skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think you either misinterpreted the employees's comments, or they were mistaken. Our deletion policies are clearly outlined in our privacy policy (Snapchat.com/privacy).

"...we automatically delete the content of your Snaps (the photo and video messages that you send your friends) from our servers after we detect that a Snap has been opened or has expired."

Note that the deletion model is different for non-Snap media:

"Outside of Snaps, the rest of our services may use content for longer periods of time, which means those services may follow different deletion protocols. So, for example, we retain your Story content a bit longer than Snaps so that your friends have more time to view your Story."

Disclaimer: I'm an employee of Snapchat.
This already happens with "dumb" cars, and anecdotally, I've heard this independently from multiple tow truck drivers / roadside emergency responders that they specifically park their vehicles, and stand in specific spots, to avoid getting sideswiped or smushed. You also see this with state police conducting traffic stops in the highway: they pull their vehicle over, but not completely in line with the person they pulled over, giving them a little protection by putting their vehicle in the way... or they approach on the side of the vehicle that isn't adjacent to traffic.

Stationary vehicle, in a traffic lane, on a major artery, is a bad situation whether or not your car is piloting itself.
Is anywhere near this amount of crying normal? I have never tracked but I would suspect it would be more like 1x every year or two if we remove allergies.
For one, it's amusing to see you lean on naturalness of rights, and for another, the term "intellectual property" is a relative novelty, meant to equate the output of the intellect with goods and land, which is resembles not at all.

So, while there is a case for limited (a word which should have meaning) government-granted monopolies on products of the mind, they just don't have the same standing as rights which, if not natural to being a human, have a longer tradition than modern national governments. The word "natural" has meaning at least in terms of precedence, if not bloody in tooth and claw nature itself.

In other words, we could claim and defend a right to our lives and property and freedom to move about long before we could claim such a right to our thoughts as recorded somehow. We had to wait for government granted monopolies for the latter.

Finally, government itself holds copyright away from other rights. It's an experiment. It doesn't claim to be protecting such a right as a basis for legitimacy, but granting a limited protection. It's the difference between acquiring legitimacy and using it.
FBI-proof iPhone may be in the works as Apple re-hires Silent Circle co-founder
Google knows more about what users intend to do based on what they search for. Facebook knows more about individual likes, activities, interests, etc. Facebook likely won't ever compete with Google's AdWords business (barring the real possibility of a new product somewhere in the future). But in display advertising, building a user profile is more valuable, as it is a much less intent based ad. It's a fact that Facebook is better at this than Google, because Facebook display performs markedly better than Google Display.

> Facebook knows personal details, mood, etc for people who explicitly choose to share these things with their friends, or participate on Facebook in other ways.

Facebook knows so, so, so much more than just this. Facebook knows about events you go to and are interested in. Facebook knows the type of content that you are most likely to click. Facebook knows what you are most interested in.
I would guess/hope something like this is on the sandstorm roadmap but I don't know.
This quickly falls down for searches like:

/a[0-9][0-9][0-9]k[0-9][0-9][0-9]c
I bet, in practice, this will mean some researchers will avoid public funds as it will come with overhead they do not want (publishing rules). But for most this will be a big win.
I can understand where you're coming from. You might want to check out "Last Chance to See" or "The Salmon of Doubt". Entirely different books, but amusing and providing another peek into DNA's thinking. "The Salmon of Doubt" was collected after he died, and contains a variety of things they found on his computer that was not published earlier.
The data collection, analysis, and emotional honesty of this post are extremely impressive.
I saw the two videos on the page but I didn't see the "cartoon milk squirting breasts". Can you please be more specific and point out where they are?
I don't think this can get you to a meaningful code, but more of assembly-looking C. It would require some sort of machine learning to guess code fragments with proper variable names, properly nested loops, etc.
In the way that one hand washes the other?
Maybe I'm a weird case, but most of the time the part in which the work is paid for is enough for me to immediately lose interest. That is, I can do equivalent work 10x faster as long as I'm doing it out of my own motivation, and not because someone expects me to do it.

