skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Proponents of Ethereum ignore the fact that Ethereum fails to address any of the most significant problems in Bitcoin. Bitcoin's major advantage is decentralization, and it's about the only thing that Bitcoin does better than anything else. Bitcoin is an extremely expensive way to build a financial system, and there's no reason to go through the trouble unless you are utilizing the decentralization.

Bitcoin's major problems are scale, miner centralization, and developer centralization. Ethereum is worse than Bitcoin in all three respects. Transactions on Ethereum are heavier, develoepment is very heavily controlled by the Ethereum foundation and by Consensys, and the block algorithm in Ethereum more strongly favors larger miners as compared to Bitcoin (which already favors bigger miners).

Further, the Ethereum develoepment team is under qualified. There have been several ametuer mistakes, including allowing negative balance, leaking private keys, and putting consensus at risk by advocating that different users should be running different consensus codebases. Most of the highly capable developers in the cryptocurrency ecosystem avoid Ethereum because it's not been constructed well, nor does it's design suggest strong resistance to adversarial environments.

Bitcoin did go through similar growing pains. Bitcoin did have many ametuer mistakes when getting started. But those have all been fixed, and there is a positively enormous amount of competent mindshare powering Bitcoin, and the thoroughness of decentralization in Bitcoin is unmatched by any altcoin, including Ethereum.

Ethereum has offered a lot of cool tricks with its turing complete scripting language, but is standing on a house of cards. It scales less well than Bitcoin, it's design more heavily promotes centralization, it's development is more ametuer, and the potential applications offered by its fancy scripting language are not actually that much stronger than what you can do with Bitcoin. The showcase applications such as Augur and Slockit suffer from weak cryptographic fundamentals and under-qualified developers even worse than Ethereum does.
From the outside, that is what it seems like. To avoid accountability.

If, as the above poster said, it's a rule/law shouldn't they be disallowed from running for president? By breaking a law that is.

Edit: (can't reply to dogma thread too long?).

Damn. I can sort of understand why, but how isn't this sort of law breaking being pushed by everyone else running for president. I would be pointing it out!
Rules in blockchain-based software cannot change ex post facto. The only decision involved is the user's choice to use the application in the first place. These are user-controlled applications.

(I've tried explaining these as applications that no one controls, but that has a wild west connotation that isn't applicable.)
In this instance the person was never charged with a crime. What's the issue?
At the end of the day, as noted in the article, different data has to be presented in different ways, or actually the same set of data may be presented in different ways, it depends on what you want to focus on, what exactly is your subject of interest, et cetera. But, and that's my point, if the entity responsible is not interested in how to represent data or a certain conclusion one has made as clearly as possible to the public, but to sell newspapers and get clicks[1], then what do you expect?

So it is not my intention to disregard any form of presenting/visualizing data without a specific example or proper context.

[1] It is my personal belief that Social Media, Twitter, and the short attention span of the modern age all aided extremely in this. If you look at "sophisticated media outlets" at Facebook, they are playing the click-bait game nevertheless. How to be on Facebook or Twitter and not be a tabloid?
Why not science
Well, if you want to be technical it doesn't appear that she was told NOT to use her personal BlackBerry and email server in any official way. This article mentions a memo that said "Any unclassified Blackberry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving e-mails, and exploiting calendars." This isn't the same thing as an official policy.

I know this seems like nitpicking, but you said "She went against protocol because she wanted to and she could, and she should own the consequences". The fact is that she did not go against protocol. If the president or congress wanted to prohibit the use of certain communication devices, they would have. Just like if someone's supervisor didn't want them to use a blackberry, they wouldn't write a memo pointing out problems with the device. They would just say "Don't use a blackberry."

The issue is did she break any laws or policies regarding the handling of classified information. That's for the courts to decide. But if there was any evidence I'd imagine they would have brought an indictment by now.
Some claimed that low refresh rate on screen caused it to flash. But that wasn't true, as long as the screen had slow enough phosphor. With older CRT displays it was totally possible to read the text from the screen after three seconds of turning the display off or giving clear screen command. You could also play with magnets on the screen, not all screens got great degauss feature, so little magnet play was fun. It's also important to monitor that CRTs aren't equal. If you used regular 70s color TV it was very different from high end 21" Trinitron CRT used before flat panels became popular.
Here you can see one nice CRT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IweoaOb53XQ
One of the reasons why many computers didn't use 80 char line length was that TVs didn't produce sharp enough image and it was impossible to read 80 char lines. Of course it was also possible to modify displays to produce sharper image. With Spectravideo it was possible to use separate card to produce sharper image and 80 columns. http://www.samdal.com/SVIDOCS/STM-I_SVI806.pdf
Invest in Real Estate of Vietnam in 2016?
0984371212
From the article: "My favorite expression in C++ is [](){}();, which declares an empty lambda and immediately executes it."

