer 3/4 attack. DDoS protection should be free at any volume and our scale is allowing us to make that a reality.
I've said in a previous comment, sci-hub is pure civil disobedience of the noble kind. In fact i thought it would be impossible to ever sue her, because there is no moral argument that can outweigh what she offers. I use sci-hub all the time because my institution doesn't have access to all the sci journals, and i want access to ALL the knowledge for which millions of taxpayers have paid for (but they don't know where that knowledge ends up). Its the perfect complement to open access journals, for the (i believe) transitory period until we do away with impact factors and citation factories for good, like we did away with alchemy and phrenology.

I hope this increased publicity won't lead to shutting down the site or freeze its paypal account.
I agree on the price. I feel bad for being a scumbag but I might create a clone of this using an EDA package; doesn't seem too hard.
It's true, it's a fine distinction, but there's still a significant different between "There is no software in existence that can break into this phone and we are the only ones that could ever create such software" and "We have software that can break into the phone, but we promise not to use it. Unless someone tells us to and we've already got dozens of such requests in queue."
I'm sorry we let you down. If it's not too late, I'd love to get to the bottom of this today. Can you share details with me? josh [at] mailgun [dot] com
Apple Files Motion to Vacate , Says FBI Seeks 'Dangerous Power'
Interesting perspective, I hadn't thought of it that way. I was thinking the opposite, and we wouldn't be having a conversation, because Apple would have already complied.
you could have an API that returns a CSRF token.
Good point. The thing Cook can't say publicly is that once Apple creates FBiOS, every government around the world, especially the most oppressive regimes, will block imports of iPhones until Apple gives them a copy or they steal it from the FBI.

I believe the FBI is asking for FBiOS to refuse to run if the IMEI doesn't match a compiled-in whitelist, but my understanding is that phone thieves routinely desolder a chip to change the IMEI on a stolen phone. The FBiOS is for use when they have physical access to the phone, so I don't believe the IMEI whitelist is a large hurdle to get over.
If you are referring to the law invoked in the Apple case (the All Writs Act), a company unable to comply does not face legal consequences. From Wikipedia:
"In the case U.S. v. New York Telephone Co. 434 U.S. 159 (1977), the Supreme Court established a three-factor test for the admissible application of the All Writs Act: the party ordered to perform an action cannot be too far removed from the case, the government's request cannot impose an undue burden on that party, and the party's assistance is necessary."[1]

I'm not a lawyer (and law can be tricky), but forcing a company to do something impossible (breaking into a truly secure device) seems very clearly to be a "undue burden". The real issue here is that Apple has created a device that is possible for them to backdoor themselves, and the clear solution is to remove that capability from future devices.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Writs_Act#Conditions_for_u...
You certainly can use a db for an event source. This article does a really good job of explaining how: http://www.confluent.io/blog/turning-the-database-inside-out...

As mentioned in the post, we've pushed Kafka to at least 700,000 events per second. We have room to push it to much more, but stay in tune for post 2 and 3 to see what we're doing instead.
Carnot limit is over 60-70 percent in fixed load power plants. 70% is something only could be attained with very exotic materials(expensive and difficult to manage) that could handle high temperatures.

In a mobile system you could get 50% with a fixed load. The problem with the car is that is has to work in different regimes.

That is the reason hybrid engines are more efficient. They work at a fixed load and store the energy in a battery or super cap.
Researching a topic, it’s easy to skim 100 papers in a couple days

This, a thousand times. Compounded with the problems of research quality and legitimacy that this essay highlights, it's even worse than looking for mere "relevance". Many published papers are outright dross, serving as filler that further increases the power of a $30-$45/paper paywall.
Does anybody know how to find the corresponding torrents for the papers that sci-hub has fetched? Is there some sort of prefix I can punch into torrentz.eu?
Use the search feature at the bottom of the page. It is powered by https://hn.algolia.com

Although it isn't fool proof, obviously better than not doing it.

Search for your URL, as well as targeted keywords.
There are different types of PACs. I forget the exact names, but some are directly attached to organizations, and can only solicit from org people like employees, directors, board members, etc., and some PACs are not affiliated with an org and can solicit from anybody. Emily's List is a famous pro-choice PAC that is not affiliated with any other organization.

As for why PACs exist--they exist for the reason any other organization exists. People can have a greater social impact if they pool their resources, than if they act individually. This is the fundamental basis for nonprofits, corporations, partnerhips, newspapers, churchs, clubs, etc... basically any collection of people brought together by a mission.

The specific thing that ONLY a PAC can do is give money directly to candidates. No other type of organization can give money to political candidates.
This analogy is terrible.

The FBI isn't asking for this on all iphones. It's asking for apple to help them hack into a single iphone, which it already has it's possession. And it's pursuant to a court order, which limits the chance that this is a fishing expedition.

