skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In that case, perhaps the balance we need to strike is rhetorical, not technical.

I think some people in the tech world are 4th-amendment absolutists. That's not a new thing; in Cryptonomnicon there was the electromagnetic doorframe so strong that it would wipe drives passing through it. I don't know that it's a position I hold myself, but it's one I definitely respect.

But we have a multi-century history of the government being able to read people's documents once they have a warrant. A lot of crime-fighting makes use of this. Whatever the intricacies of the technology, there's a status quo that I think we should at least acknowledge.

So I think the rhetorical balance we need to strike as an industry is along the lines of, "Yes, we totally get why you would want to get into that terrorist's phone. We wish we could find a way to give you access to just that without compromising everything. But it's not like a wall we can put a special door in. It's like a balloon. The moment it loses integrity, it's worthless. We want to help you, but we can't."

When the message instead comes across as absolutist, I think we're in danger of losing public support. Without that, we'll have a very hard time resisting government demands for access.
I'm in Vietnam and unblock-us has been flawless through this whole thing. Except for PayPal cancelling their account.
The difference is that by using Gmail you agree with Google's terms of service, which state somewhere in them that they can target ads at you.

With a government-held master key, there is no such contract.
The fundamental issue is that any back door accessible to "the good guys" will also be accessible to sufficiently-technically-advanced "bad guys". And from the perspective of securing the United States' defense infrastructure, major corporations, etc., there are multiple sufficiently-technically-advanced "bad guys" in the world already (i.e., certain major foreign governments and their intelligence/defense complexes).

So if you're doing US national security, you cannot accept the Obama position; any technology to which our "good guy" law enforcement could get access is guaranteed to also be a technology to which a "bad guy" foreign enemy combatant could similarly gain access.

If you're a major US corporation, you cannot accept the Obama position; any technology to which our "good guy" law enforcement could get access is guaranteed to also be a technology to which a "bad guy" foreign intelligence/espionage agent could similarly gain access.

So as far as that is concerned, it is binary. You can either be secure against foreign threats, in which case you are also as a side effect impenetrable to the local "good guys". Or you can be penetrable by the local "good guys" and also as a side effect penetrable by the foreign "bad guys".

The argument advanced against Obama's position is that A) it fundamentally fails to acknowledge this reality, and B) seems to argue for deliberately compromising national security in order to... preserve national security? In other words, it is not only unrealistic, it is in fact nonsensical and self-contradictory.
OLE NÜÜD KIIRE, SEST MARIA ANNAB MÄNGIJATELE ENAM KUI 70 000 TASUTA SPINNI
I'm from the US, I've paid for US Netflix for at least 6-7 years, but now I live in the Netherlands. I'm forced to use Dutch Netflix, where my US subscription isn't, for example, paying for those who write the Dutch subtitles.
I don't think it's easy no matter what you do. That was always the case, though. There must be thousands of serious musicians for every one that makes it.
BM25 has been available for Lucene since version 4 thanks to a refactoring that allowed anyone to plug in a custom relevance score if I remember correctly . The big news is that starting version 6, BM25 is the default.
Yes! Look at the region south of A57 in Manchester, UK (Hulme and the University for example). There are like 1-2 hotels in pretty big regions vs dozens north of A57.
Currently taking CS 103 (Mathematical Foundations of Computing) under Keith at Stanford. Truly one of the best taught classes I've ever taken - the man has a love for teaching Computer Science that really makes all the difference.
He wrote tinycc, qemu, a new image compression, AND he can write? Who is this man?
See also README.me: https://github.com/alehander42/pseudo/tree/master/examples/f...

> Pseudo AST

> Generated from original.py using pseudo-python
Nobody buys OS X upgrades anymore. The last few have been free.
There's a whole body of research out there, but I just scratched the surface of it. Here's the first result that's coming up from a random Google search. https://psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.exp.perf.html The references should be worth exploring, and I bet there's more recent research that expands on it as well. Here's a quote from the paper:

> In a recent review, Ericsson and Lehmann (1996) found that (1) measures of general basic capacities do not predict success in a domain, (2) the superior performance of experts is often very domain specific and transfer outside their narrow area of expertise is surprisingly limited and (3) systematic differences between experts and less proficient individuals nearly always reflect attributes acquired by the experts during their lengthy training.

I will say this for Chess or Go grandmasters: They have drive and dedication (and in some cases, compulsiveness). That alone would probably allow them to do better than the average person in another field if they had pursued that field from the get-go. Also, I'd caution you against relying on hand-picked anecdotes; I could just as easily pick out a bunch of Chess players who weren't good for anything else. You'd need broad-based statistics.
I disagree - digital surveillance state will be gone within a decade, or twenty years at most. Already we see programs like Telegram becoming very popular (100 million users) where the opportunity for surveillance is massively reduced. Platforms are going to slowly transition towards encrypted content and data that not even service providers can decrypt (SpiderOak is a good example).

