skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
True, but I'm not going to starve the rest of the world so that I feel safe. That seems like a definition of evil.

Democracies almost never go to war with other democracies; it's not much of a threat. Also, liberty and self-determination are Western values; what you describe is the antithesis.
Disney film crews, can take down drones, Secret Service can too.
If systemd tried to change daemon: "systemd is breaking linux and not everyone runs systemd!"

If systemd tried to add user_daemon: "systemd is trying to add systemd specific patches to everyones software!"

They can't win. Haters gonna hate.
As a former IBMer in '90s, I would like to nominate VisualAge for Java as another example of awkward naming choices. The team I was on used VAJ (as it was always referred to in electronic communications) extensively. In speech, people would often pronounce the acronym rather than say "VisualAge" or "VisualAge for Java". Of course, they pronounced it "vadge", because how else would you pronounce VAJ? Sometimes it was said by someone being mischievous, but much more often it was said by people who had no idea that it was slang for something much more exciting.
This "clearly something has gone horribly wrong" is where I think we actually get lazy.

Let me illustrate using my example. The mid-level consumer is a crop function that takes the image and coordinates. It has no reason to assume someone wont check the image bounds so it uses the panicky API to access the array, assuming "Ok, they'll check if they are out of image dimensions beforehand".

But another level up, we're passing user-generated data right to it, after the face detection crop. Clearly thats wrong. Unfortunately the mid-level consumer didn't provide a non-panicky API so we had to write our own wrapper.

The question is, is it crashy-wrong? If shared mutable state is cleaned up via RAII/defer/finally, there is nothing wrong with the "exception" being caught and the process can continue running. The reason why we don't know if something went horribly wrong is that we don't have the cleanup contract for handling these types of things in the first place.

So why do we want this extremely unsafe "cleanupless" contract to begin with? I can't think of any other reason than performance, because syntax sugar can always take care of the rest.
The way you related it to programming gave me a whole new perspective. Books and coaching have a role to play in programming, for example. Most of the time it is to accelerate learning it. Yet, you do need to have some momentum to begin with by having an own project. I never looked at it so clearly with regards to startups.
Who will create the lab? Won't he be the most powerful ? Can't these people genetically modify themself to not care about sex slaves (or even consumption, so no worker-slaves needed) ? Maybe scientists-slaves?

The truth(by my simple/short unscientific observation) is that most people don't give a fuck at all about anything other than themself so why should the lab-designer care about them (and share his tech)?

What happens when you build you lab/fix-diseases and don't want to share them with the masses (you don't want their $$)(you just want to share with other lab-designers/scientists/doctors etc). They WILL try kill you. How to escape this ? Kill them first? Don't share at all (you supposedly want to share with other lab-builders)?

I think, the lab creator WILL have to also build crazy weapons to protect himself from "the others"? They just won't accept no for an answer.

So you have to create your weapons first, then build the lab (or enslave others by using weapons to build the lab for you).

Makes sense ?
The difference is that pre-systemd, there is no safe way to guarantee that all processes are reaped on logout if some of the processes are written maliciously to try and avoid being reaped.

And this is a red herring. If the process is malicious, it can just as well use this systemd method to keep from being killed and continue to do its dastardly deeds in the background. Logically, this "feature" can not be about controlling purposely malicious programs, because there's no way to determine if a process is malicious or not just by asking it or by having it assert that it is not. The only reason this exists is to paper over bugs in either the way these daemons are spawned (ssh-agent and pgp-agent, for example, work best when they appear in the execution inheritance hierarchy, rather than as separately spawned programs that run as siblings) or in the way they detect that a session has ended.
That law won't apply to a auction
>Larry Summers needs a helicopter [...] He would not have written this rant if he had a helicopter

Can you elaborate? It's not clear to me why he would not have written this rant if he had a helicopter. Are you trying to tie his frustration with the bridge to his commute times?
That's not quite correct though: all of my Debian systems (jessie and stretch) are happily running with either sysvinit or openrc. Maybe there's a problem running Gnome without systemd, but I'm not using that anyway.

The only thing the TC decided is that daemons must be able to run under systemd -- which can be achieved by providing a (cross-init) sysv script, or a systemd service file.
But it's institutions, not individuals, that get us to the moon. It's bad when the pendulum swings too far in the other direction and we give up on our institutions.

I agree with this, but I think it is often the case that institutions deserve to be given up on. I don't think we've figured out how to make them resilient against the internal politics of the institution becoming the primary activity of the institution.
then they could have just updated ape, should be less work than trying to babysit gcc.
This is a ridiculous comment. Read and learn from other people. Just don't substitute that for learning from experiment, instead use it as in a complimentary manner.
The government doesn't even have the resources to check fish species that are sold in grocery stores and restaurants [1]... food labeling is a big problem in the US.

