skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> It's not under opensource license it means that source codes of the self-hosted solution is auditable.

So you're basically doing false advertising.
You're perhaps better asking an accountant in the UK, rather than a lawyer.

It costs ~£15 to start a limited company in England and Wales (a separate jurisdiction to Scotland and Northern Ireland). So long as you keep accurate records and file your annual accounts correctly, that's all there is. An accountant would normally do the filing for you. For a small business this can often be done for £500-£1000. If you do your own bookkeeping and keep accurate records, that will keep costs down.

As your business will be domiciled in the UK, it will be subject to the UK's tax regime. But if you're outside the UK, your salary from the business shouldn't be subject to UK taxation (do check that, though - double-taxation isn't something I know much about).

TL;DR - Find an accountant in the UK who'll be willing to give you a free consultation (most of them). You'll probably find one on ukbusinessforums.co.uk (it's where I found mine).
I read a bit on authors pages. I think he paints "anti-authoritarian" as young hippie who is against everything just because. That explains no mentions of psychiatry in soviet union, early 20th century and so on.
Microsoft used to call it «shared source» but to my mind they allow just to audite source codes without rights to change it. But anyway «shared source» is a complicated term, i suppose a lot of people have no idea what it means.
I realize that the issue of names is complicated when you consider different practices the world over, but is there not some kind of RFC or other specification that people are supposed to follow? How can that be in 2016?

The first job I took in IT, after graduating with a liberal arts degree, was in software testing for a company that made point-of-sale systems. Only a month or two out of training I was given the task to test a name and address form. Knowing that quotes were special characters in databases, I tried entering something like O'Connell as a last name. Sure enough, the system broke. I remember filing a snarky bug report about how Irish and Arab people ought to be able to use the form.

My point is that testing for quotes and "Null" as a surname isn't some kind of esoteric science. What's wrong with people!
You realize that almost all email filtering that GMail is doing nowadays is based on trained networks on the content of the mail, not trained on the domains?

And in fact, if you train your own neural networks to do this same task – as I’m currently doing – you get the same quality of categorization and spam filtering that Google got.

I consider Google, the NSA, and so on just as trustworthy as a Nigerian Scammer, so I see no difference in giving my data to Google, or giving it to the phisher.

They operate under laws I can’t control, use my data in ways I can’t control, and don’t ask me if they wish to use my data for more other purposes later on.
In the context of acoustics, "ts" almost always means time-step (inverse of frequency). But I don't have the faintest idea of how it would collide with the username string :|
Scrutiny of 'Truthy', a university project that studies trends on Twitter (2014)
"Maybe? That doesn't sound very certain, and demonstrates how difficult it is to pick these things in advance. Do you know, or not?"

Without a hypothetical IPO price, that question is unanswerable.

I honestly still agree with your general point, but that's not specifically a valid argument.
18 Inexpensive Customer Delight Ideas to Fuel Business Growth
The motto of my alma mater is "leges sine moribus vanae" --- laws without morals are useless.

Laws are just a codification of a moral system. But it is an imperfect one, and you can't enforce morality in the form of laws. Humans are free to be unscrupulous and skirt around the law or break it, but it's even worse for AI, because there is no innate compass pointing it toward something being good or bad.
We're basically splitting hairs at this point. The camo pattern looks like the textures on the Minecraft blocks, or vice versa. It's not that the pattern literally looks like it's made of Minecraft blocks, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

This is one of the silliest arguments I've ever been involved in on the internet, and that's saying something. :) Can we just say "They used the word 'Minecraft' in the title because the camo kinda sorta looks like Minecraft textures" and move on with our lives?
Life is distressful to a degree. That's a meaningless criterion devoid of all content which invites arbitrary judgement.
That, generally, is not the argument. The side you don't see goes a bit like this[1]:

Folks in poor countries aren't stupid, and know Facebook isn't just being nice. Zero-rating strangles local startups who have to compete with the free walled garden; it is a spigot for western culture, which many object to[2]; and it smacks of a particularly Valley-flavored mix of paternalism, greed, and the sort of tote-bagger do-gooderism that led to some major travesties of charity. (You could go look up how Jello Biafra picked his stage name on Wikipedia, over a zero-rated link, if you like.)

Suffice to say, there are good reasons why many people in poor countries are extremely wary of westerners bearing gifts.

This bit isn't directed at the parent, and is something I wanted to say in a different thread about poverty, but here's a rule of thumb that may help: If you observe something that doesn't make sense to you, it is likely that you don't have the whole picture. This rule applies to the behavior of people with less money than you, as well.