The biggest holdout will be operating systems - Google and Microsoft very much do not want to lose their backdoors (or front doors) into everyone's data. But within ten years, we will finally have a "year of Linux on desktops" in which both grandma and the young university student can both buy an Ubuntu computer and have it work how they need it to. And phones will run an OS that can't be maliciously updated remotely, and doesn't leak user data to apps and OS providers.

The final step will be near anonymous internet usage, which we are currently in the infancy of. There will be a shift to a more decentralized availability (but not necessarily storage) of data in most of the applications we use most often. Essentially Freenet, but without all the usability problems. The Facebook of the future will have open source (and encrypted) data where your info is only viewable to you and your friends. There are currently platforms that exist like this, but they are mostly in "testing" stages and are not ready for widespread use.
I'm not trying to downplay how much the hacker/geek in me loves this, however, as a former* dental student, I would highly suggest not trying to pull this off on your own.

First, teeth and their movement is more complicated than it might first seem. You have to think about the entire masticatory apparatus, for example:

• There's more root than crown, how does the root move in relation to the tooth? Root resorption is a common problem in orthodontic treatment.

• Is there / will there be enough bone surrounding the tooth to support the intended movement?

• How will the patient's occlusion (how the teeth fit together) be affected? Part of the Invisalign process is to take a bite registration that shows the upper and lower teeth in relation to each other. This is important, and ignoring it can potentially lead to other complications:

- stress fractures

- supraeruption of opposite tooth

- TMJ pain

• Does the patient display any parafunctional habits that will affect the new tooth positions? For example, do they grind, clench, or have abnormal chewing patterns?

• Many Invisalign techniques require the placement of anchors, holds, and various other structures attached to the teeth themselves. They allow for more complex movement than the insert itself would be able to provide.

• Adjustments are often required mid-treatment. Not everybody’s anatomy and biology is exactly the same, so you have to adjust accordingly.

Now, does every general dentist take this into account 100% of the time? No, but they’re at least trained to recognize these situations and compensate for them.

That said, many simple patients don’t require any more thought than the OP put in. It’s a good thing he looked in a text book and realized that there’s a limit to how much you should try to move a tooth at each step before you’re likely to run into problems. And if you do run into problems — do you think a professional is going to come anywhere near your case?

A few issues I have with his technique:

• Unless he poured his stone model immediately after taking the impression, it’s likely there was a decent loss in accuracy. Alginate is very dimensionally precise, but only for about 30 minutes. The material that most dentists use, PVS, is dimensionally stable for much, much longer (not to mention digital “impressions”).

• Vertical resolution of the 3D print does matter. You might be moving teeth in only two dimensions, you’re applying it over three dimensions.

Again, I think it is awesome that someone gave this a shot, and did a fairly good job as well. I’m all for driving the cost of these types of treatments down, as well as promoting a more hacky/open approach to various treatments. Just know there’s more than meets the eye.

* I decided to go back to tech, there’s too little collaboration in dentistry for me to make a career out of it.
I think that's fun to say but isn't really. The reason people don't drop everything and travel is not because they really don't want to, they have other fears and obligations. Perhaps some of those fears are not as justified as the person thinks and perhaps the barriers are more illusory than the person thinks but I don't think it is that really just prefer working for "The Man."

There is a danger to armchair psychological terms but it is extraordinarily fun to use them. :)
GIRL MEETS MONEY – VENTURE CAPITAL EDITION
XKCD did a comic about this phenomenon a few years ago. The story is set in the far future when the Med has dried up again, and the next flood that refills it is imminent.
http://blog.xkcd.com/2013/07/29/1190-time/
Show HN: Monokai Theme for OS X Terminal and Fish Shell
I was very lucky to attend one of Putnam's seminars at Uni abot logic and necessity. His in depth understanding of mathematics, physics, biology and many other sciences made him an almost ideal critic. I was impressed by how, when challenged, he was always able to restate his arguments based on stronger, more fundamental assumption. Putnam is a pleasure to read (which is not always the case when it comes to philosophers) and addresses many of the topics that occasionally come up on hacker news. Can't recommend him enough.
Coq can be translated to Ocaml and Haskell: https://coq.inria.fr/faq#htoc181

Ocaml can be translated back to Coq: https://github.com/clarus/coq-of-ocaml
i agree on the last point (all 3 more interesting, and i agree with including the 'even'). like i said above though, it's hard to deny that his discussion of contingent a priori as such speaks to kant more directly and strongly than, yeah, "two dogmas of empiricism" (i wasn't impressed either).

to put it another way, i think it would be hard to take many other philosophers as deeply entrenched in a particular set of concerns and assumptions (take, like, derrida or godel) and as effectively press the points of their major work against the work of kant or aristotle or some other towering "we all claim her/him!" figure. "naming and necessity" speaks to kant in terms that need to be answered, which is way more than most publish or perish philosophy professors ever achieve in their lifetime (much less right away, in a lecture presenting a semantics based on modal logic!).

but yeah, the point is well taken. kripke is worth reading once / reading about. putnam is worth reading a lot.
You seem to be attempting to paint everyone who disagrees with you as someone who stockpiles baked beans and ammo in a bunker. You also seem to have no concept of any middle ground between "absolute trust in the infallibility of government" and "radical anarchist".

