skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Are you sure? Because it seems like they report on what is going on around here quite frequently.
Well, why do native apps for all the popular websites exist? Surely nobody would need or download the FB/Twitter/Reddit/etc. apps on mobile or desktop if the website itself was the optimum experience...

My point is that even with the web the developers are still going to make the native clients, so either the web has to become good enough for the need for native apps to disappear eventually, and the browser becomes the OS, or native apps become convenient enough to completely replace webapps.

Of course if the browser becomes the OS then the end result would be the same as the suggestion in my original post.
Chris Rock at the Oscars did a good job of this, women say a lot with their clothes and men generally don't. I'm not qualified to speculate on how that came about, but going to a formal event you seen all the men in very slight variations of a standard tuxedo and the women in a wide variety of evening gowns.

So when men, or women, change their appearance in dress, its generally considered a "communication" of some sort. Sometimes its obvious like the difference between dress uniforms and fatigues in the service, and sometimes less so.

It's pretty clear that Theranos is under fire and I agree with the GP that the change in garb and styling of the CEO was part of the message she was trying to communicate. Without specific guidance on that, we are left to speculate.
Wow both of those videos are awesome... the good and the bad side.

The Kevin Smith story is funny, but also a sad example of what you can become when you are a coddled celebrity. It made me lose some respect for Prince.
Erik Voorhees is like that.

He was the first to [nominally] move a bitcoin business out of New York when the bitlicense was enacted.
Good question. I misread the op the first time. So yeah whats the advantage of stuffing more on the thin client. Unless he is also using the thin client to run stuff he cant run remotely.
I'm sure that's what they thought. It's so common it's in textbooks. As in, any point-to-point line running outside two buildings through public land and a third party network owned by sneaky, Tier 1 types could never result in eavesdropping by anyone with physical or logical access. It was ridiculous claim when I read it and wasnt doing INFOSEC at the time. Horrendously stupid. There were already link encryptors on market for those exact lines for a reason. A good one in this case.

Far as your contrived example, yes I did recommend Layer 2 or 3 encryption, authentication, and monitoring between all nodes for a variety of benefits. It was also in Red Book (Orange Book for networking) as a high-assurance security requirement due to malicious hosts or tapped lines. All the times I eavesdropped on and screwed with Intranets fully justified it. Moreover, reading the Security Monkey later showed he handled a situation where an intruder did a physical splice of the line into a nearby building for his attacks. Just more evidence.

So, yes, security must be applied to every layer inside of and around endpoints, networks, and more. The risk you mentioned, minus crossover part, resulted in numerous hacks in the real world that my methods and 80's era methods would've stopped. In a PCI form factor, too, as DiamondTEK secure LAN did exactly that.
Echelon was never publicly acknowledged. Carnivore was explained as only targeted at suspected criminals under investigation. Snowden's revelations were the first hard , undeniable facts in the matter showing the true scope of the unconstitutional activity.
I find Applicatives very useful.

Applicative computations have effects and return a value. They can be combined but only in a restricted way that ensures that the effects of one of the computations do not depend on the value returned by another.

For example, if you read a person's bio and photo from two independent files and combine them into a Person value, that fits the Applicative model.

However, if the path to the photo file were included in the bio file and not known beforehand, that wouldn't fit the Applicative model, because one of the effects (reading the photo) depends on the result value of the other.

So why have this limitation, and why create a separate interface for it?

- For one, Applicatives are more "analyzable" than unrestricted monadic computations. You can identify the separate stages of a computation, collect estimates of required resources, etc.

- Some effects like concurrency, validation, and context-free language parsing fit the Applicative mold very well.

- Combinations of different Applicative effects are themselves applicative. If you have a computation that reads a file and validates the resulting data (a combination of Applicative effects) the combined effect is Applicative and can be combined with other effects of the same type.
I too would like to see OpenBSD succeed on the desktop, but according to this blog post they some serious performance issues that need resolving first: http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/firefox-vs-rthreads
I addressed it here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11553070
RISC++ Proposed Instruction Set Architecture (2012)
>Why is it that companies with fixed payrolls, buildings, etc., exist? In a fully marketized world, we would contract, daily, with providers for all services, including day-to-day secretarial services, copying services, coding, document and report production, research, everything.

I don't find that compelling at all. There's no reason to think pricing needs to be done daily, or that cost can't be aggregated. You could only consider this the "supersession of the price mechanism" if you believe your time has no value.
If the enviornment kills off 6.9 billion people, that's not much of a choice. If you have a choice, you find another way.
I think he specifically addressed people who know Swift's flatMap. I don't, but here's more if you know a little Haskell.

Suppose you have a function of type (String -> IO ()). For example, putStrLn. It takes a String and converts it into a real world computation (printing the string) of type (IO ()).