[1] If you're really interested, reading some history of colonialism would be good. I don't know your background, but if it involved typical high school U.S. history, you likely learned that colonialism was a sort of adventure-phase where westerners explored and planted flags and whatnot, mostly ignoring the commercial interests driving it. And a lot of the horror.

[2] Not even going to get in to that one, aside from saying that if leading contenders in the Republican primary can hate on U.S. culture, so can folks who actually got the pointy end of the stick.
hate websites that don't say who created them, would never trust this product (unless I don't see the "team" page)
It seems like every time something nice and new comes to JS it's immediately called bad.
I get your point, but I do somewhat wonder about the sanity of people in the Soviet Union who would not, at least, pretend to believe in socialism.
Asexual organisms can outcompete some part of population, but doubtfully all of it. And their competitive advantage shrinks as their numbers grow, due to clone interference.

A lot of insects can reproduce asexually but they are also capable of sexual reproduction. Ones who are not eventually die off.
E2E would mean you can't log in to hangouts on a new device and access your history, which is a useful feature.
Intellectual Property pricing schemes do more than make it hard to empathize, they foster active anger.

So far we've discussed people in less wealthy eurozone countries choosing between paying a significant portion of their income and pirating.

Thats bad, in a way we're describing tools that cost nothing, but are priced in a way that whole economies don't have practical access to them.

It gets worse when you consider places like Africa, where every electronic record of an idea is priced out of reach. Can you imagine if your whole country was basically denied access to reference materials, textbooks, and popular culture? The very ideas that could allow you to work your way out of poverty are withheld.

That is really the boot of the privileged stepping on the neck of the poor. And people feel it and understand that.
Verizon 2016 Data Breach Digest
Interesting, is this the reason more people are looking at basic income ?
Great service but it doesn't support other languages than English or Unicode characters.
That is a gross distortion of what I said but it's sure easier to argue against!
> Over time, it pushes western/northern concepts of knowledge, data organization, copyright, etc onto a culture that didn't ask for it. That's colonialism.

Is the thrust of your argument that Angolans should be deprived of knowledge and data because they didn't ask for it, or that Wikipedia admins should only be allowed to block and unblock people from the same culture as them?

I mean, Angola has had copyright laws for a while now: the idea that the people behind these hacks are noble savages whose fragile culture is imperilled by Wikipedia admins is really insulting and patronising.
It's a bit non-obvious, but there are some smaller plans. You have to click the arrows on the sides of the box to see them.
Thanks Srean, lower compile time is definitely something Silicon would benefit a lot. I am wondering how much the c++17 module TS will help.
I'll check the D language to see if we can implement a framework similar to silicon. I do not know anything about this language, do you think we can get a D web server running as fast as its C counterpart?
This should not be a problem by now. Especially in government databases. Is there a corpus of names that can be used for testing?
Medical professionals don't seem to like it much when patients do anything that might call their expertise into question, it seems. :/
1. Mueller's ratchet is still a hypothesis. A well supported hypothesis, but there are cases that it doesn't yet explain (Bdelloid rotifers, for example).

2. Even accepting the premise, it doesn't explain why sexual reproduction should be favored over asexual reproduction with occasional conjugation.

3. Even assuming that this mechanism is sufficient to explain the advantages of sexual reproduction, it still operates over a long time scale (i.e. long enough for enough deleterious mutations to accumulate in the asexual reproducing population).

What this comment and the parent (and many of the others in this thread) fail to understand is that no one is debating that sexual reproduction is advantageous over long enough time scales. The question that the authors of the original paper are addressing is how sexual reproduction could be advantageous enough on a short enough time scale sufficient for those organisms to avoid being outcompeted by asexual organisms.
And this is the kind of context i find often missing from security discussions.

It will still protect against anything short of a determined attacker with direct access to the hardware for an extended period.

Very little is secure against such a scenario, even less so if the attacker don't care about the defender knowing after the fact.

But all too often security research seems to consider anything that can be broken, even with the most complicated and time intensive of processes, as insecure.
We need to get off of this 'I am a special snowflake' that cannot be bothered to work with a team. If you want to solo develop than go be a solo app developer. If you want to deliver software as part of a team, then working with the team is part of the gig. I know it is hard to believe, but the act of coding is only one part of many required to deliver working software that meets the requirements.

Great function you wrote there that does the wrong thing because you were too busy to be bothered.
"Don't fall for their ripoff. Fall for my ripoff!"
Agreed, mainly just some history of digital camo. Camopedia [1] has similar information, and it looks like China has been using these patterns since 2007.

[1] http://camopedia.org/index.php?title=Digital_patterns
Digital Bitbox – Minimalist Bitcoin Hardware Wallet
I'd have to dig up a reference to the study, but I won't be able to do that for the next few days. Google scholar returns various results for "school and creativity decline" if you have access to the relevant journals.
AES128 is not going to be your weakest link. Ever.