(Yeah, I had problems with assignments in school too. I'm just wired this way.)
I like a bit of this idea, but too many people already have it in mind that the holder of the information is a "victim of hacking", so punishing them is "victim blaming", which we all know is always bad.
this isn't really the same, it sounds you logged ("hacked") into someone elses account by correctly guessing their password and then used their account for nefarious purposes
To `Heath Robinson' something
I saw "utexas" and "2001" and got really hopeful this was Dijkstra. Yay that it is indeed!
I don't think that's really similar at all. You circumvented password protection and used it to play games. I don't agree with the punishment, but you clearly broke the rules. I also don't see that as having anything whatsoever to do with standardized learning, just you wanting to play games at school.
Use Tor through Whonix gateway. FBI's NIT doesn't have a way through that.
Anyone taking bests on said frustration being intentional?
Absolutely agree. I have only one or twice used method swizzling, but when I have used it it has absolutely saved my bacon in the face of nasty platform bugs. Fighting fire with fire, so to speak.
> Opposed to political correctness and intolerant of transpeople.

Wow, stereotype those who disagree with you much?
Major Cell Phone Radiation Study Reignites Cancer Questions
Remixes are related to samples, another grey area.
Jack Henry and Assoc.
The whole 'app consistency' vs. 'platform consistency' ignores that most users (probably very close to 'all users') change back and forth between apps on a given platform far more than they change between platforms for a given app. I use Google Inbox, and I switch between that and iOS Mail, Tweetbot, FB Messenger, etc. extremely often. I can't imagine a circumstance where I would have an Android device and switch back and forth between Google Inbox on iOS and Google Inbox on Android more frequently than switching between apps on iOS.

Switching to Google Inbox to read an e-mail and then not being able to swipe back, like you can in basically every other iOS app, is jarring and ridiculous. There's no reason for it, other than arrogance. They could keep 'material design' and still make it feel like an iOS app, but they don't bother. Likewise, they seem to have reimplemented text input and text fields, and done so extremely badly, for no reason that I can tell, causing significant problems with selecting text or using third-party keyboards.

If you're switching from Windows to Mac (or Android to iOS) and back frequently, then you're going to be frequently switching UI paradigms, but you'll be dealing with consistency in a given context. You use iOS for a bit and everything behaves one way, then you pick up an Android device and everything works another way.

When you pick up an iOS device and all your paradigms change, except for this one app where they change back and nothing you're used to works, that's more jarring than switching to iOS and having Google Inbox behave like an iOS app, the way every other app on that device works.

In other words, it's not even about material design; it's about fundamental interaction with the app and breaking all of the user's expectations and habits, for no real gain other than, maybe, developer time.
I deeply disagree with this on a level that will be difficult to capture in an Internet comment, but I will try:

What you're describing is the advancement of technology, which has occurred at the institutions that have accumulated the most power. Yes, Facebook, Google and others have hired some of the most talented people in the country, and these people have continued to produce useful technology while ensconced at these companies. Previously the same people could be found at AT&T, Xerox PARC, various DARPA-connected institutions, etc.

All you're describing is the shift in the center of power. In the 50s and 60s it was the government. During the 70s, as power began to shift more and more away from government towards private capital, we saw more and more technologists moving into the employ of monopolists.

It is a mistake to confuse this transfer of power, and the corresponding ability to purchase talent, with the output of that pool of smart people. Moreover in Silicon Valley these people are deeply connected to a much broader community of intellectuals (e.g. through HN) - I'd argue that this culture, of which many members currently sojourn in the arms of large corporations like Facebook, is the real productive unit.

Facebook found a money faucet and connected these people to it; but this money faucet could have been anything. It could have been something of real social value, except we have largely destroyed the mechanisms that direct productivity on the basis of social values and now direct it purely based on the interests of private capital, which is currently enamored with data accumulation and targeted advertising.

I'll end here, but I'd also like to point out that a lot of the stuff you've listed here existed long before Facebook and Google were a twinkle in anyone's eye. You're taking things that were literally developed in the 60s and giving credit to them for the private concentrations of power that were built on top of that work.
What is remarkable is that on a computer, you can reedit what to write to death. On a piece of paper, you have to get it right the very first time.
I think the "plus a constant" here refers to a bound on the size of the proof. So you don't need the exact index, just a really rough upper bound. (This would, of course, be unreasonably inconvenient to check.)
The crying is associated with relatable emotions. The fact that crying is so routine for them is probably a little neurotic (in a clinical sense, not in a pejorative sense). The person is probably a good candidate for some Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT) or Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT). That can be useful to challenge some of the narratives that we tell ourselves and others when we think of things that make us sad.

