skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Right. That's why no one seriously consider Javascript for any new project, and no one would propose the idea of using it on a server.

I am not saying that you are wrong in liking static typing, but arguing that dynamically typed languages are non-starters in this decade is a statement that is easily disproven by the existence of Javascript.
Nice work!

Kubernetes is a really neat and important piece of tech, but there's so much more tooling needed to make a team productive around it.

Thanks for building awesome tooling and making it open source!
Aren't Microsoft working with NSA? is this just a publicity stunt?
Because there's functional as in only using pure functions (Haskell, ocaml) and functional as in access to higher order functions (JavaScript, erlang, clojure)
The FBI intentions here are suspect. Anyone who believes it's just about this ONE terrorist case is a fool. The problem is that this criminal government considers us, everyday normal law abiding citizens, the enemy...and they want us to continue to blindly trust them? I was born at night...not last night.
NVidia doesn't ship GPL'd code, and GPL distros don't ship NVidia code. It's the user who downloads it and doesn't redistribute it.

This is entirely unlike VMWare, who really did make and ship their own butchered linux distro with big binary blobs planted right in the middle.
I know it's optional.

An extraneous social overlay simply isn't on my list of desirable properties for an auth system (aside from WoT type mechanisms, which is clearly not the sell here). I'm thinking SSL client certs, you're thinking Facebook Connect. Different strokes.

Anyway talking about your social login system is getting quite off topic.
That's not what the article is going for, and that's the common mistake I see in teams.

A thick skin is necessary, but the point of psychological safety is that it must be normal and expected for someone to make mistakes and to be wrong. It happens inevitably. How teams handle it is the important part. The most successful teams I've experienced are those where someone can say "yeah, I messed up, I'll fix it" and the team sees this as a necessary part of a team's long term function.

That means nobody on the team says "I told you so," and that team members can disagree intensely without making it personal or emotional.

The big problem with "without making it personal or emotional" is that the people most guilty of making disagreements personal or emotionally charged are also least likely (in my experience) to recognize that they're instigating. These people are toxic without realizing it themselves.
We just launched our website including an online store for selling software licenses. We are based in Austria. Our product is Coati, a source explorer for C/C++: https://www.coati.io/

After speaking to tax accountants and the finance office we decided to go for a reseller. The reseller does the invoicing for you. You just need to do the bookkeeping of the money you get from the reseller. We are using FastSpring. They do monthly subscriptions as well.
"Collegiate" safe spaces? Huh?

This makes me wonder if your only exposure to the concept is through the media, which tends to complain about students a lot.
>taxpayers should insist that government research publish results for free

Publishing in open journals costs significantly more (on the magnitude of thousands per paper) so this plan would likely require significant amounts of additional funding.
> trillions fighting wars, billions changing Airport security

That's only the means, not the goal, because...

> bewilderment

Spending massive amounts of money on wars makes a lot more sense once you realize that it's intended to channel money into their friends (and their jobs post-public service) in the military-industrial complex. Eisenhower warned[1] us, but the public didn't listen.

[1] his farewell address was amazingly prescient: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWiIYW_fBfY
C++11 had unique_ptr and shared_ptr, but C++14 helped with adding make_unique. In my opinion, that makes a big difference because now making a special unique pointer is an atomic operation in your program.
I absolutely agree that this makes Lisp/Scheme incredibly difficult for a newcomer -- on that note, could you recommend any resources for a beginner interested in learning Scheme? I've looked at Racket, and it seems to be the only newcomer-friendly "hub" out there, so to speak.
Running an operating profit does not mean you're recouping your original investment. Look at pages 23-24. It looks like wireline is pulling in ~2 billion a year in profit. But they've got almost $80 billion in assets.[1] That suggests that their ROIC is somewhere in the ballpark of 1-3% (in fact we know it's 1.6%). The minuscule profit is probably not even enough to cover interest on their debt much less make a significant dent in the tens of billions they spent building the network.

[1] This is not a proper ROIC calculation, but close enough.
We argue about the background color of a linked article with little resistance, so I think a post about general piracy within an article about academic piracy is relatively on-topic (but I know that is subjective).

I agree that the current journal/paper fee is crazy, but to say that piracy is the "obvious" answer is short-sighted, in my opinion. I very much enjoy the conversation though.

My experience with academia is very limited, but I happily used sci-hub & libgen when I was researching the Hierarchical Fair Service Curve paper.
By 2040, Everyone Will Own a Robot
I read it as pointing out that it's not up to Canonical to defacto re-license other people's work. Only the copyright holder can do that.
You been downvoted because you've said nothing on topic or substance and moved the conservation to a whole new pet political topic you seem to have. Nothing in the article talks about the environment

> the purpose of developing a more efficient engine is to reduce emission

Generally saving money is why.