1. http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/02/21/172589997/one...
Partial escape analysis is one http://www.ssw.uni-linz.ac.at/Research/Papers/Stadler14/Stad...
Why then is the HTC Vive Reddit filled with post after post of people having a great time playing games for hours, and very few reports of nausea or sickness? I'm not suggesting we ignore health concerns related to VR, but the huge gulf between the anecdotal evidence post-launch and this guys VR sickness apocalypse make me think something is off.
I don't understand this at all. Yes, you can add features, but if they are not ergonomic, then why bother? For instance, you can't just add features that introduce syntactic ambiguity or change your parser to become context sensitive without making the language significantly more complex all around.

Yes, you can add anything without breaking backward compatibility. That's why I qualified it with "reasonable" -- there are very good reasons to break backward compatibility, and being a slave to it will pile up technical debt in very unpleasant and potentially avoidable ways.

It's like trying to make a skyscraper taller without rebuilding the foundation. Sure, you can add giant ugly supports on the side, but once you've done that a few times, nobody is going to feel safe near your building. And no self-respecting architect would do it.
I'll approach this from a different angle: it is more terrifying, because robots don't say "no."

Since Nuremberg, the individual decision to refuse to carry out orders contrary to national or international law has been a vital bulwark against atrocities of all types, including nuclear war.

Stanislov Petrov saved the world by refusing to follow procedure, because he (correctly) believed the data to be in error.

Tiananmen Square didn't repeat itself in Tahrir only because the commander of the theatre operations refused a direct order from President Mubarak to use tanks to retake the square.

After the refusal, the order was relayed directly to the tanks within and among the square. Officers were calling their fathers, brothers, mentors, even one who called his former teacher, an American NDU Professor, all asking what they should do. Eventually, the armed forces defected, and Mubarak fell.

Robotic soldiers (AGVs) have no such fail safe. They have no conscience, no larger sense of purpose, no allegiance to King and country. They can be configured to kill whatever they are told, without even a moment's hesitation.

Having soldiers that can coldly eradicate populations serves as the perfect tool of the autocrat, and is the perfect foil of the volunteer warrior from a democracy.

One risks nothing, benefitting himself, the other risks everything, benefitting others.

That said, robots are merely tools: physical extensions made by humans, tied to
mathematical algorithms written by humans, executed on silicon designed by humans. They can have whatever value system we choose to imbue.

The ruse that we shouldn't accommodate is any attempt on the part of the operators to shift the blame for their actions onto the system.

A drone doesn't kill 16 people at a wedding any more than an AKS-74 killed a dozen Ukrainian citizens in Crimea. People control these actions.

It's like we spend all of our time obsessing about the puppets, and never question who's holding the strings.

"Will robot soldiers be good or bad?" isn't the question. The question is, "Are the soldiers controlling the robot good or bad?"
That sounds terrible. One positive, potentially, that I found was an object-based GUI or system model that supposedly let the developers handle that stuff better than Windows or UNIX/X-Windows. OS/2 fanboys always say something about it. Any insight or opinions on that?
I use wpa_supplicant + dhcpcd + wpa_gui and only have to update my config like once per year.
Hype, people don't want to up-vote nay-saying (if they even bother to report it), would be my guess (assuming the nausea is actually a serious problem, this would be my explanation).
It's still federated identity. Phone numbers are a federated structure, but the federation occurs at the level of telcos and nations; you are denied the opportunity of self-management. They also predate the domain name system, making them the "traditional" format, an anachronism rather than the future.

I'm looking to wearables and low-power IoT devices, and for those we may need a new federated identity/discovery scheme. The DNS is practically ancient now, but has served email, web and XMPP and many other protocols besides surprisingly well for decades. I doubt it is sophisticated enough for global-scale wearables and ubiquitous sensors. We could never have built anything so sophisticated on phone numbers.

Most of your remarks seem to align with the preferences of chat app developers. But actually there's no group I'd trust less, today, to determine the future trajectory of communication. Interoperability, federation and end-to-end behaviour is the open architecture of the Internet, and I believe anything that undermines that triad should be met with contempt and resistance.
I used it as a development workstation back in the early 1990s in an all-IBM shop. I remember it taking an eternity to boot up (like 10 minutes?) on the PS/2 desktop machines we had. Once it was up and running it was OK as I recall.
All of my debian systems have their network configured with /etc/network/interfaces like so:

iface wlan0 inet dhcp
wpa-ssid redacted
wpa-psk "redacted"

It's a bit clunky if I need to take a laptop around to different wifi networks, but I don't do that very much.
once again we see a comment like: "at this point it might be better stopping people (you know, users) commenting on this in how it affects their day-to-day use of the software"

