skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Contract rights have nothing to do with the morality of this...
Finally, Android on the iPhone
The winning party should be able to apply to the court for a costs order once the case has been decided, and the court can decide whether their reasonable costs should be borne by the loser.
> Banks are for storing money

Actually, banks are for aggregating capital. There is no institution in the Western financial system where you can just store money. The best you can do is put physical cash in a safe deposit box.
Here's what happens. Perhaps it has been fixed now:

* New record is created, with new ID.

* Record is deleted.

* Database is shut down (cleanly).

* Database is started again.

* New record is created. It gets the old ID, because it's just looking at the current max(ID) or something like that.
Maybe my other comment might help clarify: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11858939

The bottom level of our application layer is a query builder which is almost a drag and drop replacement between mongo and postgres. By the time that layer is built out, we know what our database needs to look like. I find that adding/dropping fields and models in mongo to be drastically faster than moving models around in postgres. The above example would obviously end up in the same structure, whether we started with relational or not. It was nothing more than demonstrating an iterative process where you don't need to START denormalized just because "that's why you use nosql".

We try to be as incremental as possible when building our apps, and have found that using nosql allows for 20 small refactors that often end up being 2 larger refactors with a relational db. We've just found that it ends up being a faster production process, and we end up with a much more application-specific database instead of just "This is a Person, this is an Address, this is a Comment". Sure, we know beforehand that the application will contain all those components. We don't necessarily know how they'll be used in a request-by-request basis, and whether or not they will actually end up being one-to-one, one-to-many, or many-to-many.
> It is not necessarily bad, as it is a less fanatic ideology
It's literally lying to your people for your own advantage.
Mental Kid Freaks out
It is grey. It is illegal to jam, this is not jamming.
Dates and distributed systems... is something you need to be careful with. Anyone have a good link summing this up?

https://aphyr.com/posts/299-the-trouble-with-timestamps isn't bad.
Yup. I like microservices as an architecture paradigm, but they are a tool, and can be used well or misused just like any other tool. And sometimes they are not the right tool for a job.
Bird flue is a big drawback - poultry and humans living in close contact, typically because they live in poverty is how the disease usually ends up jumping to humans (when it doesn't go the normal route via pigs first.)
Hi everyone,

I'm the author of the piece. If you know any other good resources or statistics we should incorporate, I'm keen to hear about them. If you disagree with something, feedback is very welcome.
It was originally there, but was later removed to keep things simple, specifically with rendering the initial React layout.
Can you elaborate? Why is it wrong to base individual pensions payments on individual contributions? I'm not following.

Are you just saying it wrong to lump people into two different groups arbitrarily? Like we don't base social payments on two arbitrary cohorts like "people over/under 68 inches of height", so why would we base it on gender?
Clarifying my original reply here:

UUIDs absolutely have their place - both the problems of distributed ID generation (mostly in remote clients / apps) and avoiding information leakage (-> German Tank Problem) are very real world examples where using them is a sensible thing.

However, my point was that using them as a default choice has a lot of drawbacks. All over our data model, we've got like 60-70 entities with serial IDs and about 2 with UUID columns.

Also, don't underestimate how fast PostgreSQL can deal you out from a sequence via nextval(), should you really go down that route. But yes, if the database is more than a millisecond away, UUIDs definitely have their time and place.
Android keyboard with 50m users 'little more than malware'
I know a older couple that have spent the last year or so traveling around Africa doing 'chicken projects' where they help build chicken coops and teach poor families how to raise chickens (pretty simple to do, actually, but there are little strategies one can use to increase profits- hardest part is keeping predators from eating them!) Cool stuff, glad to see Bill Gates onboard!
Curious, what if the reasonable number is more than the lower could possibly pay? As in, they simply do not have the resources to pay it?
"Part of that energy has been channeled into figuring out how to sell developers on subscription services, and not only that, but how to keep them keeping on with those subscriptions. Previously, only apps classified as news, cloud services, dating apps, or audio / video streaming apps could sell subscription content. Now it’s open to all product categories.

For the first year of a subscription Apple will maintain its 70 / 30 revenue share; after one year, the new 85 percent / 15 percent revenue share will kick in (applied per subscriber). The new app subscription model will roll out to developers this fall, though if app makers have subscribers they’ve already retained for a year, the new revenue split starts June 13th."

That's a big change.
Or hold your breath while soldering, you'll eventually need to, so you can tune your pulse.
Well Hindu groups did kill Dabholkar, Pansekar etc.
For years I was running a Linux “router” for a DSL Line on an old Pentium 3. It was running http://grml.org/ of a Compact-Flash card in an IDE Adapted, mounted read-only.

Worked very, very stable. And e machine came for free from a dumpster.

