skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Check out these roofs: http://www.victoriaheritagefoundation.ca/images/Glossary/Roo... These are all trivial with polygons, but AFAIK impossible with voxels, no matter which rendering algorithm you use.
I would make it illegal and unenforceable for BI to be used as collateral for any financial transactions. Much in the same way that your IRA cannot be used to secure a loan [1], I would prohibit BI funds from being used to secure loans in any way.

[1] IRS Publication 590, "Prohibited Transactions", https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590a.pdf
no.

you tested with a lot of externalities keeping life exciting.

the real stress is being together through the daily, normal grind. in particular kids. where traveling for 6months through SA becomes unattainable - but you still remember those good old days.

the 7 year itch is very real and closely tracks having kids.

what you describe is the 20something vision of life.
changes drastically mid-30s for most.
Well since every day is a slow news day, and this is great headline-grabbing and panic inducing information, we need to get this on network news.
> I don't know anybody who works full-time in software security who thinks HttpOnly is a meaningful defense, but, if you're out there, chime in and make a case for it. :)

I'm going to mostly agree. It's only a meaningful defense against bottom-rung attackers who go after the lowest-hanging of fruit, and if you're susceptible to them, you've probably got bigger problems (in the server-side RCE realm).

And of course, XSS means token-based SSRF/CSRF mitigations are completely toast in the absence of any extra controls (i.e. password re-prompts, CAPTCHAs). Rough and dirty pseudocode PoC for anyone who thinks different:

// Assuming the token is in the HTML form, and tied to the session.
// If it's in a cookie, just skip to $.post():
$.get("/url", {"arg": "value"}, function(data) {
// ... Grep for token ...
$.post("/url", {"arg": tokenGoesHere});
// pwnd
});

What httpOnly does well is put the burden on the attacker to create a more explicit exploit than "grab the session ID and POST it to this external site so I can swoop in impersonating them at my leisure". They instead need to make the payload do all the commands they intended or connect back to await instructions.

Is that a meaningful security gain? Not in the big scheme of things, no. "Not vulnerable to script kiddie tactics" isn't exactly a bragging right.

The proper fix is, of course, to update your code and remove XSS vulnerabilities.
From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subitizing

"Subitizing is the rapid, accurate, and confident judgement of numbers performed for small numbers of items. [...]
The accuracy, speed, and confidence with which observers make judgments of the number of items are critically dependent on the number of elements to be enumerated. Judgments made for displays composed of around one to four items are rapid, accurate and confident."
Isn't the spirit to promote foreign investment, as opposed to domestic companies restructuring themselves to look foreign on paper?
I'm excited to see this in fruition. I don't know how much of a concern this is but https://hyperdev.com/about/ loads an attachment (mime/octet-stream). I've never seen this behavior before so I didn't download it. Win 10, FF 46.0.1
fteproxy [1] can superficially mask the protocol that you're using (e.g., makes Tor look like HTTP) using regular expressions.

marionette [2] enables control over what protocol it looks like you're using and duration of connections generated, amount of data sent per connection, etc.

[1] https://fteproxy.org/
[2] https://github.com/marionette-tg/marionette
Simply stating that you've "silenced the" theft argument doesn't make it so. Anymore than the Church branding Galileo a heretic didn't refute heliocentrism.
You didn't read the citations before saying that, did you?
IIRC "Elegance in mathematics is directly proportional to what you can see in it and inversely proportional to the effort required to see it" -- S. Eilenberg
> American tech companies shouldn't indulge censorship

I'm all for free speech, but US companies should follow the local laws. US tech companies aren't above the law, especially when they do business in foreign countries (selling ads is doing business). It sucks but going against the laws doesn't work in the long run. You can get away with it when you're a young US start up and you don't have offices in France,Germany or Austria, but as soon as you do, you are effectively subject to local laws.
Throwaway to share my experience with them:

I applied in mid-2014 to a software eng position based on encouragement from a recruiter. I went to two onsites with five people in total, each of which passed me to the next round.

They had me come in for a third onsite(!) to meet with CEO James Beriker and some head of engineering. I had admitted to being let go for underperformance to the position I held two jobs ago (was doing fine at my current). I had explained this to each past interviewer who asked. Beriker just seemed to want to have fun with it, asking "well why the heck should I hire someone who's been fired?" He looked at my resume and said, "so, what were you doing between these positions ... oh right, that must have been how long it took you to find a job".

Whenever I asked for clarification on his other questions, he cryptically dismissed it with, "just, whatever you interpret that to mean".

I don't imagine that they're going to get a steady stream of good candidates[1] if they're going to put you through all that and still veto you for something they should have known very early on. I ended up working somewhere else and have gotten a total 35% raise since starting.

I also had an interviewer who did the thing where they get flabbergasted and insistent that you did it wrong because you use the opposite convention from the "official" solution, until you walk through it.