Am I alone in thinking such comments are ostensibly helpful but in fact passive aggressive, because they stifle the user community's only relevant channel of complaint?
I agree, but usually when people post nothing more than "why?", they're not communicating that they're a customer or potential investor who is concerned about the long-term viability of the product or the company. Usually when people post nothing more than "why?", it's a lazy of saying "I think this is stupid", because if they did just come out and say "I think this is stupid", it would make their absence of a supporting argument all the more glaring.
It's hard to escape the suspicion that Magic Leap is the Theranos of VR.
I guess that system could deserve a 4 year cursus to reach understanding. APL breeds fields.
The theory of "speech acts" goes into this kind of question. In certain contexts, merely saying something does amount to an action. Marriage vows are a familiar example.
Personally, I replace it with connman[0], as I find connmanctl(1) to be far more usable than nmcli.

[0] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Connman
> if you care about your pet like you do your child, you shouldn't feed the off-the-shelf non-human grade food.

This is... an interesting generational thing, I think. To most older people, the idea of caring as much for your pet as you would for a child seems viscerally wrong. They even economize on pet healthcare. but... among those younger than me, your view, as far as I can tell, seems to be the norm. The very idea that you might be unwilling to go bankrupt paying for medical care for your pets seems abhorrent.
I considered Github links to be essentially content-free noise for several years because I did not know about their "README.md" convention. I think that people who live and breathe github probably don't realize how confusing their interface can be to a newcomer.
>Given that there are no owners, to the employees seems reasonable

By what standard? Does a new employee get the same percentage as every other employee? If so, how is that fair when certain positions objectively have much more impact on the success of the company? If not, who decides allocations for new employees and who the allocations should come from?

Also, who is going to put up the capital in the first place to start the business if there is no return?
Just "500 Lines" also sounds better.
Why not? Because he saw the article on Ebay? I don't know if this changes things, but they paid in person, they had every chance to inform the other party if it seemed so strange for them. And the fact remains, there was a party who didn't know, and another that knew and took advantage. For example, if she knew, she could have started the auction at a much higher price...
He is still very active in Python. His recent lektor static CMS is wonderful and written in Python.

http://www.getlektor.com
systemd-networkd

It actually works rather well but it doesn't have every feature that NetworkManager does.
Does anybody know if VGA GPU passthrough is working?
Thought the UEFI implementation was the limiting factor, not sure though!
You can try with a plastic or resin bird of prey figure.
I felt somewhat sick watching a let's play of the half-life 2 bridge level. No difficulty with VR there; that problem is simply the accurate depiction of incredibly unsafe movement through an incredibly unsafe environment.

It makes for an interesting conflict with the desire to provide an "extreme" experience, I think.
> Some people get sick after playing or watching games on a regular 2D monitor.

Yes. It's highly dependent on the game, too; certain games seem very prone to issues. For example, The Talos Principle, a first-person puzzle game, causes nausea in enough players -- including me! -- that there's a whole section in the configuration for "motion sickness options", like changing the field of view or disabling head bobbing.

(FWIW, I was able to play through the game comfortably after switching it to a third-person viewpoint.)
> Android notifications do not require any app to be running in order for them to be displayed.

I didn't say there has to be. What I said is there's a single notification service which is reused by everyone. If you're saying that there's no daemon of sorts for notifications, then I'm curious where it's implemented.

> Given 99.99% of people will never run their own servers, this is irrelevant

It doesn't matter that someone won't run their own server. What matters is that you can, which means someone you know or trust can and give you access. These days it's much, much easier to run simple services like messaging if you consider the proliferation of remote accessible NAS boxes and such in households. Adding a messaging service to that is easy. Other than that you can use Sandstorm too if you don't want to operate a server.

> Things like WhatsApp or GChat do not simply replace XML with JSON

I'm sorry you thought I said WhatsApp or GChat use JSON. I mentioned it in reference to other messaging services.
Considering how nutritious(for bacteria) our faeces are, I strongly suspect not. If anything, we know that calories from certain types of food (like nuts) are not absorbed in 100%, so even though a packet of nuts might say it has 500 kcal, it doesn't mean you will get 500 kcal out of it.
What the article is pointing out is the problem caused by the fact that we never repeal anything. Some problem happens, some regulation is put in place to deal with it and now that regulation is permanent. Next year some other problem happens and some regulation is put in place to deal with it. Each seems reasonable on its own but after a hundred years when you put them all together it turns a $5 million project into a $5 billion project.

But it doesn't really address why we never repeal anything, and it's in large part because we keep doing too much at too high a level of government. A thousand years ago a population the size of New York City would have been a nation, but now it's a city inside of a county inside of a state inside of a union. And the union is inside of a set of international treaties.