Running services were pppd, dnsmasqd, NTP, misc cron-jobs and a IPv6 tunnel.
In summary: Applebaum has left. TOR can move on. If there are criminal matters, they can be decided in the courts.

That's not all there is to it. There's also the valid issue (entirely outside the purview of criminal law) as to whether a serial harasser should be welcomed (and allowed to keynote, no less) at major technical conferences, as if nothing happened -- despite increasingly convincing (and largely no longer anonymous) testimony to the effect that his presence would be highly destructive.

Witch hunts and character assassinations are not productive.

You see witch hunts and character assassination. Others (like Quinn Norton) see what increasingly appears to be an epicly sad story of people not just "offended", but deeply hurt, shamed, and silenced -- who (thankfully) have now found the courage to come out and speak what they know to be the truth about what they experienced.
1OO Days of Research: Artificial Intellegence for Design
What does it mean for a GC to "make progress"? My understanding was that the OP wanted to stop the GC for a particular code block, so it would seem that any "progress making" would be undesirable.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cologne-polic...

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/06/cologne-police-re...

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/its-not-only-germany-that...
> "Boilerplate" implies copying a bunch of code into your project that should be library code but isn't because it's too poorly designed to have an API cleaner than "just fork it, YOLO". It's dramatically harder to update than something with well-designed API boundaries.

In most of these cases, "boilerplate" implies a choice of frameworks, libraries, build and test tools, with a minimal or recommended configuration, all tested for interoperability. The actual code advancing your application is minimal.

In the case of megaboilerplate, it appears to be a mix of configuration files plus a mini hello world built on top of the technologies. The mini hello world seems to be mostly a demo of how the chosen technologies can interoperate, not really something that "should be library code".

> Shared, standardized toolchains are harder to build but once you do they're a dramatically better long-term investment.

Possibly, but I think you underestimate the effort required to create and distribute a toolchain that would become shared and standardized. In effect, a specific team might choose a particular boilerplate, tweak it to its needs, and the tools and libraries within that boilerplate become their "standardized" toolchain.
Yes and no. A useful analogy is to think of software and hardware. You have a general purpose CPU that runs software designed to solve a particular type of problem. The CPU (your brain) probably has a fixed frequency (you might be able to "overclock" it slightly, but not much). On the other hand, you can completely rewrite the software (your thought process) using better algorithms and get a MASSIVE speed increase.
Which criminals? The ones a local policeman happens to stop in a routine checkpoint?

Yes, US citizens are criminals by definition of law, apparently.
In which cases would this be a German tank problem for you? I can think of apps where you want investors or something, but I can't help but wonder if they'd be savvy enough to check for that.

I do know that I try to make my invoices to clients a bit more impressive, because I don't send many of them and they most definitely do notice if they get invoice #3 in May. Main problem is that in my country the rules for invoices are both murky and stringent, so I'm pretty much limited to a <year>0000<invoice no.> format.
Evolution of C Programming Practices: Study of the Unix OS 1973–2015 [pdf]
I don't get it. As mentioned in the article, chickens are incredibly easy to bootstrap (ie, it's not like they require a huge capital outlay to get started, and they literally pay dividends in further chickens), and have been present in the area for centuries. What has been the obstacle that has kept them from already being common enough to drive the expected benefit of further investment to ~0? And how is that obstacle going to be overcome?
You're comparing the numbers of patches for a distro that's an 11 MB download to one whose total archive weighs in at about a 1.5 TB.
Am I the only one who likes to build his own projects from scratch?
A brilliant idea! I hope this actually gets implemented some day in a legal system of any country.
Whats wrong with Whatsapp?
The US is built upon "Innocent until proven guilty" and "Speedy Trial".

That means you can't be jailed for murdering someone without a trial and you can't spend 10 years in jail before the trial. In the same way Assange is basically jailed without a trial or being proven guilty of anything.

"Asset forfeiture" in the US goes against everything that the above stands for. The fact that a government official (Cops, feds, etc) can take your money... link that money to "drugs" in some way... and keep that money (or assets) without a trial? Is un American.
You're being downvoted because you're wrong on a "Europe" level.
There's an associated Github repo https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-make
Tell me if I understood something wrong:

Without knocking:

Service is listening and accepting new connections in well known port. When client makes connection attempt, attacker can replay the connection attempt and server starts handshake. Even without sniffing attacker can initiate handshake by just requesting connection.