Let's make this concrete, instead. Anyone can, today, using off-the-shelf software, store information such that only someone with a passphrase can access it, and such that all the computing power in the world would take centuries to access it without the passphrase.

In such a scenario, I don't expect anyone to "trust" anyone, or to need to. (Modulo the issue of trusting the software to be properly implemented, which is a separate discussion but has some plausible solutions.) Instead, I expect that the software in question will prevent unauthorized access, as it was designed to do.
There's a spectrum: tipsy, drunk, pissed, belligerent, shitfaced, and finally poisoned.

From pissed on you're probably going to get a hangover.
yeah but this new thing where anyone can donate to anyone is very new. A whole new take on the organ registry "industry" could make a big profit.
You are relying too much on the concept of a generalized mental capacity, which many researchers (maybe even most) would say does not exist. You seem to be assuming that grandmasters are just amazingly smart and they happen to apply those smarts to one particular skill, but what's closer to the truth is that they happen to be particularly amazing at that one skill, in a way that doesn't really correlate strongly with having amazingly high skill in other areas.
This is akin to the politicians that don't want to believe the science around global warming. They believe that if they just deny it, they will turn out to be correct. Obama is doing the same with "golden key" encryption. It is not that the experts are correct and know what they are talking about, it is just that they are disengaged and being stubborn.

"I'm the President of the United States of America and if I say that there must be math that gives me what I want. If you don't invent it, you are disengaged."
How many memory does your computer have?

I run Gnome and Debian. I looked a bit at the System Monitor. All the standard unix tools (like cron...) are tiny. They only use few Kb. They big consumers are gui related and the heaviest is Firefox with 500 Mb. I have 4Gb of ram.
Chess isn't solved. It's just that computers have gotten sufficiently better at it than humans that humans don't have a chance.

If Chess were truly solved, then you wouldn't be able to make a new AI program that could do better than even odds against the existing ones. But that's not the case, and incremental advancements in Chess-playing programs are made all the time. There are even tournaments where Chess programs play each other. If Chess were solved, such a thing wouldn't make any sense, just like how there are no Tic-Tac-Toe tournaments because that game is solved.
All else being equal, you should consider stopping the madness, it will probably better for everyone long term than more and more years on the same path.
>They're giving you a correct answer

Is spaghetti code clean if it lints successfully?
isn't that implied nowadays?
I know the formatting system. My question is why the users are formatting their text (e.g. with 4 places leading each line) *suc that HN renders it as monospace, which then forces a sideways scroll on mobile and small screens. That seems to make it harder to read for some with no corresponding upside.
> So if your argument is strong encryption, no matter what, and we can and should, in fact, create black boxes, then that I think does not strike the kind of balance that we have lived with for 200, 300 years.

Mr. Obama, you are the one who upset the balance with secret, dragnet surveillance of nearly all communications. That's not the bargain the public has had with law enforcement for the last 300 years. Widespread, end-to-end encryption is simply the natural reaction to the arms race you started. We would have never come to this point if the government had kept surveillance within court-supervised bounds.
This is well known and, for the most part, internalized by the people. Governments, however, seem to believe the opposite: that the fundamental goodness of their pursuit of protecting the governed justifies almost all tactics.

This is short-sighted and blatantly wrong.
"In related news the entire town was listed on a single line as the 'd' appeared in column 72 which everyone knows is the "continuation" column on punched cards."
You found some books that don't age well, but what about the rest of the litterature?
That's really interesting to know. I didn't read those blog posts back in the day, so I never realized how much history has repeated itself. There's a lesson to be learned here.
I think people put too much importance on the role of the president with regards to domestic policy. You can't expect the president to effect change if congress opposes the president 100% of the time.

Electing Bernie won't make a huge difference if the republicans still control congress.
Maybe this will change your opinion. I recalling helping rescue a government software project that was horribly behind schedule. One of the many issues being an e-learning system for a state department of education. Their CMS (Blackboard) was fronted by a forward HTTP proxy/cache/load-balancer that was misbehaving but near-impossible to debug. Details a bit hazy now but I recall it being a hairball of poorly written java. I ripped that out and replaced it with Squid and some rewrite code.