It's too many layers of bureaucracy. People keep advocating laws at the highest level where they can get them passed, which both makes them harder to fix because they're further removed from the affected people and more likely to cause trouble because any flaws are amplified by the larger affected population.

The flaw seems to be that people think federal legislation is less complex than local legislation, under the theory that uniformity reduces complexity. But in practice what happens is that you end up with 10,000 pages of federal regulations instead of each city having their own 20 pages, and then not being able to fix anything because San Francisco and Houston can't agree which rule one should impose on the other when the sensible choice is to let each do what they want.
I think the idea here is that you can take two weak sources of randomness and combine them into a stronger, single source of randomness in a homogenous way that doesn't reveal the original weaknesses. Thus it's not adding randomness from nowhere, but composing it in a useful way.

I don't actually know, but that's the only interpretation I could come up with that makes sense to me.
No hacker is an island
> If systemd tried to change daemon: "systemd is breaking linux and not everyone runs systemd!"

This critique makes zero sense. Encapsulating this kind of thing is exactly what libc is for. What daemon(3) has to do to achieve it's semantics varies by platform. daemon(3) abstracts that away. That's the point of it. Ditto everything else in libc.

Nobody would complain about libc doing system-specific things. That's precisely what it's for. That's what it already does to do its job.

> If systemd tried to add user_daemon: "systemd is trying to add systemd specific patches to everyones software!"

Again, you seem to not understand the concept of libc and its abstractions.

THere's nothing Systemd-specific about the idea of a user_daemon(3) call. On systemd-using systems it could be implemented using systemd-specific code, whereas on other platforms it could be implemented via OpenBSD specific code or FreeBSD specific code, etc. It could simply be a pass-through to daemon(3) on platforms that don't care about limiting the lifetime of some but not all daemons.

That's what libc is for. It exists to hide the low-level details of the platform from user-space.

Circulating a proposal to extend libc with a new call is exactly what you'd expect from a good citizen in the Open Source community. From a user-space developer's perspective, abstracting away hundreds of lines of dbus calls to systemd-specific endpoints is unequivocally The Right Choice.

That Red Hat seeks instead to push the systemd dependencies as high into user space as possible suggests that technical concerns are not their primary motivation, because Big Ball of Mud style of engineering is bad from any perspective.

> They can't win. Haters gonna hate.

It's reasonably clear that you simply don't understand the critiques being presented here.
Why is free thinking incompatible (or at least in the oppose side of a pendulum) with having institutions?
I do not want systemd to kill processes that have invoked daemon() on session termination. If I wanted it to be killed when I logged out, I wouldn't have invoked daemon()!
>I bought a music box at a garage sale for bout $10. It seemed like a good deal at the time. A few months later I noticed a label on the bottom so I did some research and discovered that the same item was selling for around $1,000 on eBay. Should I now go track the owner down and tell her that she should have asked for more money?

You didn't know. It was a trade among equals. This was different. That said, there are some situations where it's considered OK to rip people off. Finance works like that. But I would've thought that museums had slightly higher standards of conduct than Goldman Sachs...
Right, the point is "whatsapp is hostile to third-party clients" makes no sense as an explanation of why we don't have third-party clients for whatsapp, because all third-party clients for everything have had to deal with hostility from the first party.
No, your transactions were as you did not secretly use rare knowledge to your advantage.
There are lots of those lying around.

I don't know if it still is, but when I was at Mozilla the service that every instance of Firefox around the world hits to do the version/extension-compatibility checks was backed by Django, and was at something like 15k req/s served. Firefox has gained some market share in the four-ish years since I got that number, so probably larger now.
Device used in Nazi coding machine found for sale on eBay
Your way has its own set of pitfalls, and I'm not sure that they're less than the alternative. If you do business in New York, Chicago, and Boston, then you have to worry about laws in all three places. The more you lean upon local lawmaking, then the more you risk adding a big layer of legal incompatibility once you start crossing borders.
For anyone interested the Go client library is: https://github.com/ory-am/fosite
already on the front page... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11796212
The whole regulatory system is not designed with antibiotics in mind. One of the biggest problems is if you bring a new antibiotic to market the doctors will be reluctant to use it as they will want to keep it for those emergency cases when all the other antibiotics don't work. As a pharmaceutical company you have put an enormous amount of money into developing a new drug and them nobody buys it. Rather than go down this path most of the pharma companies have just decided to produce the the things we really need like erectile dysfunction drugs.
> But it's institutions, not individuals, that get us to the moon.

At what cost to our liberty? In the absence of something eery (e.g. communists seeking world domination) this becomes harder and harder to justify. If something can't be achieved voluntarily, maybe it just shouldn't be done.