skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Ask HN: Experiences using Firefox Hello?
Hi HN,

Due to Skype issues, I'm interested in using Firefox Hello [1] or any other good voice + chat tool. Saw it mentioned in the recent thread about Skype on Linux here. Would like to know what your experience with it (or any similar tool) has been, in terms of pros and cons. Please mention the OS too - Windows / Linux / Mac OS X / other. Thanks to all who reply.

[1] If Firefox Hello is still available.
We are moving into a direction of nearly full automation.
Most of us in this community can probably envision a world were robots do all the "blue color" work and lower "white color work" and soon even more with the progress we make in AI (Deep Blue as the most prominent example)

Over the next decades we will lose millions of jobs and need an highly educated workforce for the fewer jobs remaining. But for some people the saying "you cant teach an old dog new tricks" will come true and this part of society needs a way to live in dignity. Talking for example about Truck/Taxi Driver / Assembly Workers / Mailmen you name it.

We as a society have a choice to make and i hope it wont be one you can see in several Dystopien movies.

We have seen communism and it did not work now we are on the full side of the other spectrum of capitalism and it does not work as well (Income inequality).
Unconditional basic income could be one solution of many.
Exactly!

Start from a capitalist principle: if there's an excess of unextraordinary labor and a shortfall of jobs which will trade that for food/shelter/goods/etc, how would one take advantage of and simultaneously alleviate the supply/demand imbalance? By vertically integrating -- directly turning unextraordinary labor into food/shelter/goods/etc. This has been tried, they're called "communes," which is funny, because we started with a capitalist principle and wound up at a communist principle (people owning the means of production) while the popular dogma is that they're incompatible opposites.

In any case, communes have a bad rap for a good reason. They're hard. Economies of specialization and economies of scale are very real, and historically communes have had a tough time competing with the "job+apartment+supermarket" combination. I'm pretty sure that won't be the case forever: the "extremistan" economy is leaving more and more people behind while technology of every variety is advancing and (presumably) making extreme vertical integration more and more feasible. There has to be a crossing point.

The real question is "when?" It won't be obvious -- even once we have passed the tipping point, there will be a huge amount of friction. Putting together a decent commune that embraces modern modes of production will require significant risk and a huge chunk of capital (recouped with entry fees, presumably, since if it was able to more efficiently produce something already valued by the market why not just go into business doing that instead?).

But once the business model is proven, it ought to scale nicely. Communes compete with each other and with the traditional job+supermarket on social contract, each one providing a lower bound for the other. Which is important, because for all the blathering on about how traditional capital markets are based on consensual transactions, mutual benefit, and value creation, they seem to do a fantastic job of making life a living hell for a huge number of people by repeatedly un-fixing already fixed problems (like how to feed and shelter ourselves). And the world is certainly no stranger to communes gone awry. But maybe, just maybe, if they're in direct competition with one another we'll get to see them both on their best behavior.
Trolling and sock puppet accounts etc were already popular on Usenet in the mid 90s.

Someone who knows more history than I do can probably take them a lot further back to (e.g.) public pamphlet debates in the 17th century. I wouldn't be surprised if there were Roman and Greek equivalents.

Anonymous independent-action-under-a-common-pseudonym has a long history in politics. The Angry Brigade and King Mob are two recent pre-Internet examples - from the UK in the 60s/70s.

Historically, Internet trolling is a lot more civilised than some of the things that used to go in previous centuries. Trolls may be rude to you on Twitter, and they may even dox you and cyber-stalk you. But unpopular people don't often have to face a lynch mob or a riot outside their front door.
Windys+Bracelets+Independent+Dealer+Tuning+Element+Products
Overview direct from the article - "CacheBleed is a side-channel attack that exploits information leaks through cache-bank conflicts in Intel processors. By detecting cache-bank conflicts via minute timing variations, we are able to recover information about victim processes running on the same machine. Our attack is able to recover both 2048-bit and 4096-bit RSA secret keys from OpenSSL 1.0.2f running on Intel Sandy Bridge processors after observing only 16,000 secret-key operations (decryption, signatures). This is despite the fact that OpenSSL's RSA implementation was carefully designed to be constant time in order to protect against cache-based (and other) side-channel attacks.

While the possibility of an attack based on cache-bank conflicts has long been speculated, this is the first practical demonstration of such an attack."
I'm not sure what any of this means, but I have a feeling that Hacker News readers are not even close to the target market for this page.
Staying Afloat: The DROWN Attack and CloudFlare
I'll bite, do you have any sources? (no, Mercola doesn't apply).
TLDR: by default it compares the values of all template bindings before and after the VM turn using === like in Angular 1. But the change detector code is optimizable by the VM.