That's nice, but what if the input string is not purely there but only "hidden" in another IO computation? For example, it could come from getLine which has type (IO String).

Now we have some (IO String) and some (String -> IO ()) and would like to compose these, i.e. print out again what was input. But they are not strictly compatible since the left thing is in IO context (i.e., computed at runtime).

Since IO is a functor we can do (fmap putStrLn getLine) which is of type (IO (IO ())) if you do the math. This is a computation which at runtime computes another computation (putStrLn applied to the computed string).

The thing that Monad gives you is to merge layers. In the case of IO, that is to actually execute the dynamically computed computation. Formally, merging (IO (IO ())) to (IO ()). Or for any type a, merging (IO (IO a)) to (IO a).

The merging method is called join and is the cleanest way to explain what makes a monad. However in haskell the Monad instances are unfortunately given by (>>=) which is a more complicated way to define the same thing. There is also join in Haskell but it's defined in terms of (>>=).
I totally agree with that. His work was greatest in raising awareness of people who'd otherwise never be exposed to it.
My state has that too. I think that's the norm.
The idea of using docker excellent.
Of course webpages would still be around and needed, and desired for more basic content, but by the time you want to offer something as complex or regularly used as Facebook or Twitter or Reddit or Soundcloud and so on, it'd be better as a native app, as the current native clients for each of those websites already prove.

I mean the UI is undeniably smoother, and they can seamlessly hook into the OS notifications systems and better multitasking (for example I see separate entries for each native app in the OS's task switcher, but have to go through the extra step of switching into a browser then its tabs for webapps) and energy saving and everything else.
.onion addresses are just 80 bits, not 256. Someone estimated[1] that the amount of work to brute force one address is approximately the same as the amount of hashing that has been computed by the bitcoin network up to now, so it's clearly not physically impossible. This weakness is apparently a practical problem, because it made people unwilling to automatically issue SSL certificates for .onion addresses [2].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11388997
[2] https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-trouble-with-tor/
I'm surprised that anyone would take this at face value. The cryptic black hat responding to e-mail with "one word: bob" is straight out of the most teenage of hacker fanfics.
Animal Welfare in the 19th Century: An Earth Day Overview
Are you referring to the FBI decrypting situation? If so, I very much doubt that decrypting phones is even remotely important as billions in taxes.
That's pretty much ongoing work. Mostly affecting Firefox in the browser front. Try -current with Chromium I don't feel a difference compared to GNU/Linux.
Here's the situation: adversaries are using a set of compromised credentials to fraudulently access a system.

The next step is revocation and reissuing credentials.

You cannot revoke someone's fingerprints. Or at least they'll probably object once you fire up the blowtorch.

Are you familiar with the biometric menagerie?
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=4...

Sorry that's gated, but tl;dr, there are marginal cases in biometric systems where some individual's data doesn't work well, or messes with the recognition/exclusion of others.
RightsCon Silicon Valley 2016 Videos
Of course people knew it was going on but Snowden has put it beyond deniability and that is very very important. We now have (for example) the CEOs of the biggest tech companies in the world able to talk about this stuff. That could never have happened before Snowden.
Sure, maybe socioeconomic.

But here's a wild guess: SSRIs and SSNIs. They went mainstream in the early 90s. There's good evidence that they increase suicide rates in young people. Maybe it's worse than that.
written in his own language ...
>air, though ancap says air would remain common

I said no such thing. I said it is too abundant to commercialize. It can still be owned.

>just adds a whole new layer of mental burden to engaging with the world.

If everything was made public (communism) you could be free from a vast number of other mental burdens which we are currently plagued with.

I don't buy it. We have a system around us now with all sorts of burdens and processes that are just part of life (you mean I have to stop through the checkout line before leaving the store--oh the horror of those evil capitalists who are trying to enslave us!). People adapt and are used to the system they are in.

>Like, for me, going out and buying stuff or negotiating for it isn't fun, isn't how I'd choose to spend my time.

Yet you do this already. I would wager a lot of your leisure time is spent on the private property of others, playing by their rules. Even the websites you go to and the video games you play have their rules and terms of service.
Wouldn't that first require San Francisco to allow building new buildings?

Bad-um-tsch!

:-D ;-)
I remember the first time I put together a parallax-scrolling background in a 2D video game. The extra sense of immersion you get for the amount of effort required to add it is absolutely worth it.

What I found most refreshing about this video was the technical grasp that Disney himself had on the process. It's explained in a way that's both accessible and engaging. It's hard to imagine the top level people at current movie studios putting together a presentation like this. Maybe Spielberg?

On the other hand, you could certainly see Mark Zuckerberg or Drew Houston giving a similar presentation - probably because CEOs of younger industries tend to be technical minds. That would also explain why Disney, originally an animator, had such a grasp of the nascent animation industry he built.
And that the banks aren't so dumb after all. Through centuries of experience, they have learned the secret that you need more than one employee.