With knocking:

Server/firewall opens requested port for client who knocks. That port is _not_ open for subsequent connection attempts. Simple replay is not going to initiate handshake. You need to block client from sending.
A while back, I did some research into patent trolls, and came across the history of NPE firms that do DPA (defensive patent aggregation), like RPX [0]. What surprised me from a game theoretical perspective was how murky things got. These situations can be tough on entrepreneurs and seem to create space for said entrepreneur to purchase protection in the form of patent aggregation to mitigate against potential devastation caused by this. On one hand, I can see how it can amount to a protection racket. On the other hand, the existence of patents and how they relate to property are pretty complex. This TechCrunch article about RPX does a good job of going into further detail about this, but truth be told, I am even more on the fence after reading this. I agree that patent reform would be necessary to rectify this situation, but in the meantime, I can't think of a better alternative. The cynic inside me can't help but think that business is always it's own kind of war, sadly.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPX_Corporation
[1] http://techcrunch.com/2008/11/24/is-rpxs-defensive-patent-ag...
From the article:

> Now, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol has a device that also allows them to seize money in your bank account or on prepaid cards.
Wow, does this happen to many people who put their stuff on Google Play? What about the Apple App Store?

Seems like Google/Apple should step in and cover the costs of being sued by a patent troll for using their platform... if they don't want developers to be discouraged from using it.

Then again, particularly in Apple's case, it's not like the developers have much of a choice.
Doing large incompatible migrations is unavoidable eventually, so avoiding them doesn't solve the problem either it just postpones the problem until the entire enterprise has to move to an entirely "new system" at fantastic cost. For some reason the old system never really dies so after the multimillion dollar migration the old zombie system still supports some business functions, leading to that replication anyway.

Both solutions are unpalatable: "the database is the integration point we can't ever change" is bad and "no apps have a central ground truth database" is also painful.

I'd prefer the latter with small APIs and more duplication, than the common enterprise solution with a massive holy unchangable db directly serving apps.
I can't think of a better reason to stay out of the US.
This country is starting to look way too much like pre-revolutionary France, and that's bad for everyone.
The main problem is when you really did mean to search for the typo term. There's no inherent problem in two packages having similar names.

Consider the following:

requests - a python package for making HTTP requests.
requestr - a python package for a fictional startup that allows you to send requests to your nearest and dearest.

Given they both could be typos of each other:

1) How do we determine which one to use? What if someone accidentally also tries "requestd", somewhere between the two ?

2) How do we apply the principle of least surprise - I asked to install requests, and everything installed just fine, but now I can't import it?!
Ultimately, history is written by the winner. It's impossible to separate biases from fact when the sources have opposing world views. To many, the US today is an imperialist power that props up strong-man dictators and oppresses people globally -- but what ends up in the history books will likely be about the liberalization of the US and our leadership on human rights within our borders (a narrative the GOP is all too happy to support since it fits their talking point of "things are changing too quickly and people can't adapt!")

Facts are often distorted decades later to suit political expediency (i.e. the myth that Reagan was a staunch conservative; he was a middle-of-the-road centrist Republican from one of the most liberal states in the US). In your example, Turkey's conservative government is using the Armenian genocide as a way to drive a wedge between Turkey and Europe -- because Erdogan and the AKP would much rather be allied with Russia and Iran (who have no qualms about his use of force to suppress dissent).

Do this often enough and you end up with a "history" that barely resembles contemporary thought on the matter. Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex actually tackles this matter with the "Individual Eleven" storyline -- what would happen if someone created a virus that infected the historical record? You could create a fake "cause" with supporting digital documentation, and people would swear to have a memory of it happening, even if it never did (it's a well-documented phenomenon that eyewitness accounts taken long after the fact are unreliable and often based on secondary sources; and that's not even part of the science fiction aspect of SAC). Change a few minor facts in the altered historical record to link it to a marginalized group in society and watch the violence unfold on both sides; with the marginalized population latching on to the "cause" and the rest of the populace using the violence of a small few to justify their discrimination / hatred against the minority.

Rewriting history is the entire purpose of governments. It's already exceedingly difficult to find information on events that happened early in the digital age; if anything, digital records are easier to purge / falsify. Hell, just try to read a CD or backup tape created 20 years ago and see how far you get.
I don't see any layout rendering issues on iPhone 6s Plus/iOS 9.3.2/Safari Mobile. If you could open a GitHub issue and include a screenshot, that would be great.
Well if you have an 'order #', your competition can make an order a week and see how many other orders you've gotten in the meantime.

> in my country the rules for invoices are both murky and stringent,

I sympathize, as the rules were like that in Italy, where I lived for a long time.
Be white and wear a suit.
How to Nudge Users for Good (and Not Evil)
Roboto and Noto ought to be installed with Chrome for Windows and OS X
> "Use UUIDs instead of integer PKs" is 95% of the time a HORRIBLE idea. As a rule of thumb, if you are a beginner, you should NEVER use a UUID instead of an integer PK.