And as hackers we love making things more efficient.

Plus as scientist we love new discoveries, cause who knows where they'll go. Why couldn't this work on a hydrogen or future engine X? Perhaps it won't but scientists discover cause we can.
Isn't there hundreds of services that do this?
That's exactly how copyright works. Without an assignment or contract, the author owns the copyright.
SparkPost just updated their pricing - now the free tier is 100k a month, and there are two other plans that are way simpler and more cost effective. Seems like they heard feedback about their pricing.
Intercom is hard to manage for sending product updates.
I don't like that i cannot see ToS or anything on the page. I would like to contact the founder - so what should i do to schedule a talk?
In part, this is due to Haskell et al. are statically typed, which provides a higher safety guarantee than dynamically typed languages like erlang.
> It's not their fault that people have a completely fucked up interpretation of "derivative work" that includes any combination of two completely separately developed works.

Indeed, "derivative work" is a well-understood term of art in Copyright law. So the courts will have to decide if that's truly what they will interpret, or will they take the redistribution & usage restrictions of the GPL as a separable matter.
Oh, I absolutely agree. This is somewhat closer to what I'm trying to invoke here, but it's slightly different, and requires a different approach to engage the average American citizen in the conversation.

I think getting people involved in understanding this aspect of the case is critically important, as this is the part of the case that would be precedent-setting and [I believe rightly] concerns Apple and others with the requisite technical background. The danger is this precedent could be extended in untold tangential ways outside the realm of preventing device-wiping after n failed password attempts.

The trouble here, to me, is a majority of the average citizen who wonders what the All Writs Act is aren't going to bother finding out. They'll just accept the government's position that it allows them to ask for what they're asking. A smaller minority of those same citizens might go look up the All Writs Act, are probably not going to understand what it means. "What's a writ?" Hmmm. "What's "an alternative writ or rule nisi"?" I don't even understand what this means, much less how it applies. Oh well." Average people aren't going to become armchair legal (or encryption) experts overnight to resolve in their head where they stand on this issue. Thus, they're probably going to choose the path of least mental resistance, which will look something like, "Well, it is a terrorist's phone ... and I'm not a terrorist, so this probably doesn't actually affect me in any way ..."

Anyway, I think you're definitely on the right track with this part of the order, and the specific law invoked. We just have to get that into simpler terms an average American can understand, minus the expert/legal/technical jargon, and then get them to understand the implications. Your questions and phrasing are pretty good starters, I think. I can imagine, with perhaps a wording change or two for personal taste, I could ask a non-lawyer, non-technologist that question and they'd react with something like, "Why the hell should the government be able to force me to create something that doesn't exist so they can conduct an investigation?"

And that's exactly where we want people to be on this part of the issue at hand.
There is likely an efficient (in the economic sense of the word) level of CO2 emissions, but I doubt that anyone knows what it is. It's very difficult to price. However, I do agree with you that it's probably not zero.

The good news is that we have a proven carbon capture technology. Grow new forests.
Obama Administration Set to Expand Sharing of Data That N.S.A. Intercepts
Correct. By "a valid token" I mean one that corresponds to the user session it was dispensed to.
1 point by wkimeria 6 hours ago

Kudos to him. The tendency of people to refuse to understand what "Black Lives Matter" means is infuriating. I love Arthur Chu's Tweet some time ago on this

https://twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/538015166634680320?...

'Do people who change #BlackLivesMatter to #AllLivesMatter run thru a cancer fundraiser going "THERE ARE OTHER DISEASES TOO"'
Early in my career, I emphatically asked my managers to work on most highly important yet most visibly failing products. They would look at me in shock. Why would I put my career at risk with such a thing? But, they would reluctantly agree. And, this may sound like masochism to some, but really I just liked a good puzzle and challenge, and I've always viewed work as a game.

So, over the next 10 years and many products, I'm extremely proud to say, none of those products ended up failing. And, most eventually exceeded expectations. Who knows, it could have been by chance. Or, maybe it was regression toward the mean. But, I like to think that my focus on the problem and my motivation helped solve it.

Over all of this, I was rarely directly credited, which is not surprising. Often I wasn't the 'manager' or even the 'technical lead'. I was just some relatively smart dude on the team, and I was in it for the thrill and enjoyment.