HTTP intermediate services are easy to write, but operate in a hostile and chaotic environment; they are very very hard to make reliable, performant, interoperable, secure, forgiving, and compliant. To achieve that and still have elegant code is really something so yay Varnish.

I'm a bit of a fan of the Dovecot mail server source for similar reasons (but I'm biased, having made a small contribution and got into the authors file)
the stuff he calls the "frege-russel theory of names" is even more egregious than his take on wittgenstein.

to be fair, i don't believe his "take on wittgenstein" is exegetical anyway. he's putting forward his own (interesting!) plus/quus argument. kripkenstein is worth reading in its own right; if you care enough to get wittgenstein right in the first place you shouldn't really be looking to kripke's writing to get there.

and of course, "the frege-russell picture of names" is just a straw man to propel his argument forward in N&N. he's really talking to/about searle there, and most people who are going to read N&N know that. but the stuff he says is still wildly inaccurate if you take it at face value.

(not that frege's views on sense and reference are all that clear in the first place, but they weren't the nonsense that frege (or searle!) attribute to him)
If the president can't speak for online privacy because it's not a part of his world, poor people in the US are just fucked.
I learned an enormous amount about how to ship code that works on multiple platforms back in the 90s just by reading the GNU Emacs and XEmacs source code. I really owe a lot to that source code being available.
This has been the default position of US government across administrations at least since the 1976 Arms Export Control Act. Nothing has changed except that "the terrorists" have replaced "the communists".

It doesn't matter who says it.
As much as this looks like a result of Netflix attempting to cover their asses with content licensing, the story going around is that this is actually a result of Netflix's freedom and responsibility doctrine. Apparently some asshole engineer internally said he'd be willing to build a proxy blocker, but only if he could do it right.
wow, that's the best writing on this whole thing I've read. well done. I tweeted it https://twitter.com/andrewarrow/status/709158302127509504
>"We do not envisage a waterfall, as is often represented: instead the geophysical data suggests a huge ramp, several kilometres wide, descending from the Atlantic to the dry Mediterranean...," the scientists said.

Can anyone help me get a mental image of this?
If Sander's doesn't reneg on his promises he'll be a one-term president (which of course assumes he gets elected which would never happen). I mean, think of how much people hate Carter.
An unique growth hacking story
That's a really good point, it's like provoking someone until they scream at you and then accusing them of being unreasonable.
The use of the gplv3 allows gnueral to have, as a dependency, any of the apache or permissive licensed tools like TF, torch, etc, and then through those tools 'export' their dependence on non-free components from nvidia and others.

I don't think this is wrong, per se, but it is ...funny when the fsf portrays their work as morally superior to us horrible corporate permissive license lovers, while inexorably depending on non-free components.

In an ideal world this project will be popular and will lead to someone on gnueral writing nvidia compatible drivers that will allow them to reject nvidia's, but I'm not optimistic. Not because of some incompetency on the Gnueral team, but nvidia's long history of making life very difficult for open driver writers.
I cannot fathom end to end encryption ever being made illegal. I tremendously doubt this will ever happen in any effective manner. At worst, they will pass from vaguely worded bill that makes it illegal in the sense that you are required to decrypt data on demand for any government agency. But since we are already seeing the trend of service providers being unable to decrypt user data, I doubt that will be much of an issue either.

We will probably start seeing a lot more people getting locked up for decades for "contempt of court" by refusing or being unable to decrypt their personal data for a judge. Current record for contempt is 14 years - with no conviction and no jury.
Didn't say it was good luck.

;)
Do you know of anything besides Microsoft's GUI tool that lets someone simply specify the various attributes of the network they want, and it simply creates it, ready to be trained and tested and consuming data?
I remenber a video posted here showing experiments without traditional memory alignment (none instead of 4 ou 8). The code is faster and use less memory as long as the data can fit in the processor cache. It was on Intel CPU.
This article fails to admit the possibility of mistaken non-diagnosis caused by the same phenomenon. It would be interesting to see the relationship between being old for grade and late (eg adult) diagnosis of ADHD.
Multipath TCP exists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multipath_TCP

but that requires the cooperation of Netflix, naturally.
Cool! I was looking for a decent free CAD program. Will check it out.
My expectations are not unrealistic. I don't even care if someone who can achieve a task in 20% of his time is paid for 100% of his time. The task was completed, that's all I care about. That, and that the person is happy and s/he has done the task the best possible way. This is not a scheme to get more out of people - its an idea to get exactly what is really needed and at the best quality. This at least is how I work and I don't think I'm alone. I'm aware this has been done before though the examples of 37 signals and automatic are the only ones. I would have hoped the idea of a company where the needs of the company and the needs of its employees are of the same value, is not so rare that only those two companies come up...
I'm aware but I don't need real time messaging for secure communication. It is really limited to things like security flaws, financial information, and things of that nature.