Can you enlighten us as to why? Seems to me if you're not at the scale where you see the benefits of UUIDs you're also not at the scale to see the drawbacks either (bigger, slower indices?).
> Every country has there own version of history

The variation is too great to paint everyone with the same brush. It's like saying 'everyone makes mistakes'; yes, but some make far more than others; we're not all equally accurate or reliable.

Other countries have independent, free press; they can print whatever they want, including whatever history they want. For example, the Chinese government blocks all mention of the Tienanmen Square massacre of June 4, 1989, in print or on the web. They censure criticism of Communist Party leaders. You wouldn't find censorship anything like that in the UK.

In fact in Western countries, academics are often criticized for being too critical of their nations - 'self-hating'. EDIT: See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11862391

> I doubt in how much details UK's history books capture the horrific cruelties inflicted by the kingdom for hundreds of years as compared to the history taught in schools of the victim colonies.

Do you have any evidence? A history book? A study of history books?
If they're so great, why do they need to be promoted?
I'm not arguing for no namespaces, much the opposite. I'm arguing that the whole way most languages implement modules is fairly haphazard, and that that leads to this problem. If you review the link I included previously, you can see some examples of how you could definitively specify a particular module version. E.g.

use OldDog:name<Dog>:auth<cpan:JRANDOM>:ver<1.2.1>;

This would use Dog from the CPAN repository, author JRANDOM, and version 1.2.1, and namespace it as OldDog. You could also just "use Dog;" to use the canonical Dog package from the canonical sources (in order). If we could just point our package manager at this source code and it could determine "Hmm, you have a Dog module of that version, but not that author and repo, and you have a Dog module from that repo and author but not that version. Looks like we need to install it." that would leave us in a much better place, both for code using definitive versions of packages, and admins/programmers installing packages and making sure they get the right one, if it's been defined.
Indeed, many of these patent troll houses have big time investors backing them, vultures hoping to cash in on the remnants of the small-to-mid companies they sue into oblivion.

At my last job I fielded a call from the "scanner patent" guys, luckily I knew what they were up to and I declined to answer any questions. They framed the call as being from Staples for a survey about the office equipment we may have bought from them, i.e. they flat out lied. Since I was in charge of all office and IT equipment purchase decisions, I knew we'd never bought a thing from Staples, and when they started specifically asking about multifunction printers with scanners, I just said "troll someone else" and hung up.
> IME It's easier to teach junior devs not to use integers than it is to get them to think holistically about security.

IMO, explicitly prohibiting unauthorized access to an API endpoint is a basic security tenant, not a "holistic" one. if iterating through an API's integer key sequence results in unauthorized access to data, replacing the integers with UUIDs only masks the problem and I'd say is a classic example of how relying on obscurity for security can be a pernicious mistake, especially for a novice developer.
Actually, thinking about it, I think the biggest database beginner mistake I see is simply not coming to grips with what the data actually means. The project I'm working on right now is a do-over project that exists because the original project team didn't take the time to really understand why they were doing the project, why the project mattered to the client; they simply saw, "it needs to do 'x', it needs to do 'y'". The client, in turn, simply took it for granted that the project team understood problem. At the end: it resulted in irrecoverably bad data collection.

If you fail to understand the meaning in data and just try to jam values into some persistence store to get through some transaction someone told you to code up, you'll likely make decisions for the future that you don't even know will come yet. Each table, each value, expresses some idea, some piece of information that, without even considering the application functionality, has meaning in the context of the rest of the data you're capturing. If you respect that relationship of ideas, you'll know whether or not normalization or de-normalization makes sense, you will more likely have a flexible information architecture rather than a brittle one.

So there's my beginner's advice: really understand what and why you are stuffing data into a database in the first place. Don't loose sight of the larger context. Conceptualize the information as information. Then figure out how the technology facilitates (or doesn't) the expression of that information with the greatest clarity.
Kivy isn't well know but I use this often : https://kivy.org/
You can also do the same in certain versions SQL Server. Change the ID field from auto-increment enabled to disabled. Add and delete a few fields. Then re-enable auto increment. Now, normally the server should start new IDs at the last position. Normally being the operative word.
Regarding 1: Property rights and records are always a problem in the developing world.

> Less than 5 percent of Haiti's land is officially accounted for in public land records, according to the United Nations, compounding the difficulty in establishing who owns what land. [0]

Regarding 2: Another difficult problem as conditions unique to a market are often not known by outsiders. Outsiders have a different assessment of how to properly care for resources or best practices that may not be applicable to the local market or may even be counter-productive.

Regarding 3: Always a possibility you underestimate their utility curve in regards to current and future consumption

[0] http://reliefweb.int/report/haiti/unclear-land-rights-hinder...