BTW, currently looking for an Senior Infrastructure and Security Engineer/Manager position at a company that handles large amounts of money.
I totally understand. When I comment on Reddit, if it's not in agreement with the masses, I end up being downvoted and argue with people. Then I quickly realize - WHY!? A total waste of my time.
Except the "hole" in Dallas is not Dallas. It's Highland Park and University Park, Texas, two completely separately governed areas from the City of Dallas. But keep that tin foil hat handy.
This is great feedback, thanks so much! I've created issues for your requests so we can track them: https://github.com/18F/checklistomania/issues. They all seem like they would add a lot of value. It is our hope that others in government and the public use this code, so we will do our best to deliver in a timely fashion.
How many software projects do you know that have survived and thrived for hundreds of years?
" think they are blaming the court for finding the statute you quoted is constitutional,"

But they did that many years ago, yet eff acts as if this is new.
I don't want seemless and hooked. I want isolated, and sandboxed.
""____Once it has communications in its custody, those limitations no longer apply____ and the government can troll through it for whatever law enforcement purpose it wants without having to worry about getting a pesky warrant." (emphasis mine)"

Except, I did:
This is, as i pointed out, exactly what the statute allows and has been allowed since 2002!

Again, see In Re: Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717 (F.I.S.C. 2002) which makes very clear this is the case:
"The minimization procedures allow, however, the retention and dissemination of non-foreign intelligence information which is evidence of ordinary crimes for preventative or prosecutorial purposes. See 50 U.S.C. § 1801(h) (3). "

This isn't new by a longshot, and it's been okay'd by other courts other than this one, because that's what the statute says.

In fact, In Re Sealed case came about, because the FISA court tried to stop what the EFF is complaining about, and the government appealed. That is, their decision was "you can't use this for ordinary crimes". The government appealed, the reviewing court said fisa must allow them to use it for what they want, as per the statute.

So yeah, blaming the FISA court is silly, since they tried to stop this once already.

And calling this new or news is 14 years too late.
You have shown not even the slightest intellectual curiosity on how things might work in a system without a commons, and instead have mocked it. Pretending to be offended by my comment on the "lack of imagination" is disingenuous at best.
As I said, I'm grateful that yours is such a fringe view. It's still jarring to see someone actually posit "no commons would be an improvement," but the more I read what you have to say, it jut gets sillier and sillier.

Especially since you're trying to bolster support for your claim that "you gain freedom by having to negotiate easements with anyone whose sidewalk you'd like to use" with the new claim that "it's just like buying stuff at the grocery store!". Well, ok, except it isn't.

But hey, you know, if your ideas were so compelling, it seems like you'd be able to find a neighborhood somewhere where you could convince people to try out the experiment: "everyone sell/negotiate access to sidewalks for everyone else".

I mean, if it's such a good idea, surely you could get some people to try it, and then they'd see what a lovely new feeling of freedom they enjoyed, and the idea would spread from there?

Come on, ancap, let's see your fringe ideas grow and take off. Enough philosophizing, let's see this thriving new free society of sidewalk easements! After a few years of sidewalk easement negotiating under their belts, the people in your experimental neighborhood should have some pretty compelling "new feelings of freedom" results to share.

In fact, this really doesn't seem like so big a challenge at all. So, where's the beef?
I mostly agree with that. It's not what you said, though, which went further and is what I responded to. Stallman and FOSS fans like to go from those contributions to unsopported claims where no proprietary can have a single property of OSS. Yours implied only FOSS could've resisted a secret, US directive which was 100% untrue given existence of closed, non-US products. I preempted your likely counter by pointing out proprietary can come with source too for anti-subversion and actually reached highest form of security possible.

We're still waiting on FOSS model to do that. Nobody has. Fortunately, the cathedral builders in industry and good CompSci are sometimes open-sourcing stuff after the fact. RISC-V, GenodeOS, seL4, NaCl, etc.
It doesn't answer the question. Passwords can be revoked and you still don't want to leave them everywhere. Need for revocability has nothing to do with maintaining the "secret" and everything to do with mitigating the impact of a compromise.

If a password is leaked, you need to revoke it in order to mitigate the potential damage. If a fingerprint is leaked, do you need to do the same? No, because the security of the fingerprint is not tied to its secrecy. Fingerprints are not secret. They are just hard to reproduce.

Trying to equate fingerprints to passwords or usernames will inevitably result in absurd comparisons because fingerprints are neither of these things. They are an entirely different type of entity.