For example, we might think of a breakup and say to ourselves, "I put two years into this relationship and now I've been dumped. Everyone is going to know that Sarah doesn't want to be with me anymore. What's worse is I wasted all this time only to breakup and be further behind in my relationship goals. I miss Sarah. This is awful." Those types of thoughts are natural and can certainly make you cry

CBT or REBT teaches you to challenge those assumptions. "This is not awful. This is merely inconvenient. I'd rather be sleeping next to Sarah tonight, but I was single for eight months before I met her and I can certainly sleep alone (even though I'd rather not). I wish Sarah still wanted to spend time with me, but I can't change the fact that she does not. We got along pretty well for much of the time and everyone knows that. People breakup all the time and my friends will understand that we gave it a good try. I would like to meet someone soon so that I am not alone, but I've learned that I can be reasonably happy alone for long periods of time"
Honestly, going after the FBI for lying to the Finnish police would probably be a pretty hard case to win. Especially considering how blatantly unreasonable the behaviour of the .fi authorities has been.

It's possible that I could win. But that wouldn't really achieve anything, it wouldn't make the .fi authorities stop.

The best option I have available is to keep fighting my charges in Finland, as no matter whether I win or lose it'll be significantly harder for any other country to prosecute me for those same crimes. The courts here are fairly reasonable, while they require ridiculously low standards of proof, you essentially have to kill someone to actually go to prison here. Perhaps that makes it easier to say "guilty" just to play safe, keep the LE and prosecutors happy.
Cancer is complicated, but it emphatically is a _genetic_ disease, with inherited _genetic_ risk factors. Environmental influences are typically mediated by their ability to cause or promote mutation via cell stress (e.g. by promoting local inflammation) and cell proliferation, which in turn increases mutation load. There are subtler influences that could weaken the natural immunosurveillance of neopeptides by T-cells, but the importance of such surveillance in prevention is debated and perhaps more relevant in later-stage cancers. We may not fully understand such a complicated disease, but with modern sequencing we have a pretty good lens on the phenomenology of emergence of cancer, and that "subjective plausibility" is a working gut-bayesian framework that doesn't put a strong prior on ambient microwaves as a likely causative factor. Also, the field of RF- and microwave- induced cancer has been a long-running cottage industry producing bad science for many years now: i.e. studies with poor statistical power and poor replicability… so there’s a reason skepticism prevails on this point among biologists. It’s not just dogmatism: if anyone can get a replicable animal model we could dive into it to find new mechanisms… but these results always seem to sit at the edge of detection.
Your linked blog post was a really good read, but I'm not totally sure if the correct takeaway was that brute force outperforms "clever" algorithms. Unless I misinterpreted the results, FLANN and Annoy (which implement hierarchical k-means and a binary space partitioning algorithm, respectively) both ran about 100x faster than brute force.

Were you referring to the number of libraries the author couldn't get to work? This certainly might be a failure of over complicated algos, but it seemed more like an engineering failure than a performance failure to me.
.... like every other company does?
> It would be pretty awful to lie [...] to your kid about the existence of imaginary holiday characters

True. But people do it, regularly and consistently, and in fact protect their children from finding out about said lies, with ever more complex mechanisms. But, strangely, most people who do this seem to think it's a good thing to lie like this. Not sure why, and I suspect it sets a bad example to children that adults are not to be trusted, as they make things up. And that it is OK to do it, since there are no bad consequences for the adults, so why not lie themselves?
That's more or less it. Some things you can do:

- Dataflow analysis, to get an idea of the types/range of values you're working with

- Pattern matching to try to identify higher level constructs from math to loops to jump tables.

- Compiler-specific pattern matching to identify things like function entry points

- Signature pattern matching common functions (like C standard library calls), along the lines of what's used in High Level Emulation.
I get a little choked up when I see paintings of horses. I have no other connection to horses. It's very quick and generally jumbled with thoughts of "Uhhhhh, what in the world is happening right now?"
> Problem is many people signed up years ago and I bet they've changed their ToS and privacy policy 100 times since then without people noticing.

Honestly that sounds functionally like democracy still.

People (not I) voted for policies years ago have have changed a thousand times since, with or without people noticing.

Officials campaign promising to serve constituents in some way (we can call this their Terms of Service), people elect them, then they change those terms often, sometimes dramatically, sometimes on day 0. Whether people notice or not seems to have little effect.
I'm certain it's person by person, but for me it doesn't really interfere and clears up pretty quick. It's just little quick bouts.
https://docs.sandstorm.io/en/latest/administering/email/

Running a Sandstorm instance in your home with backup network / power is a separate story, however.
It is not about the domain scope of a cookie, but defining when should a cookie be attached to the outgoing http request.

Right now when evil.com does XHR or form submission to google.com, browser attaches all google.com cookies automatically. The request happpens even though response can't be read back by evil.com. With SameSite attrib on all cookies, request to google.com from evil.com won't send any cookies. This will severely limit CSRF and other types of attacks.