Sigh.
I'm curious how you draw the line between what information is okay for them to have, vs what isn't? Why is it bad for them to have your DNA, but not bad for them to have your photo from your drivers license/passport? Is it possibly because you were born and raised in a society where one was common and the other was not?

And what does accountability have to do with this? Whether the government has accress to DNA markers is orthogonal to them being held accountable for their actions
Pakistan Taliban faction claims park attack on Lahore Christians
I don't see how this helps, unless the government is also listening/logging all communications on all phones. All of the proposed protections from terrorism that I read amount to total information awareness by the state -- essentially an unrecognizable civic regime.

And even then, how can it guarantee safety against a suicide pact? Total waste of time in my opinion.
When will Facebook have more dead than living users?
Anything you call in go can panic, what's the difference?
Move is a template level concept, not a language concept. The compiler has no idea that something was moved, rather than assigned. Some implementations null out the "moved from" reference, so that a use after move will dereference null and crash the program.

I've referred to the attempts to fix C++ ownership semantics with templates as "wallpapering over the mold".
> is there a reason

Yeah, basically that it's quite difficult to implement especially with C++'s baggage and undefined behaviour, from what I remember
There are no restrictions that prevent convicted felons from running to president.

A small pro tip if you can't reply, click reply to any comment and just edit the post id to the one of the comment you want to reply too in the URL.
My point is running all the nodes in the cloud means that the users of those nodes don't own them.

> the user's choice to use the application in the first place.

Right, but if none of the users can even run the so called "peer-to-peer" component, what's the difference between that and run-of-the-mill centralized DB software? Either way nobody but the chosen few can directly access the DB.
Doesn't matter why she did it, she broke at least one federal law by doing it.
Where do you live that spraying herbicide on someone else's garden isn't considered tresspassing and destroying private property?
Turing complete means "has loops and branches" it is a property of languages, not transaction protocols and data stores like Bitcoin.
You seem to have pretty reasonable and moderate opinions, which I respect. And yes, for the record I do currently own a decent number of Ether (because I believe in the project), and I still own a decent (but lesser amount) of Bitcoin (I certainly haven't given up on it completely).

The main point of my post was responding to Bitcoin evangelism with counter arguments, so I guess it did come across a little fanboyish. I don't disagree that it would be nice if Bitcoin could become a sort of "layer 1" in the blockchain space, with smart contracts built on top of it using additional protocols (and I believed for the past couple years that this was the most likely outcome for Bitcoin).

The main problem I now have with this model is that there are still missing features in this layer 1 which Bitcoin needs to support before decent solutions can be built on top of it (e.g. 2-way pegged sidechains, which require at least a couple of new opcodes). Every time Bitcoin wants to support a new use case, it requires someone to submit a BIP, months of development work, debating, and a soft fork to implement. For an example, see the recent OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY soft fork. This is not the sort of thing which can be built in layer 2 - it needs to be supported by the underlying blockchain, specifically so that people can build other layer 2 solutions on top of it. This is just one of many features - every few weeks someone suggests a new opcode on the bitcoin mailing list (and they often get shot down). This is why I originally got excited about Ethereum - while the "turing complete" badge is a bit of a buzzword, they really have solved the problem of creating a generic blockchain which can have anything else built on top of it.

Now, this is not to say that Ethereum is entirely without risk. For sure, Bitcoin is a more secure network, and definitely a better place to park your money if you are looking for long term stability. Bitcoin is also optimizing for stability and decentralization over adding shiny new features, which is simply different priorities and not at all a bad thing. Ethereum still have a long road ahead of them, both with attempting to shift a live blockchain to proof of stake, and with scaling (which will probably be even harder than the challenges Bitcoin is currently facing). But overall I find the project to be a very interesting and exciting development in the blockchain space.
Runscope acquisition falls through
חדרים לפי שעה בטבריה – Best Times
All together we have a staff of well over 100 people running our journal operations, and they need to have office space, people to manage them, an HR system, an accounting system and so on – all the things a business has to have. And for better or worse our office is in San Francisco (remember that two of the three founders were in the Bay Area, and we couldn’t have started it anywhere else), which is a very expensive place to operate.

...

Now I want to end on the issue that seemed to upset people the most – which is the salaries of PLOS’s executives. I am immensely proud of the executive team at PLOS – they are talented and dedicated. They make competitive salaries – and we’d have trouble hiring and retaining them if they didn’t.

From the outside, it seems obvious that having a hundred-person office in the one of the most expensive cities in world is simply incompatible with having a low-cost high-quality international journal. While it's understandable how they ended up in this situation, the question now is whether their original mission is important enough to sacrifice the "good thing" they have going.