The key is to

1) be a good manipulator (or, more politically correctly, a good 'influencer')

2) clearly understand the strengths, personalities, motivations, and goals of each member of the team

3) view each person as a potential 'force multiplier' (to take another word from the military)

4) strategically coordinate the right activities between the right people at the right time

5) lead from the bottom, by example

6) be positive and optimistic

7) recognize potential conflict early and extinguish it subtly

If you have a really awesome manager, they can do this from the start. But, as many of us know, management (in the U.S., at least) is a status position, and it attracts those who like status or competition. I've only worked with one manager (out of dozens) who has been able to do this, well. It's a rare skill.
Who's not poor here? I have many material goods and earn a lot of money, but I have thousands of debt. I am poor by a lot of criteria. You're not, because you have everything you want by stealing it, you self-declared pirate.
> Because there's functional as in only using pure functions (Haskell, ocaml)

This is not true. Having written a good amount of OCaml I would argue that programming with side-effects in OCaml is extremely approachable - almost as much as Clojure. There are mutable data structures in the stdlib (Array, Hashtbl) and IO etc. is straightforward. Like Clojure, there exists a ref type which can be easily mutated. It's one of the reasons why OCaml strikes as an extremely pragmatic language to me.
Yes, Apple was or still is a part of PRISM. A lot of the big tech companies were.
Was planning to use the same dataset too in my Python module: https://github.com/scaleway/postal-address

And thanks @bojanz for asking Google about their data's license! :)

Haven't looked in details at your addressing PHP module or even Libpostal, but I feel like there should be some ways to deduplicate efforts and converge all datasets. Both for testing and i18n/l10n.

In the mean time, OpenCageData's address-formatting language-neutral YAML structure seems quite nice.
I believe that had been the case for some time, but it will no longer be true with the next Ubuntu release. (that is why everyone is particularly concerned about the issue right now)

If you look at the .diff.gz associated with Xenial's kernel, linked from http://packages.ubuntu.com/xenial/linux-image-4.4.0-7-generi... you will see that this diff adds spl/ and zfs/ directories to the linux source tree. I believe, but don't know for certain because the "[list of files]" links are all broken at the time I write this message, that zfs.ko is in the same binary .deb package as the GPL'd kernel.

That's not to say that mere aggregation is enough to trigger the portions of the GPL that also require a derived work in the copyright sense, but the Conservancy post we started with lays out in detail their view: A particular zfs.ko does nothing until it is linked with a matching version of the Linux kernel; the fact that the linking is dynamic and not static is irrelevant in their analysis.
> You mean the highest ranking official who agrees with us

Yup that's what I meant.

> Obama probably very much trusts the US justice system

Hmm, Obama certainly wants Apple to comply here. However, he has no power to sway the justices.

Obama didn't want to go to congress for a new law surrounding this issue, and seems to have directed Comey to use the AWA. Obama hasn't said why he didn't go to congress. It seems like he wants to set precedent while acting like it's only for this one phone. Pretty sneaky if that's the case.

Personally I trust our right to express our views both in speech and through our votes. I trust that elected officials can represent those of us who voted and wish to be represented. The problem is we have not yet elected enough people who understand computers. And, that's not entirely our fault. It's a new field and there are not many people with exposure to it who can represent our views.
We tweaked our pricing today so 100k free and fixed the confusing plans - check it out https://www.sparkpost.com/pricing
We have been doing transactional email for 15 years for the likes of Twitter, Pinterest, Zillow smaller developers and startups and are not going anywhere - we are very developer friendly. Also check out https://developers.sparkpost.com
I don't understand the confusion. It reads pretty straight-forward: They will lead with DirecTV, but if that's not going to work for the customer, they will then offer U-verse.
Although this reason sounds plausible, it is quite surprising since one of the first functional languages - Lisp was dynamically typed.
Define "normal." I have three LLCs (four if you count one in Japan for purposes of being able to pay myself on payroll now that Starfighter exists); that's probably on the high end among most of my peers. Most small software companies have a single entity and only choose to spin out when a new product becomes a truly independent operational unit, when it receives investment, or (for branding purposes) if it ends up eating the business that spawned it.

Reasons to segregate:

1) The single biggest one is that it firewalls the liability of the businesses from each other. Whether this is important or not for you depends on what the businesses are doing: if it's Regular Internet Stuff then your E&O policy is probably good enough in terms of risk mitigation, but if 1+ of your products are in highly regulated spaces (hello HIPAA, finance, etc) then putting them in their own LLC isn't a crazy solution.

2) If you're religious about doing not just the paper ownership but the business accounts separately for each business, that makes eventually selling or otherwise disposing of them much, much easier. Otherwise you're looking at weeks of work and/or very fun professional services bills when you decide to do the division later.

3) If you have co-founders or investors, or the prospect of getting co-founders or investors, separate legal entities are going to be pretty much required. You don't want them to accidentally get ownership of your side projects; they don't want to own your side projects (ownership is a risk; they know the risks they're signing up for and don't want additional sources of uncontrolled unknown risk).

4) A minor factor, but there is non-zero social friction involved in "We've been talking about my trading name of $FOO but remember that the invoice/contract/etc will be from $BAR, LLC."

Reasons to not segregate:

1) It's a lot of extra work.