And there is no reason to believe AES256 is stronger than AES128. There have been attacks against the former which are not applicable to the latter, and the key length is enough.
Your solution is good. I also will take 'dark meetings' and summarize the meeting in the tickets/confluence. This gets the information out to everyone (even others who are locally present but not in the meeting), and saves it for when I forget the meeting later :)
I suppose they have enough qualification to wipe clean those machines and install linux or at least a clean copy of windows.
No offence, but this is contradicting everything I've learned about US incorporation so far :)
Do you have any sources I can look into?

From what I know you can easily form and operate a company in the US without ever being present there.

You would have to come in person to get a bank account though.

I know there are always companies who will take money for assisting with any kind of crazy stuff. Here I just wonder if anyone who's not selling such services could share some real-world experience.
>Have in-person meetups 2-4 x a year for beneficial face-time and for people to get to know each other better on a personal level.

This is a turn-off for me as a full-time remote worker. When I browse remote job listings, a lot of companies list this like it's a perk. Maybe it's a perk if you're a 23-year-old single guy, but it's not a perk for me; it actually flies in the face of why I'm a remote worker, which is that I want to focus on my work with minimal interference on the other components of my life (which are what really matter to me).

I don't want to travel. I find planes immensely uncomfortable and telling the employer that I only fly first-class is usually not an option. I don't want to be stuck in a room with everyone from the company for a week or more while I miss everything that's going on at home, and like most company functions, skipping out on this also isn't really an option if one wants to remain politically viable.

One of the great things about remote work is that it takes a great deal of bullshit out of the employment process; you don't have to worry about if you're making the wrong facial contortions, if you're offending someone by slouching, if you look bored, or if you laugh hard enough at someone's bad attempt at a joke. The work is the focus.

There are few social signals to misinterpret or blow out of proportion. I think a remote-first culture is one of the best ways to secure a meritocratic working atmosphere, simply because it removes so much of the irrelevant noise, like personal charisma, that people misinterpret as being relevant to the performance of job duties.

Occasional company meetups only serve to dampen this focus on actual working output. I prefer to keep a professional emotional distance from my co-workers, generally speaking, which I think is for the best. If we really hit it off, there's no reason we can't arrange our own meetups, but for most colleagues, we develop a strong sense of professional respect for one another and that's plenty sufficient. No need to mess that up with personal elements.

I understand that these company meetups may be great if you're looking for companionship, but I don't really think a lonely person is well suited to remote work anyway. At home, I have a wife and several children to hang out with, plus a few close friends and a group of loose associates from hacker meetups, community functions, and/or church.
Heart rehab goes better with added stress management
Automattic, the makers of Wordpress is an all-remote company. Here are a couple of good articles on how they make this work:
http://www.businessinsider.com/automattics-awesome-remote-wo...

https://automattic.com/work-with-us/
While I agree with you on all of those points, I think that there's still something to be said about usability and quicker innovation for managing/reviewing your finances. I personally use Vanguard and love them, but their site was really really difficult for me to use when I joined, and it's still not great after a big refresh. For those who are serious about getting the lowest possible fees and the maximum return, usability might not be a big deal. A lot of people are really drawn by shiny things, though, and shiny is not something that larger financial institutions have ever been good at.

I don't think that this really counters any of your points, only justifies why I think some people might want to use services like Wealthfront and Betterment.
He's right about valuing arts though.
It's not Sound Transit's fault. The cities won't let them. Kirkland wants them to build out Buses and threatens to veto any light rail project. Residents by the CKC want to "save the trail" (aka we're selfish jerks that bought a property by a railway line, but don't want noise of trains)

http://seattletransitblog.com/2016/03/12/kirkland-st-struggl...
If these services are evaluating the string in the text field such that it results in the value Null rather than the string "Null" it is concerning. The usibility my be compromised for users with these surnames but I wonder if the security is also compromised via code injection through these fields.
I don't see any mention in the parent post about suicidal ideation. Self-harm != desire to kill yourself.

Also lumping together wanting to kill yourself because you are experiencing severe physical pain (old people with terminal illness), psychological pain through torture (certain prison confinements), and mental disorders is a gross over simplification. This isn't a binary issue. We shouldn't say people are never allowed to commit suicide or people are always allowed to commit suicide without us trying to intervene to improve their quality of life.
https://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-the-us-military-fails-...
This is impressive, especially given how cheaply the attack can be realized. If you can get near the device you only need a coil and a sound card.

That being said:

> After observing the elliptic-curve double and add operations during a few thousand signatures, the secret signing key can be completely reconstructed.