It seems unlikely to me that the current executive team would ever decide to cut their own salaries in half (or more) and decamp to a lower cost location. But it also seems certain that there are lots of talented people in more affordable locations who would have a good chance of doing an equally excellent job at a much lower cost. But given the (possibly legitimate) self-interest, I don't see any way they can make that transition.

Perhaps instead of trying to cut their costs, their best hope going forward is to keep their prices and profits high, and use the proceeds to fund some new completely independent "startup" journals to achieve their admirable original goal? And perhaps dedicate what they can of their current team to developing software and processes that others can use to run a lower-overhead journal?
If signbit() were compatible with constexpr, it would work for negative zero. Similarly, frexp() could determine the exponent, though the interface itself is a problem.
Quite correct. But his stories are also published as anthology. Nightfall is there (1969). So that list might be complete.
(Readers who have similar developer questions should check out the Ethereum Stack Exchange. It's really useful! https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/)

Blockchains have to produce new blocks regularly to be useful. Think of the gas limit like the amount of time you have to render a new frame in graphics applications. If you have unbounded computation in a time-dependent system that anyone can submit instructions to, you're gonna get some DoS attacks.

> There is (last I checked), no way to know if your program will go over. Just trial and error

It's easy to check: blockchains are deterministic state machines. You can simulate a transaction to see what would happen with the current state, and as long as the state of your contract isn't modified by another transaction in the meantime, you'll get the same results on the chain.

> Last i checked, the only way to run a program is to deploy it. So, you have to setup your own private chain to test on and continuously deploy and wait and test.

Most developers use TestRPC to simulate a blockchain. It's like developing a web app with SQLite or another in-memory database.

https://github.com/ethereumjs/testrpc/

https://truffle.readthedocs.org/en/latest/
Blockchain technology is a big area, proof of stake vs proof of work debates are interesting but there are simple mechanisms that provide different levels of trust in different settings. For example a simple 2/3 membership vote implemented in a closed system can provide substantial trust - although not perfect. On the other hand if 60% of your proof of work capability lives behind a firewall and may in reality belong to one actor due to that actors track record of kidnapping anyone behind the firewall that disagrees with it then you have an imperfect situation as well.
There's really only two other choices, Parallels or VirtualBox.
I actually find web applications a fairly weak use case for Go, it's never incredibly pleasant to do. Network services in general are very compelling, mainly because of the strong standard library.
Public Opinion Mining Tool – Looking for Feedback
I would say in that case you could probably run 'pacman -S pacman' to just update pacman and then 'pacman -Syu' to update the entire system after that
You cease to exist as an Independent Nation if you can't print your own currency
And nearly anything you can call in any language could theoretically exit(3). The difference is that exceptions are a normal control structure in C#, Java, or even C++, while the use of panic should be exceptional. It's not considered the regular way to report an error.

Of course, if you have checked exceptions (which are for some unfathomable reason considered bad nowadays), nothing just throws an exception. Moreover, you don't know for sure whether a Go library correctly handles errors, because it's so easy to ignore them.
With blockchains, only the user has write access to the database with their cryptographic identity. Users are in full control.

Users can run a node of the peer-to-peer component if they want. Anyone can. They just don't have to.
One way you could fill up a hard drive orders of magnitude than the ones we have now is with fully immersive recorded experiences, of which the recent 'holoportation' demo from Microsoft gave an early example. Look at how much space regular ultra-HD video consumes, then imagine further increasing the resolution and recording from not just one viewpoint, but the entire 3D scene.

This is similar to how a cellphone camera of today can shoot video in a single minute that would completely fill hard drives from the 90s. (And even a single high-res image from today's digital cameras is larger than the install size of Windows 3.1.) Back then it would have been difficult to imagine these uses for storage.
Good write up.
Page Analysis of Kevin Rose's New Newsletter
Veichi AC Drives
You can attach a USB modem to a SBC and go from there, that's probably the simplest way to approach it.

The more complex way is to have an interface/isolation circuit using two GPIO pins (one input for ring detection, one output that switches a relay into the rest of the circuit and also takes the line off the hook). You then have a single DAC or PWM output that plays the tone into the isolation transformer. If you are interested in more info on this sort of thing, contact me.
Mobile Application Development Mistakes That Might Crash Your App
Batman V Superman achieved $424M
Bitcoin is highly centralized, 90% of mining power was in one room recently. Ethereum's Ethash is better protected against specialized hardware, but not well verified yet. In other aspects you've mentioned, especially scaling, Ethereum is surely nightmare.
> With blockchains, only the user has write access to the database with their cryptographic identity. Users are in full control.

That trait is far from being unique to blockchains.

But no, users aren't in full control of cloud software.

> Users can run a node of the peer-to-peer component if they want. Anyone can. They just don't have to.