Unlike Angular 1 this is customizable.

OnPush is not only compare by reference, it also triggers change detection if events are emitted.
Unfortunately this implementation isn't accessible and doesn't work with screen readers.
That's a good idea! I'll have to talk to my grandfather about it.
So this is also available to free accounts? What's the difference between "private hooks" and access-controlled ones then, access to the code behind it?
Unfortunately, the more probable reaction will be "Why are you using the X device anyway, don't you know it's three years old already? Y has been on the market for months, just buy it and enjoy"
Remix OS for PC Beta now available
I'm intrigued by what other novels make your list of "top 3 meanest" or "top 3 least constructive". It's not really a metric I've applied to novels before, so I'm at a loss as to whether it's even a good or a bad thing.
Yes, but that happened over a long time. There was no single day where someone said "ok, you've all been automated, go somewhere else".

It's not a perfect example, I admit. Because not all farmers owned their land, and there were a lot of farm laborers that didn't own capital. But it's a much closer example to what I am talking about. As opposed to factory owners being automated, where none of the workers owns capital, and it's far more unequally distributed.
In parent's defense, I believe that needs are endless and there is always a tiny motion that can be rationalized away or a shiny item that can be obtained before the others get it (think iphone a decade back).

Unless we reach the singularity, there will always be the need for something.

And if you think of needs as something as abstract as "power over the universe" (which is still a limited resource, even after the singularity), you cannot ever reach the state where machines produce everything we need.

Hence, the premise can be unreachable, or - in parent's words - "ridiculous"
Someone who was actually involved in Fiorina's hiring is spilling the beans, including harsh assessments of the individual and strategic concerns of HP's board?

That must be a joke. If he really is who he is I can't see why any board should ever use his services again.

In HR you keep your mouth shut.
Ask HN: Any startup bootstrappers on here?
Hoping to connect with some fellow bootstrappers.
DROWN attack shows danger of supporting old SSL v2 protocol
What does the comment about stack unwinding refer to?

I've always found macros pretty horrid for debugging because you can't step through them properly. I just tried with gcc 6.0 and gdb 7.11 and it still seems to be unsupported, 20-odd years after the first time I rued the lack of this functionality. At this rate I strongly suspect this will never, ever work. (Another black mark against macros that expand to anything significant, in my view.)
Basically the poster suggests that because SongFlip was created by a former Google employee that it's getting special treatment.
>Is capitalism the sole driver for these two?

Trade (which is to say, markets) and globalisation are largely responsible for driving this. Capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) is currently the most successful model we have for facilitating these.
They're still available
The fact that governments rely on coercion to enact policies like Social Security is not controversial among political philosophers. It's widely accepted.

The controversy is regarding which cases, if any, governmental coercion is justified. There is a wide degree of disagreement here, but even those who believe coercion is justified still admit that it's coercion.
So, disable SSLv2. That is not new information. I like how the FAQ insists you are still at risk if you've disabled SSLv2 because you still might be using it somewhere else!!! In other words, if you've not disabled SSLv2 everywhere, then there are still places where SSLv2 is enabled. Thank you.
so it's either full communist dictatorship or wild west capitalism ? I thought the cold war propaganda was over by now.
Well, a fair starting point would be a basic income. Capitalism can still do its thing, but all those people disrupted by the rise of the robots would still get to eat.

As of right now the pendulum is too far on the side of inequality, yet governments are unwilling or unable to correct. Probably a combination of both.
They will say, "They did not fail because of socialism." or "They were not true socialists."

Anarcho-Capitalist Hoppe explains this in the book "A theory of Socialism and Capitalism" (Bear in mind that he puts russian style socialism, social-democracy, conservatism and social engineering in "Socialism" category with varying degrees.):

"....Nonetheless, socialism is very much alive and well, even in the West where social-democratic socialism and conservatism have remained powerful ideologies. How could this come about? One important factor is that its adherents abandoned the original idea of socialism's economic superiority and instead, resorted to a completely different argument: that socialism might not be economically superior but is morally preferable. This claim will be considered later . But that is certainly not the end of the story. Socialism has even regained strength in the field of economics. This became possible because socialism combined its forces with the ideology of empiricism, which traditionally has been strong in the Anglo-Saxon world and which, in particular through the influence of the so-called Vienna-circle of positivist philosophers, became the dominant philosophy-epistemology-methodology of the twentieth century, not only in the field of the natural sciences but also in the social sciences and economics...."