It's more like asking the gun manufacturer to make a tool that fits the mold of the gun to take it apart so they can gather forensic evidence. Hell, I best most people would okay with that even if it affected all guns. But this apple situation isn't going to effect all iphones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4YtgA2jnu4

America is undergoing subversive actions by foreign government agent influencing America's corporate elites.
Third parties can't do anything because iPhones accept software only if signed by Apple. So Apple is the only one that can create a software that lower its protection level to allow for bruteforce.

And Apple can't decrypt the phone: it can remove the bruteforce counter and/or exponential delay, both of which are paramount parts of the security architecture that requires users to be able to unlock the phone using a 6-digit code (4-digits for non Touch ID phones like that in discussion), which in turn is an important UX compromise to allow to reach the goal of having 90% of 1B iOS devices with passcode lock activated.

Allowing for a remote bruteforce is basically undermining the whole security architecture.

To make a phone that is not bruteforcable, you need to give up on the 6-digit concept, which is already an option (I turned it on on my phone) but it's strongly unlikely to gain widespread acceptance
not to mention silencing any mention of it
If I understand you correctly, you think the FBI deliberately got the phone in a worse state, so there was a necessity to get new firmware?
"It was never recommended to decompose a system into microservices while it is not mature enough. While small, a business has to be flexible and react quickly to the opportunities in the market. This is not an ideal environment for building microservices, and more benefits can be achieved by having a monolith instead. PHP with its ecosystem perfectly fits into this strategy."
Thanks for the clarification. It's true; if any message can be silenced and any thought wiped out at will before it's even developed, then its hard for even the realization that you're being controlled to spread, let alone any plan to fight against the control.
^ nominated for most confusing comment.
Look for an onsite job with a .gov.

In some cities and states, they have the ability to hire disabled people without impact to their staffing/fill level. In New York, it's part of civil service law section 55b
The draft is authorized by express constitutional provisions regarding the militia and powers related thereto assigned to Congress (for providing rules for calling them into service) and the President (for directing them once so called) and implemented through statutes adopted by Congress.

Unless you imagine that the All Writs Act is intended to be an exercise of Congress powers relating to the militia, that's not really going to support this order.
For known cameras like iPhone, that shouldn't hurt since you can read the exposure time out of the EXIF.
Not to mention that decompilers exist, and if you're going to go to the extent of desoldering a chip...
>They can charge a reasonable fee to do so, but they can't refuse to unless it would severely impact them (and the definition of severely is up to the judge).

What is a reasonable fee? Tim Cook reportedly spent months trying to convince Chinese officials to sell the iPhone in China.

If China were to then ban iPhones on the premise that they don't the FBI to seize the data on iPhones belonging to Chinese nationals (remember, warrants only really apply to US citizens), could Apple then charge for the loss of the Chinese market (~$13B/quarter?). Should tax payer money be used to secure the investments of Apple's shareholders who banked on the fact that proper encryption would give Apple an appropriate foothold in China?
"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." - Lenin

Can't say I agree with him on much, but he had a point with that quote.
The article addresses this quite well...

"In the face of multinational, highly profitable corporations citing mere copyright when human rights (“Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.”) are at stake, civil disobedience of the kind Sci-Hub is a great example of, becomes a societal imperative."
i think scihub uses various proxies in multiple universities to fetch the articles.
If my cup hadn't been empty, you would owe me a new keyboard.

What? You were serious? Um, no. Just no. Your way is not easier to read - at least, not for (I would guess) 95% of programmers, and 99% of humans.
Instead of using the search box at the bottom of the page, I find it more useful to go directly to hn.algolia.com. There, you can control more of the search parameters. In particular, if you want to search if a story has been submitted recently, you can use the "search by date" option rather than the default "search by popularity".
>> It's unclear if you're trolling, but assuming you're not, the analogy doesn't work because digital things and physical things behave in fundamentally different ways.

I'm not sure I fully agree that things are different because it's physical over digital.

Lets say that the way a safe manufacturer could circumvent the lock on the safe is to build a custom tool that can rapidly try every combination much faster than any currently known method. Such a tool could be reverse engineered (i.e. copied) after returning it.

I agree that copying software is far easier than hardware, but it's the design of the tool that's important, not it's physical representation.

The only way I would agree with the FBI's "just this one iPhone" statement is if they got Apple to crack it and they just returned the data but not the method. Which of course they wont do.
Berkeley Robot Learning Lab Releases Guided Policy Search Implementation
AngelPad site hacked. 3k startup funding applications were submitted.
Pirating a movie will probably not save someone's life, however access to knowledge by the right scientist can do that.