[1] In one interview, I derived the optimal solution to the Dutch Flag Problem despite not having seen the problem before.
I often conceptualize programming as a two-dimensional continuum, with Alan Kay on one dimension — flexibility, interactivity, composability, exploration — and Edsger Dijkstra on the other — correctness, efficiency, simplicity. We always need a certain amount of each virtue to make our systems: without enough EWD, we can't get them to work at all, and without enough AK, what they do isn't worthwhile.

Many design choices, of course, involve trading off one virtue against another. But that hardly seems to matter when so many of our current systems are so far from the efficient frontier where tradeoffs are necessary!
Been in this situation a few times now. It's dawning on me that this is why they say not to use the same password in more places..
> i.e. if you get $10k from BI or can get $12k from working building widgets, you'd have to decide if that time spent making widgets is worth the $2k extra

That's not how UBI works. The "U" in "UBI" is "unconditional", referring (among other things [0]) to the fact that it isn't means-tested; that is, it isn't reduced for outside income.

So, if you have $10k in UBI and there are jobs making $12k building widgets, you don't get $2k extra from working, you get $12k extra [1].

[0] It also refers to the absence of behavior testing, which is a common feature alongside means testing of public welfare programs.

[1] Before taxes. Income (including payroll) taxes will reduce this, but you don't lose UBI dollar-for-dollar (or, for that matter, at all) with outside income.
This should be interesting.

In the not too distant future we will have huge numbers of global population turned redundant by technology, what will they do?
This really doesn't make sense. He's treating all possible theories as if they're disjoint events in a single random variable, but most of them would be better modeled jointly as separate variables, most pairs of which would be considered either independent or conditionally independent. It seems to me like this leads the math in a very different direction, one where even infinite theories don't drive any probabilities toward an asymptotic zero.

So, what was the author's point? That Bayesian statistics are irrational? Or that they can be misinterpreted and misapplied in ridiculous ways?
> My idea is just figure out a way to nudge earth towards the sun and inertia will do the rest, slowly but surely, so a vote for their #10

I don't think you can. Even if you could give the whole Earth a push toward the sun, it has enough orbital velocity (~30,000 m/sec) that it'll miss and keep on going around. You might turn its orbit into a slightly different ellipse.

Say we want to straight up (down?) launch a probe into the sun. It's a hard thing to do because it has to shed all of that orbital speed to get its velocity vector pointed in the right direction (at which point it can fall in on its own). If you only get rid of most of it, you'll fall into a long elliptical orbit.

You could potentially dump some energy with a gravitational assist off of Venus (transfer some of our momentum into speeding up its orbit while slowing ours down), but there's still the matter of getting the Earth to Venus for that to work. And at that point maybe you just want to stick to #9.

I haven't played enough KSP to be sure of all that, but that's my understanding of the orbital mechanics.
Windows developers have seldom this problem, because we don't do endless nesting of folders.
Do you take the same approach with DNS?
Or adopt already born ones that don't have much of a chance otherwise.
So that Group Policy can turn it off. For instance, an Enterprise doesn't want anyone using super long paths, even if software is manifested to handle it, because some of their NTFS drives are secretly NetWare shares of FAT volumes still and things will go wonky.

The more interesting question is why doesn't this build default that registry key to On in this Build. My presumption here is that the Win32 subsystem changes are possibly significant and there are some backwards compatibility concerns and so this is "feature flagged" until it's been tested more in labs/real world exposure.
I'm dyslexic, as are a couple of my kids. None of us are overly fond of the dyslexic font (I first started looking at it years ago as well), it makes a lot of subtle horizontal lines in the text because of the uneven weights in the lines. This is a problem because I am VERY shape sensitive. I end up looking at those lines between the letters and can't focus on the letters themselves -- and then I can't read the text because the shapes of the words are all wrong.

But I REALLY like that new transport font.
1GB distro to display a full screen browser seems a bit excessive

Edit: there is a lite version at 557MB, didn't notice at first due to it having two dates in the name
Saying you don't like a movie isn't hate speech.

The first trailer was terrible. I think almost objectively terrible. It's clearly a ghostbusters movie, but it didn't seem to give me any reason to want to see the movie. It made it look like a cash-in-remake.

The later trailers have looked much better and give me some hope. We'll see what reviews say.

The original movie is a pretty great film, and I enjoyed it. I loved the cartoon as a kid, so I'm interested in seeing what happens with the franchise.

If you're not interested in the movie because you don't want a remake, or you thought the trailer didn't look good, that' fine.

If you're expressing that you hate the movie only because they changed the cast for this iteration... then you start to fit into the 'angry-man-boy' category. Same if you fit in the previous category but use lots of sexist terms and slurs to describe the new movie.