2) There's a running cost to keeping an LLC open, both the yearly fees and the operational complexity of maintaining separate books, accounts at various providers, and (if you're doing things in a complicated fashion) keeping up appearances with regards to the LLCs being formally separate from each other.

As an ex-consultant with some accidental knowledge of the payments space: I would be doing double-plus firewalling between any payments startup and anything I'd lose sleep about losing, and I would be happily writing a sizable check right about now to a lawyer rather than taking HN's advice about my compliance obligations and potential sources of risk.
Good point. "terrorist" is almost always misused anyway, since no-one fears to be blown up tomorrow in the US. The only thing to fear is the power of the government, its officers and the low-level education of their thugs. The thugs with the law on their side are the ones who currently reign with terror, not like terrorists, but like Nazi law enforcement officers in 1936. Wow. I might have escalated quickly, but I'll leave it here to see what you people think.
I think that some of this reaction is just resistance to 'relearning' how to search. Whereas before you developed techniques to make your queries more 'computer like', now you can revert to something more like natural language.

It would still be nice to have an 'advanced' search mode that was more strict, allowed advanced features, and still took advantage of Google's talent and infrastructure.
I don't follow this. I understand the parent op say the ability to embed Serve as the front-end of the app. In this case, Apple is ok (the only limitation left is JIT).

I will love a way to have a fast html-rendered for app development, currently look like the only game is http://sciter.com
So why did they say explicitly it's "primarily due to the expansion of FiOS"? According to you expansions should actually drive profits down (since it requires more investment).
How Walt Disney Bounced Back After Losing Almost Everything
I can definitely subscribe to the idea that Lisp is fun. The application I have been writing (featureful chat application like Slack) has a server side completely written in Common Lisp by myself. Why do I work on it even though it's unlikely that it will ever draw anyone away from Slack?

Because it's fun.

Is it possible to do the same in another language? Sure, Slack is proof that it's possible. But would I have persisted in actually doing it without any hope of profit? No, because programming in other languages is a chore, and the only light at the end of that tunnel is the finished product.

With Lisp, the journey is a reward of its own.

Yes, I know the same thing has been said by Haskellers and others, but I doubt it was ever said by a C++ programmer.
What science says about outer beauty
What this kind of analysis, which is very common, misses is this: there's potentially two "works" that need talking about here, not just one.

One work is the module, considered in isolation. Is that a derivative of the kernel? Possibly, but that's a reasonably high bar to clear. If it's not, distributing the module by itself can be done entirely without reference to the Linux kernel's license.

The other potential work though is the module-and-Linux-kernel (and possibly many other bits too), delivered as one combined work. Is that a separate work as per copyright law? If so, is that work a derivative (of both the kernel and the module)? This is a much lower bar, and means that the combined work can only be distributed in accordance with the licenses of both the kernel and the module.
It was a beautiful app and I'm sad to see it go, good luck on your next big thing!
Malicious websites exploit Silverlight bug that can pwn Macs and Windows
I'm the author of this essay. This must be at least the third time that it has appeared on Hacker News. I'm starting to get sick of it, myself, but I keep it up because so many people like it (at the bottom of the page, you can see the translations; all done gratis by volunteers).

I wrote it during a period when I was especially fascinated with Lisp and got caught up in the theorizing to which the Lisp community can be prone. Nowadays, I freelance in front-end web development and doing Lisp hacking is something that I put on the back-burner.
leaving runtime asides, which do you enjoy more Ocaml or Clojure?
Multiple developers are common on (mobile) apps that require custom backends and larger projects that need to hit a tight timeline. All projects have more than one person on them and typically at least 3 (dev, pm, designer)
Sounds like 'all public Google+ photo albums'. (I say public because given what Facebook reports about daily photo uploads, a cumulative 126m seems like it would be way too small for G+ if it covered all Google Docs/Photos uploads including private ones.)
> For instance if you make an x86-64 assembler in Lisp, it will be just as restricted as any other assembler;

Check out Henry Baker's Comfy 65 Compiler[1] to see how far a little lisp changes an assembler language.

[1]: http://home.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/sigplannotices/sigcol04.pd...
> But the legally relevant technical question is not whether someone can track the packet from the source to the destination. It's whether the user's IP address has been revealed to the public. That's necessarily the case even when communicating over Tor; that's just how the Internet works.

But you're only getting there with some kind of unusual globally omniscient consolidated definition of "the user's IP address" where because one member of the public knows the user but not the IP address (exit node) and a different member of the public knows the IP address but not the user (entry node) then "the public" knows the user's IP address, even though under expected operation there is no member of the public that actually knows the user's IP address.

By this logic "the public" knows the identity of every pseudonymous author because some members of the public know the pseudonymous work and different members of the public know the author in person, even if not one member of the public actually knows who writes under that pseudonym.