This is probably the biggest obstacle for pulling this off in reality. I have no idea what that means in minutes or hours you have to be near a phone doing encryption though.
Samorost 3
"Amount of unit tests is pretty small comparing to regression tests. One reason behind that decision is that LLVM internals constantly change all the time. "

Well, no, and i'm not sure where they got this. It's not a "decision".
BTW, This also assumes that all of the tests in the unit test dir are unit tests, and all the tests in test/ are regression tests.

This is explicitly false.

The general viewpoint of LLVM is that most things people write (analysis, optimization) should be tested by checking the IR or dumps. That is, we want easy to follow and modify unit tests, not just compilable C++ code ones.

Thus, you will find a lot of unit tests that are in test/, instead of unittest/, because they are testable using IR printers.

Those things that are API's should be tested by unittests, and work is underway to increase coverage. The reason some things aren't cover is simply that in the earlier days of the project, not all of this got unit tests, and it's only in the past couple years that people have become sticklers about it.

So that one would be knowingly "not enforcing good development practices", not "llvm internals change all the time". The fact that internals change all the time is in fact a good reason to have unit tests.
Singapore and Estonia both seem to be doing things right. Singapore (unlike Estonia) also has a fairly long tradition of being a great place for foreigners to incorporate, a well established and stable legal regime, sane taxation, etc. Estonia also looks pretty good, but they haven't been around as long so the odds of them making trouble for you in the future are probably higher than Singapore.

A Singapore corp will require you to pay taxes once on corporate income. After that it's simple - make distributions to yourself and pay only local taxes. It's as if Singapore asked economists what the most efficient way to run a society is and then actually did that.

A US business entity is probably a very bad idea due to things like taxation on global income and just general US insanity.
Police have been known to send people whom they have beaten up for mental examination in order to discredit them. This happened in Los Altos to a guy playing Ingress.
Well, it's a question of terms. We have already faced this and some another people complained.
And we understand the point.

But there is a problem with «opensource» term. We have asked a lot of people and even IT guys and most of them (more than 80%) are sure that opensource means just auditable source. And just the minority knows the definition from opensource.org (which is actually has no jurisprudence approve).
So we could write «auditable», «shared» or whatever else source but most people would be confused.

We are going to update this page and add a FAQ with detailed explanation.
I still remember the shock of entering first grade, how structured everything was, how the teacher used a false high-pitched voice with exaggerated expressions to sound friendlier, how everyone thought that was normal and how she used that rapport to teach us to stand in lines for everything, agree with the group. When we were asked to work on the simplest math problems in a group, it was hard to reason with anyone because they would always go with the majority opinion instead of listening to arguments. I did end up getting a lot of respect when the teacher validated me.

We definitely infantilize our children in schools, teach them to act stupidly in order to get them to behave. Then we wonder why we have problems like youth gang violence.
I wish it was that clear cut. This is a tricky business in the sciences. Often, the quantity you are trying to validate is unobservable. In this case, I suspect (I'm not a squishy scientist) it is because evolution has such long time scales.

In other fields, it can be simply because it is prohibitively difficult or expensive to instrument the quantity of interest. This is extremely common, even in the 'hard' scientific fields and engineering. You very, very seldom have all the data you want.

This is all a long winded way of saying that confirmation of a hypothesis by mathematical models certainly is a mechanism by which science creates a stronger degree of belief in said hypothesis. Would it be a full fledged validation of the model? Probably not. But it is absolutely useful evidence.

Full disclosure, I am a computation scientist.
This is a good question that can get a little deep.

The short answer depends on what you're cracking.

Let's assume your message was encrypted with AES, using a key derived from a passphrase, and nothing else. There's no authenticator on the message (no keyed checksum) and so the ciphertext is insecure, but we'll ignore that.

Then the attacker is just going to try every possible password. As you observed, each of those decryption attempts is going to generate gibberish. But all those gibberish results will be binary gibberish: a decryption attempt with a key differing even in one bit from the real key will produce an effectively random plaintext, with bits evenly distributed.

The right key won't have that property; the result will be 7-bit ASCII. It will almost certainly be the only result that produces ASCII, and certainly the only one producing intelligible ASCII. :)

If the message is encrypted securely, with an authenticator, the job of cracking it might be slightly simpler: you use the authenticator to verify that you got the right result. This is how some older systems tell you you got the right key (but it also implies that you encrypted the MAC, which is unsafe for other reasons).

Finally, if you're encrypting with a block cipher mode that requires padding --- something you shouldn't do but that systems designed 5+ years ago all tend to do --- you'll know if you got the right key based on whether the padding makes sense. There's a very famous crypto attack based on this property.

http://cryptopals.com/sets/3/challenges/17/