And then there is group three, the worst of the groups. These are the people sending hate messages, death threats, rape threats, etc. You can call for a boycott for whatever reason you want, people will probably think you're childish. But if you're sending death threats because someone changed a fictional character in a movie you haven't even seen yet? Yeah, you've earned that label.

As for AVGN, I haven't watched the video. Given everything that's happend around the movie it certainly immediately raises my "angry-man-boy" suspicions, but again I haven't watched it. At this point the nutcases are getting so loud over this (and every other topic) that it gets really easy for people with more reasonable viewpoints (especially if not presented well) to end up lumped in.

Solution? Ban the nutcases. No one needs to be able to send death threats via Twitter. No one needs to be able to receive them. Death threats aren't free speech, they're already exempted (assuming they are in any way reasonable).

There is plenty of room for subtlety in discussions of this kind of stuff. Can white people use the n-word? What if group X suddenly decides that phrase Y is evil?

I don't care. We can decide that later. For now, let's just ban the death threats, physical abuse threats, etc. and see where that gets us. I bet it improves things a ton.

I'd say I want to see someone make a good case for allowing death threats but this is the internet and I really don't, because someone will try and I'll think that much less of humanity.
> safe-space movements that stifle free speech

Safe spaces do not stifle free speech. Just as your ability to limit who enters your home (if you have one) does not stifle free speech, safe spaces do not stifle free speech.

I would argue that they actually increase freedom of speech, because they give certain individuals freedom to express themselves without fear of retribution. Something that can be rather difficult achieve for some people.

Of course, there are problems with the safe space movement. For example, they often highlight racial/ethnic/gender differences between people. In my analysis, it seems that marginalized people have realized the world is not going to change any time soon, and that they will continue to be marginalized – which is the motivation for creating a safe place.

Should Facebook/Twitter be a "safe space"? Probably not – but Facebook has been very succcesful at creating such safe spaces with their Groups platform, which seem to be gaining more and more traction.
> Mr. Conway said Mister Softee had not sought legal remedy for the bullying. “It’s just the way it is,” he said. “Life on the street.”

What? What the fuck? These are ice cream trucks, not drug dealers. Why aren't they protecting their employees? If it's as bad as they say, all they'd need is a few security cameras and the police could start making arrests.
I don't think anyone on here was saying or implying that that's NOT how it should work. In fact, at least one commenter stated that they wouldn't have it any other way.

We're discussing a normative conclusion that even though "people can kick you out of their garden, that's now it works", perhaps people shouldn't choose to kick others out of their "garden" because of disagreements and free speech issues (though they're always welcome to do so).
Quartz Coin Can Store 360TB of Data for 14B Years
Ah, whoops. Humans having/employing cognition and reasoning are likely necessitated by us existing.

What Hume/Dawkins/I are saying is that human survival/existence is not necessitated by Reason, which is cold and indifferent. As Dawkins says Reason inside the bounds of Empiricism shows us only "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference".
Yeah we could not use alpine based images on kubernetes all this time, should work just fine now.
Right, you can make excuses and quibble and apologize for his hateful demagoguery as much as you like (his quote of course as we all remember suggests most immigrants are rapists and murderers and criminals, but concedes that it's possible some might be decent), but the point here is that there's a pretty significant difference that you'd have to be willfully blind to not recognize.

One side of the spectrum goes out of their way to spew hate and abuse and incite violence. The other preaches tolerance and respect. You can't really play the "there are two sides therefore the two sides are equivalent just opposed" game here, I think even if you still could manage to do it pre-Trump, Trump killed it by choosing to be objectively worse by all measurements and accounts.
Sex with 17-year-old girl is legal in Texas–nude pics of her are a felony
Which should be just fine under UBI, where you shouldn't be getting anything for children in the first place. Children are not adults, and are not treated like adults for the vast majority of social contracts, and UBI is certainly one of them - we have no expectation today of children to make any income whatsoever now, but to be provided for by their parents. If parents would only be on UBI, that is not enough to provide for kids, but that is a reflection of negligence on the part of the parents.

It is certainly an endemic problem we need solutions for in that the poor, the most promiscuous population, is also the one that cannot afford their own children, but we certainly do not want to give them any incentives to have more kids. Children should absolutely be an expense to the parents, because the parents decided to have them, and unless we need kids (at which point the state can start subsidizing procreation in almost any way they want) we need to maintain strong (and much better than we have) adoption and orphanage faculties, but not excuse bad parents in any way who make irresponsible immature decisions like reproducing without any financial means to care for their own.
Perhaps. The most common reason I hear cited for my own friends not wanting to leave Facebook is: "Oh, I only use it to keep in touch with people, you know, distant family and stuff." They then proceed to scroll for hours through an endless feed of painstakingly fabricated memories and memes.
such a valid choice! We should have irreversible sterilization ceremonies for couples that want to decide at age 30 they wish to remain married without kids for the rest of their lives. The trouble with the choice now without sterilization is the option to have kids is always there and available. i.e. if u have a kid the domino falls in one direction. But if you choose not to have a kid the domino never falls. People will say "irreversible sterilization" sounds so permanment! But so is your first kid.
One of the reasons that I've stopped reading Vox is that they now seem really desperate to write anything anti-Trump that they can think of.