Fun fact: fingerprint access to banking info on your phone constitutes two factor authentication. Factor one is the fingerprint (something you are). Factor two is the phone containing the already-authenticated app (something you have). Arguably this is a more secure way to access your bank than the typical one factor username+password you would use online.
At the cost of not being mugged, beaten, stabbed, raped, or killed.
It's not uncommon in many parts of the world for cab drivers to supplement their income by staging robberies or worse, they'll usually take a "short cut" which means they'll drive trough some alley in which some guy will come and rob both you and your driver, but in reality only you are being robbed.

I've been to a few places in Asia where the policy was simple - you do not hail cabs.

Cabs are handled by either the hotel or the office building you are in. You ask for the cab, they ask you where you are going and order it for you.

When the cab arrives some one from reception will go check it, they check the driver's ID, and if everything is ok they'll write down the time, the cab number, and your details and let you board the cab.
If you are not in a place that can hail a cab for you, you usually call the hotel and they'll either arrange it for you or tell you a safe place near by where you can get a reliable cab from.
And as far as the driver checks go on more than one occasion the guy from the reception told us to wait for another cab because he "had a bad feeling" which was usually he either did not know the driver, the driver that showed up wasn't the one the cab company said would come, or something just smelled fishy to him.
I'm not refuting it because it's not new. The FISC court decided that back in 2002. See In Re Sealed case: 310 F.3d 717:

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/310/...

"
The "wall" emerges from the court's implicit interpretation of FISA. The court apparently believes it can approve applications for electronic surveillance only if the government's objective is not primarily directed toward criminal prosecution of the foreign agents for their foreign intelligence activity. "
...

The minimization procedures allow, however, the retention and dissemination of non-foreign intelligence information which is evidence of ordinary crimes for preventative or prosecutorial purposes. See 50 U.S.C. § 1801(h) (3). Therefore, if through interceptions or searches, evidence of "a serious crime totally unrelated to intelligence matters" is incidentally acquired, the evidence is "not ... required to be destroyed." H. REP. at 62 (emphasis added)."

(note the house report cite: This is in fact, what congress intended)
Again, this came about because the FISA court tried to put a stop to these shenanigans back in 2002 and then the reviewing court reversed them. So now they let it go, as they are required to.
Prince has enough unreleased material to drop an album a year for the next 100yr
Our argument is with your specific views on the meaning of words.

Other sources[1] define empathy as "feeling what another person feels" and sympathy as "having compassion for a person without necessarily feeling what they feel". In that case, the judge is clearly empathizing with the defendant, and not merely sympathizing.

[1] http://grammarist.com/usage/empathy-sympathy/
How Information Graphics Reveal the Brain’s Blind Spots
>“Once we’ve exhausted our exploration of the data, we see no reason not to make them available publicly,” says Kati Lassila-Perini, a CMS physicist who leads these data preservation efforts.

Why wait until they've exhausted their efforts?
To add on that explenation, EV is about identity. Its what should differential someone pretending to be facebook using facebookcorewwwl.com and the real entity. Its less about encryption and keys, and more about a CA claiming to have looked at the companies registration papers and other government official documents and thus confirmed their identity.
> No it isn't. Not even close. It's maybe the first cross-platform development "environment" of which millenials are widely aware.

Name one then instead of this patronizing BS.
Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks there's a 'very high' chance universe a simulation
Looks like you can find that sort of information here: https://hackbrightacademy.com/transgender-inclusion-policy/
How many people left can read, purchase Absolute OpenBSD, and use Google? I bet more than you're suggesting. If not OpenBSD, they mighg type in secure Linux distro with better results.
I lost my dad to cholangiocarcinoma when I was only 7 - rest easy knowing you had a positive impact on the world Pieter.
You're really not trying to sell me on the idea here.

Show a little enthusiasm. If "you have to negotiate with every homeowner for sidewalk access on your way to the store" is such a good idea and leads to expansive new freedoms, it shouldn't be at all hard to make a positive case for it.

So, make a positive case for it! Show me how my freedom's increased in this situation! Instead you're just whining and insulting me. If this is a good idea, surely you can do better than that.

Especially since, on a techie libertarian-leaning forum like this, I'm even asking you to make a case. Go into a suburb somewhere and tell people about this and they'd look at you like you had a third arm growing out of your head. I'm the easy audience here.

Wanna try again?
A shader is a thing in a graphics card, right?

Obviously that description is insufficient. What are shaders?
They might want first crack at any major discoveries, if they miss something then everyone else gets a crack.

Seems reasonable to me.
The Startup Steroid Era and the Use of Capital as a Performance Enhancing Drug
The iframe says:

"Your requested URL has been blocked as per the directions received from Department of Telecommunications, Government of India. Please contact administrator for more information."

Interestingly, since the iframe source is on http rather than https, browsers refuse to load it. So users to this site end up seeing a blank page, which was probably not what the ISP intended.