After 18 months of block size debate, this is deja vu. No, anyone can't run a node if you make it cost $5k/mo
> the potential applications offered by its fancy scripting language are not actually that much stronger than what you can do with Bitcoin

I disagree. When I learned about what can be built with the Ethereum Virtual Machine, I quit my job to build decentralized applications full time.

You can either wait for decentralized apps to work their way into your life, or you can ignore the naysayers and find out for yourself if these tools are worth building with.
It is no news that mobile apps are more than just a trend.Today mobile apps have replaced the browsers and have the competence to help brands build a relationship with digital customers.
And then finding that the page is blocked by a robots.txt that is present now, but probably wasn't when the page originally existed.
Very nice! Love it that he uses Arch, I also used to use Arch for everything, and I also run a RPi tutorials website.

I switched though, because the only questions I'd get was of people using my commands on Raspbian and getting confused. I think the RPi audience is full of beginners that don't understand the difference between distro's and the kernel. Of course one should do as one pleases and Arch is the nicest distro if you known what you are doing, imho.
Panics are very rare in go code, particularly in libraries, they are not used for error control but for truly exceptional situations.
Is Twilio a non-starter for you? If so, why?
Tensorflow (and most things numeric): Python. Because it was pre-decided. :)

Tensorflow has a minimalistic, but good-enough C API for running graphs. So, once you've built/trained a graph in Python, you can run it from Go without much trouble.

(Source: did that last week.)

still get grumpy about it -- I've lost count of the number of times I've messed things up that static checking could have caught,

For basic numpy-like functionality Armadillo and Eigen also work fine. I agree, I highly dislike numeric Python for the lack of type checking. Combined with the relatively long compile times of e.g. Theano it's a disaster (yes, I know 'fastrun').

I'm still finding Rust incredibly annoying, but I may just be a slow learner,

I'd encourage you to continue. I am also a beginner, but wrote some small crates. Once you get the hang off it, it combines the strengths of most things out there - C++-like memory control and performance, the terseness of Python/Haskell (though map/fold/etc.), and safety. It's a truly fun language to program in. Unfortunately, the library ecosystem is still rough.
I'm going to go ahead and say it. It doesn't count until I can buy them in any quantity at any time for $9 each. Shipping to a few backers doesn't count. "One per customer, supplies limited" doesn't count. 6 month waiting time, "special" shipping charges/handling fees/only available as part of a more expensive "kit"... you get the idea.

This is a bog-standard device in a sea of similar SBC's. The entire magic here is the price. Honestly, I don't even "believe" in the Pi zero yet. It could still turn out to be a publicity stunt produced in a very limited quantity just to get everyone talking.

Until its a product you buy a dozen at a time and leave behind in the projects in your wake, the magic hasn't happened yet. Otherwise, you pull it out of those projects because its a rare specimen you might not be able to get another of any time soon. It doesn't matter if it only cost $9 if you can't get any more of them.

But I want to believe!
I've sometimes wondered a bit about this myself. But consider what you'd end up with if you wanted to keep most of go's benefits, but add on such bits. And consider that you could just use Ada, Nim or OCaml. Or maybe Rust (I really like Rust, I'm not sure how much overlap there is in any subjective list of "Go the good parts" and "Rust the good parts" though).

I think some of the best parts of Go is the central model: "go get", "go fmt" along with the standard library - if you fork, the burden falls on the fork keep all that stuff working in a sensible way too.
Video clears Texas man of assaulting cop–did police commit perjury?
People are going to have to wrap their head around the brave new v6 world.

I get "logged in from a new IP address!" alerts with a service I use almost every time I log in, even though my IPv6 prefix hasn't changed. Deciding it's a completely new IP just because something changed in the last 64 bits is probably a bad idea in a v6 world.

Devices being multi-homed is intended to be standard practice.

My iPhone regularly has multiple IPv6 addresses, with different reachability characteristics for different addresses. There's an address used by my carrier for voice, there are addresses I locally administer, there are addresses from a stable prefix I use, addresses from dynamic prefixes provided by my upstreams, ...

The v6 world is a world where many devices have many addresses and addresses do not all have the same scope.

Application developers are going to need to get used to this new normal.

An application I manage has ~40% of users accessing it over IPv6, most of which would have a degraded experience if we didn't offer v6 connectivity.

IPv6 is here, it's here to stay, and applications are going to need to understand the new world they live in.
From a previous posting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8332182
How does the voting system on HN work? This is the second article on this topic I've seen today removed from the front page now. It was there only an hour or so ago, and now isn't in the first ten pages on HN.
Morphr – morphing numerical JavaScript object values in a given time interval
The Next Perfect Banking Storm
CVE, a key cybersecurity resource, is at risk inside and out