They're slipping into salon-com status.
One can say the same about simply stating something is theft, and not making an effort to address the response point by point.
OTOH, you do know exactly what it does, without having to read any docs.

I am of course open to suggestions for improvement.
>One wonders what it would be like to work for Palantir.

these young excited guys running around on University look to be quite happy to be on the cyber front line of defending Motherland against internal and external terrorists and various other enemies.
What about replacing FROM_SMALLEST_TO_LARGEST with ASCENDING?
If everyone abandons all of these platforms (and any replacements that pop-up) due to death threats what does that do to free speech online?

If tons of people are self-censoring or avoiding speaking at all for fear of being doxxed and getting death or rape threats, do we really have free speech?
Who is arguing that listeners be "forced" to hear hate speech?

The question at hand is: do we want to be permitted to hear hate speech? Twitter and Facebook (and the law in some jurisdictions) are saying: "no, you may not encounter these subjects where we have the power to stop you, because it may inspire bad things within you -- either personal pain, or worse yet, radicalization."

Your second point is that none of this content is any good, anyway -- that we're better off getting rid of it.

FB and Twitter can do what they like, and there is something to be said for removing low quality content in order to achieve a better product. But "hate speech" seems much broader than that.

In Chaplinsky (a terrible SCOTUS decision that has been abandoned in practice), a WWI-era court decided that an anti-war protester couldn't disseminate anti-war rhetoric to his fellow immigrants (in Yiddish, btw). This was "like shouting fire in a crowded theater." Some things are just too dangerous to say out loud.

Are we so certain of our current taboos that we really don't want to hear from the fringe? Are we really OK with giving up our right to hear controversial viewpoints and decide their merits for ourselves? Because that's what these rules/laws do -- they don't force you to hear anything. You are always free to block, ignore, etc. They prevent you from encountering the content in the first place -- someone gets to decide for you what is and isn't "safe," because they're afraid you'll be influenced by it.

For me, I don't want to be kept ignorant of something because someone decides I'm better off not hearing. Even if that speech is violent, racist, conspiratorial, or just plain nutty. I can decide when divert my attention. It's part of being an adult -- learning that words can't hurt you.
While at the same time mom and dad could use it for work, because of that IBM thing.

As a personal anecdote, i got into the PC world by buying a second hand 486 (DX luckily, i had not the first clue at the time). No sound card, F if i recall what the HDD was (but just having one was a step up from floppy shuffling), and maybe 4MB of ram.

By the time i was done with using it, i had added a sound card, replaced the graphics card, added a CDROM, doubled the ram (if not more), and gotten a whooping 1GB HDD in there.

For the life of the A500 it stayed the same. I did borrow an extra floppy for a while, and that allowed me to speed up the games loading for a while, but it was pretty much a sealed unit for me over those years.
I didn't pay attention to the article's published date until mid way towards the article. Here's an recent article on related subject (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-...)
I can easily imagine plenty of state schools would trade UBI for room, board, and tuition for the brightest students.

For the rest? We need more trade schools today, and we are talking about something theoretical at least years away and probably decades, when we will hopefully be past the ancient university model of tremendous expense and most people are taking courses online or through trade schools at very little cost.
tl;dr

A happy marriage isn't a result of magically picking the right person.

My 2 cents: Of course it isn't. A happy marriage is the result of two conscious decisions - one from each person involved.

To sum it up with a quote I heard growing up:

"'Soul mates' are fiction and an illusion[...] yet it is certain that almost any good man and any good woman can have happiness and a successful marriage if both are willing to pay the price."
Per Malthus, the ever-expanding global population will probably prevent us from achieving a state of total abundance in the long run. We may (or may not) be able to rely on technological progress at times, but constant population growth is virtually guaranteed (barring any sort of population management or disasters).

I love the kind-hearted spirit of this effort, but it seems ill-informed.
Ahh, I see that now, Thank you! I went off the spelling and the link from the Medium article.
Four Sherpas Climbed Everest with 360° Camera Rigs on Their Backs
I've found this podcast [1] really insightful. The guy who presents it is Christian, but it's interesting whether you buy the Jesus thing or not.

[1] http://subversivekingdom.com/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-soulm...
You're underestimating the fact that the Soviet economy was essentially bankrupt. The high oil prices hiked up by the oil embargo became addictive, but having subsequently collapsed caused huge withdrawal syndrome. Agriculture was underperforming for decades to a staggering degree, in the last few years the food was rationed and there was international food aid sent to the country.