Do not conflate that with the more general piracy issue. The way these journals work is basically coercion: scientists are kept in a loop where they have to publish in the traditional journals because that's what gets the funding, and the funding sources use the same system because they (haven't bothered to create another|are afraid to|are lazy). To top it all, university libraries are forced to pay exorbitant annual fees to access the articles that their own staff wrote, corrected and reviewed for free (they even do the pictures for them). And all this is running on taxpayer money, yet the journals don't report to anyone. It's a mad system if you think about it.
Apple can decrypt the phone -- once they remove the bruteforce protections, it would be trivial for them to bruteforce the typical small phone unlock keyspace.

The FBI hasn't asked for this since they can trivially do it themselves, but Apple could certainly do it if they wanted to.

And if they are forced into creating this hack, then the next request will be to force them to decrypt the phone too since once manufacturers can be coerced into doing anything that the government demands in a warrant, what restriction would prevent the government from asking for full decryption?

Bruteforce protection doesn't mean giving up on a 6 digit passcode, it means making the hardware security module completely hardware only with no way to alter software (or at least unalterable without the unlock code), and with too many brute force tries, the hardware wipes it's copy of the key, which is essentially the same as wiping the disk, but it can't be intercepted by an IOS software change. For added security, it could have a timer so if the phone is not unlocked in X number of days, it wipes its key so if someone steals your phone, it's completely unrecoverable after X days.
Will Verizon stick with FIOS?

Verizon installs FIOS (fiber to the house) and rips out your copper network. ATT runs fiber to the pole and leaves your copper network.

If ATT can't make it with the copper as the last step, I wonder if Verizon will continue to invest in fiber?
Junk pages with no useful content do not tend to survive, hence that is not a valid comparison. Just as you "install and use repeatedly" apps that are useful, you only revisit pages that are useful.

So, the relevant analogy is between a page of some value and an app of some value. If ads weren't a problem on pages that fit this description, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Annoyance is annoyance in any context, even if it stops short of outright malice.
Security is a huge for advancement and social progress as well as business secrecy for innovation and market timing.

This hits the broad political spectrum and I can't believe our War on Terror has led us here. We now (legally somehow?) have internal systems that attack our own freedoms much greater than any terror attack could, it is the legislation after the fact that has taken our freedoms.

We are here now, where a company has to go public to get back to the old real freedom ways of the Fourth Amendment, to be secure in your papers (data). That was written for a reason at a time when people might try to take advantage of powers to protect people. This is a frontline battle.

Thank you Apple, the new killer feature is security...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Microsoft = NSA so this is no suprise.
>The "breakthrough" AI of today is deep learning on massive amounts on data applied to two areas - speech/NLP and vision.

What of IBM's Watson? It's one of the premier AI projects in the world, its specialty is neither of those two areas, and it utilizes deep learning on massive amounts of data.

>How this generalizes to a super intelligence that can take over the planet is so strange.

No one's really saying it does, just that recent progress in AI has accelerated such that it seems probable that even more progress is imminent.

>The correct response is to say that you don't know anything about AI.

I really tire of this constant appeal to authority, it's arrogant at best. By that same logic, Nick Bostrom shouldn't have even written his latest book due to a lack of technical knowledge.
It's a disaster, and an absolute stain on HN, that your sensible comments are getting downvoted.

I am a huge advocate for privacy, and I understand the technical details, but like you, I can't see what magically protects iPhones from search warrants.

I _love_ that Apple have made it so hard for unauthorized access to my device, but I cannot understand on what basis they're making the current stand, given that the FBI are asking specifically for a modification that will let them attempt to brute-force the device, rather than anything more magical.
The Next Step in iPhone Impregnability
It's a regional thing. Amazon.com usest "laptop", Amazon.de uses notebook.
Hacker news is filled with libertarian/hyper capitalist/anti-global warming types. It comes with the tech head territory, tragically many gifted at tech are shit at reasoning in other areas and are prone to bad politics and conspiracy theories.
Yes. But it wouldn't have been in the public sphere. It would have happened behind closed doors like what happened to Yahoo in 2008 (which we didn't find out about until 2014). And in the secret court, my guess is Apple loses. Law enforcement would get what it wants because privacy advocates only seem to exist in the public.

Although many are saying this will be decided in court, the public opinion matters a lot here. We sway action in government through our votes. Thankfully this time we have a say in the matter.
Exactly its the ios is unique to the phone in question
>all the money goes to a couple of rich corporations, who will use the money to further impede scientific progress

More problematic , the three major publishers are in UK, netherlands and US, which means the rest of the world's scientists donate their science to make these publishers richer.
I find it strange no-one is talking about https://spideroak.com/solutions/encryptr
Thank you, the bit I didn't appreciate was the signing of Apple's software to do this. So yes, only Apple can (but wont) do this, thus making it secure provided Apple don't or aren't forced to change their mind.