In fact I'm surprised no one proposed this earlier. Hindsight bias of course.
AdBlock doesn't block GA. AdBlock blocks ads, not on site analytics tools. To block GA, either set your browser to do not track or disable JS
The GRIM test – a method for evaluating published research
> But then you have to trust their program doesn't have any bugs

This is no different from a typical math paper. Proofs can have "bugs", too; and sometimes they're fatal. That's -- in theory -- one of the points of peer review.
Seems excellent but I'm afraid the EU will just pay a sweet bundle of money to the publishers for the privilege instead of making it a law.
Either way I hope it also extends to the member states level eventually. The circus of avoiding conflict between EU funding and member state funding is often quite amusing so this will be interesting.

It feels almost ethically self evident that any research funded by citizens in any way should be made available to said citizens (and that's more or less 100% of research in Europe). Lets step in that direction.
Light therapy has been huge for my mental and physical health. Research lead me to purchase a light alarm clock [1] years ago. Light early in the morning has made a noticeable effect on my ability to go to sleep at night by simulating serotonin [2] In the evening we have our Lifx bulbs set to mimic sunset color and the morning mimic sunrise transition to bright white wake up hue.

1. http://www.biobrite.com/category/light-therapy/
2. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry...
> classify having this information breached as a crime by the holder of the information

The source of the problem in this case is that the CFAA is too loose/broad and the penalties are absurd. The solution is to fix that. Make it so that the only penalties available are proportional and innocuous actions like reporting vulnerabilities are bright-line not illegal whatsoever.

You're essentially suggesting cold war style MAD as a solution to the government foolishly supplying toxic waste to children who are then found using it to poison people they don't like, under the theory that if everyone can poison everyone then everyone will have to behave. Better to clean up the toxic waste than ensure equal access to it.
When people say "friends", they often don't mean just in the "Friends Will Be Friends" sense, they also mean it to include "acquaintances I'd like to keep in touch with", "cute people I'd like to get to know better", "ex-coworker who I got well along with", etc.
Edit: I have retracted this post; it came across in a way that I did not intend it to. Thank you to those of you who explained the response I received.
At the very least, we can expect every future presidential candidate to have appeared on a reality show at some point. "News" organizations seek ratings. Nothing delivers ratings like the frisson of seeing that same person who did that silly thing on that show, now doing some other silly thing to piss off the nerds on CNN!
Sure, but the statement that they were unable to monetize the product is incorrect. They have successfully monetized the product. They (so far) have been unable to keep the user base growing at a rate that a public company generally requires.
She's already in therapy, which accounts for a lot of the crying. And I think finding out your partner is married to someone else would cause a lot of crying in anyone who's otherwise emotionally healthy.
True. But given the choice between the two (and they clearly had this choice), I wonder if they consider that an individual will not be able to mount as strong a defense as a business.
Real Hide IP 4.5.4.8 Crack Full Serial Key Download
If providing a free of charge platform for humans to communicate, organize, build bridges, nurture their close social connections AND their loose ones especially (which used to be much more difficult, you wouldn't phone everyone daily) isn't enough for you, here are a few other things :

- Open Source software: https://code.facebook.com/projects/

- Open Source, eco-friendly datacenter hardware: http://www.opencompute.org/

- Solar planes R&D + partial or total Internet connectivity for remote third world areas that had none : https://info.internet.org/en/

- making a guy rich who has pledged to give away 99% of his fortune to charity?

There are far worse uses for human effort and talent, and even as a non-user you and/or the world are probably getting some dividends already.
I write about personal finance and tax. My recent article on prenups seems to be popular. I also just wrote an article about shady tax evasion tactics people come up with. Visit me at Finangle
http://finangle.com/.
Scitec Carnitine 3000 60ml carnitina tomar
Also use extensions like NoScript/Privacy Badger to block the background scripts
Once you know the answer, you say "Take this program and run it with n=7825". That is your compact finite proof, not the untested program. You'd don't have to meta-prove halting, you just give it the required CPU hours.
Exactly. Twitter earned nearly $600M last quarter. Claiming that it has not successfully monetized is simply false.
Indeed, you are right. Interesing link on this subject [1], it explains a bit more in detail the greenhouse runway process.

[1] http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/astrocourses/AST101/re...
It's a matter of perspective. I'd argue most European research falls under this. If you work at a public university and are paid for it and do research during that time and publish it that should be covered.
It would be pretty lame if only stuff that was explicitly funded in a research project would be covered.
Other option: publisher grants a single right to author or author's institution (but no one else) to make a copy available.