"....No matter what the charges brought against socialism are, then, as long as they are based on empirical evidence the empiricist-socialist could argue that there is no way of knowing in advance what the results of a certain policy scheme will be without actually enacting it and letting experience speak for itself. And whatever the observable results are, the original socialist idea—the “hard-core” of one’s “research programme” as the neo-Popperian philosopher Lakatos would have called it —can always be rescued easily by pointing out some previously neglected, more or less plausible variable, whose noncontrol is hypothesized to be responsible for the negative result, with the newly revised hypothesis again needing to be tried out indefinitely, ad infinitum. Experience only tells us that a particular socialist policy scheme did not reach the goal of producing more wealth; but it can never tell us if a slightly different one will produce any different results, or if it is possible to reach the goal of improving the production of wealth by any socialist policy at all."
It's usually common in low voltage, low current devices. I have a massive inverter charger on our boat that has in giant letters "NO REVERSE POLARITY PROTECTION". It typically handles up to 200amps at 12V.
Be wary of reading this as "if endowments fired their managers and invested in Vamguard funds, they'd on average boost their returns". Perhaps true of the smaller, consistently-underperforming ones. But at the endowment side, a lot of planning goes into avoiding your size being felt by the markets.
Host your own Cryptonomicon's tombstone on a Raspberry PI
> There will always be human desires that cannot be satiated by machines

Not necessarily - and even so, the work left to be done by humans might only cover a small % of the population.
The more responsive and thoughtful of the two, it appears.
Show HN: MuscleWiki – A fitness website using gifs
I think it's same line of thought that someone would hoard all computers and be in a monopoly position. Super-efficient robotics (without the Hawking's 'monopoly fallacy') does one thing in long-term: lowers the price of work to the price of needed energy (+ some investment interest). Everyone can collect a bit of solar energy, and well, robots also won't be expensive at all (so there's not much interest on top of the price of energy). We'll be fine.

Actually, what happens, is that everything will be so cheap there wouldn't be any point of being a 'rich person', or hoard anything at all, because of abundancy. End of capitalism.

edit: There will be ads. Somewhere.
Even if that's true, it doesn't say anything about ratios. Say 90% of our needs are met by machines, 10% is not, we still have a huge problem in terms of labor/capital value mismatch.
Today I launched MuscleWiki. The goal of this website is to make a easy to use, to the point, exercise guide. Version one enables people to click a body part and then get quick loading, high res gifs. No 10 minutes intro explaining, no super low resolution.

I plan on expanding this into male/female/home/gym/kettlebells/etc options that users can check. I also plan on opening the site up to the community to develop trusted sources of information.

I also want to add tools (things like macro calculators and one rep max estimate)

I am not a programmer. I have done this to the best of my ability working in an ops background. It leveraged mediawiki, bootstrap and had my friend draw the graphics to get where I am today.
The Problem with Startup Postmortems
I always assumed Dan Brown was ripping off Foucalt's Pendulum. Since Eco's book was published in 1988, and Dan Brown's first book in 1998 it's definately not a pastiche of him directly.
The author argues that some code should be protected by the first amendment whereas other code should not.

He argues that computer viruses should not be protected. His thesis is, "if we were to accept the fantasy that Code = Speech, we would be putting our ability to regulate our fast-changing digital society in peril". I could not disagree more.

The author is correct to point out there are limits to free speech. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater unless you really believe there is a fire. But the author is incorrect in drawing the conclusion that writing viruses should always be punishable.

Just like we should be allowed to run fire drills in our own homes, so too should security researchers be allowed to attempt breaking into their own computer systems without fear of being jailed. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act already covers malicious actors and targets those who knowingly transmit malicious code [1].

The author suggests that since money being declared speech has turned out to be troublesome, saying code equals free speech would also cause problems. This is misleading. There is a big difference between money and code, and many similarities between code and text or speech. People cannot generate money as freely or easily as they can generate text, speech, or code. Money is in limited supply, whereas speech / text / code are unlimited.

The author's paragraph about the "narrow way in which the order sought by the FBI could be seen as a violation of the First Amendment" is exactly the manner in which Apple is describing a violation of their rights through digitally signing the codebase. Yet, the author presents it as if it is his own insight and claims Apple is not clear enough in its brief. Perhaps Apple could be more descriptive, though I disagree that it is a "narrow" argument.

The fact is, existing law already regulates malicious actions when dangerous code is distributed, so the author's concern about viruses is easily dispelled. The first amendment isn't a protection you apply for certain speech but not others. The act of speaking is only regulated where it can objectively cause harm, such as yelling fire in a theater or maliciously distributing a virus, and that is the only regulation needed.

[1] https://www.library.gatech.edu/security/virus.htm
I guess that depends how we define failure. Some might say 14.8% poverty in a western country would be a failure.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...
The worst thing is that AFAIK, you can't view Blogger articles with javascript disabled.
Thank you. Doom and apathy are co-conspirators.
5 Web Design Trends You Will Continue to See in 2016
Sorry! I need a more pseudonymous HN account.
Collapsible threads should be a part of the site by now. I have a Chrome extension installed that adds this feature but it's kinda wonky sometimes.
This would be more interesting if he had proposed the portfolio 10 years ago, rather than to do so in retrospect.
Better explanation: http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2016/03/attack-of-we...
Are you ready to FACE you?
You're confusing "more consumption" and "organised work that produces profit for shareholders" with "higher living standards."

If your definition of living standards is broader and includes overall welfare and social mobility, the point becomes debatable.

As for a Malthusian crash - denying the fact that ecosystems have a carrying capacity is irrational and counterfactual.

Logistic collapse has been observed time and again in natural populations. It's also been observed in human populations.

See e.g. among many possible examples:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3925430/

So it's factually wrong to claim that disasters have never happened for environmental reasons - because they certainly have happened in the past.

Being unaware that something has happened isn't a justification for claiming that it can't be possible.
>By their standards, we've got machines producing everything we need.

Except we don't live by their standards -- we live by our standards. And even if they had lived to see today, their standards would have immediately readjusted to want more. That's why it's ridiculous to assume we will ever have "everything we need".
You can obviate almost all the issues by running docker with --drop-cap all to drop all capabilities. You still share the uid, but with the default seccomp policy blocking ptrace as well it is pretty secure. Obviously running as a user as well is better.
That only beats half of the endowments, I'd be more impressed if it be something like 75% to indicate it was truly a top tier product instead of just better than average.
Launch of the Henley and Partners Online Visa Restrictions Index 2016
Yep - currently bootstrapping spreadserve.com while contracting 5 days a week. It's tough...
This is only cleaner in your simple case. Make's power lies in dependency tracking and its declarative approach to defining those dependencies.

When you use make anyway, adding those targets there is the logical thing to do. One interface instead of two. It's even less lines of code than your proposed solution (which btw does not fail hard like make does, so a recipe for desaster).

Finally: Pretty please, sh, not bash. Almost none of the bash-scripts out there use actual bash-features and those that do can usually easily be rewritten to just rely on a plain posix shell.
That's kinda weird thing really. In science the probability for a given theory to be true is usually not very important. Usually you operate with the best guess that you have, or best guesses that you have. Until shit gets proven. You could argue that "probability" is name for this best guess, but scientific probability is mathematical term, that requires you are able to calculate some sort of numerical value for your probability. You usually can't do that to "most viable alternative". For science this is not a problem, because science only cares about "truth" and there are no time dead lines for finding it or necessary decisions that you have to make before 2030. Allocating probabilities would serve no purpose other than bias researchers.

In politics "probable" is fuzzier concept and often just a cop out. You can justify anything with that idea, but you have no responsibility afterwards (damn, we went to the 5% range after all, sorry!). And you don't need any kind of real sources, just authority or lack of imagination suits just fine.

When we wander into personal world views or some casual conversations, assigning probabilities become really good idea. But then it's often about who's authority you trust most, than what data you can actually consider.

And end of the day most people still gravitate towards either "extremely likely" or "incredibly unlikely" most of the time. You just use likelihood as a way to show that you actually considered that your statement might be false, but you don't actually consider it to be.

This psychological tendency for people to make up their minds, and then not change their minds is actually at the heart of the problem. These "critics" could not have mass following to their bullshit ideas without it. But currently lots of people fail to understand that just providing half decent criticism against an idea does not prove the opposing idea true. Because human beings are naturally bad at not making their minds.
There is a vast middle ground between tyrannical communism and libertarian capitalism, especially considering how similar those political systems are on many axes.

The fallacy that there is a 'center' is just as bad as the fallacy of there only being a left and a right. Politics and economics are far more complicated than a continuum represented by a one dimensional line.
Just released an iPhone app for travelers. Looking for feedback and advice
Having traveled with my older brother in Italy, I realized there is no good app for finding travelers who speak in your language. At Naples, nobody speaks English, almost.

So i decided to develop an app.

The app is now live at https://itunes.apple.com/app/flipthetrip-travel-chat-enjoy/id1049015937

Basically it is a simple app connects people who will be in the same place at the same time and speak in you language with the locals or other travelers.

We're in a public beta phase so we're looking for some feedback. Thanks in advance!

https://youtu.be/Z1TwIyJWbNo
I think the world is a disaster right now. Maybe not for Silicon Valley, but many people around the world are

* living under repressive and/or dangerous regimes
* lacking access to good nutrition & medical infrastructure
* living in over-populated, under-maintained cities
Remember that the flow of electricity is just electric potentials evening out.