skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't think of a well-secured email server as "trivially available". I'm presuming that the private server in question could be and was well-secured. Again, I'm asserting that there is no technical reason that a well-administrated private server cannot be every bit as secure as a government-managed server that provides the same access to the outside world. The suggestions of air gaps and other measures suggested here simply won't meet requirements. Remember, those "potentially hostile states" are exactly the kind of actors the SoS needs to be able to reach via email.

Moreover, the security of individual emails depends on the security of the recipient as well as that of the sender. Sensitive/classified emails sent to officials of non-US governments are subject to whatever security they might have. The only solution to this leak vector is to completely ban email as a means of communication - which gets right back to the core requirement that the Secretary of State must be able to communicate quickly and efficiently.

I'm not arguing to "throw security to the winds", and I don't think that's what was done here. Again, I'm asserting there's no reason to believe an email server administrated by the State Department would be any more secure than an email server administrated by skilled private admins.
I believe if you hold your RSU-granted stock for 1 year, you can pay capital gains tax on it instead.

I'm not a CPA.
So getting paid way above market and working at a place where software engineering talent is highly respected and valued is "losing out"?

I'm sorry but this entitled attitude just grates at me. If you are in SV getting paid 3-5 times the median household income you already are in the 1% and you already have all the advantages in terms of upward mobility. If you want to earn millions go out and start your own company, it is ridiculous to demand a high salary and a high equity payout. You are not entitled to anything except what you can negotiate.

There is nothing inherent in software engineering that makes it worth $100k minimum per head, it is only worth that much if it supports a business that can earn that much. The fact that SV is one of the bright spots in the economy of the last decade has really started to go to software engineers heads. If you believe you are worth more than what you are being offered, the only way to prove it is to go out and build a business yourself. You can't look at the 1% of the 1% who got a lucky windfall from being in the right place at the right time, and use that as your baseline for "fairness". Try facing the economic struggles that 50% of the country is dealing with, and then tell me how bad Google is screwing its employees.
yes, because repubs have been really good at avoiding waste in the prosecution of HRC...
I'm not sure warrant canaries are particularly useful anymore. Yes, it's nice to know when a company has received a secret order or request for cooperation. However, any company that stores user information is going to receive such an order or request at some point, it's practically inevitable. Furthermore, one can never be assured that a canary is entirely reliable as a signal -- just look at the other comments with conjecture as to why a canary might be removed. Thus I would conclude that the use of a warrant canary should not be taken as conveying any useful information about a company, or not any more useful information that a mere marketing statement that they are sympathetic with user privacy concerns.
> The alternative is that "prosecute Clinton" is basically synonymous with "use FBI and DOJ resources to put Trump in the White House".

> Taking out a major-party presidential candidate during the general election season is going to have very unfortunate implications for the way US politics works. Just imagine in 2020, when President Trump decides to have his re-election opponent investigated and orders an indictment during the general election season. Except that in 2020, it will be a targeted removal and not simply a coincidence. I don't want to live in that world, and indicting Clinton now will lead to that world.

Bullshit. You just have someone else run for the Democrats.

The General isn't until after the Convention (which hasn't happened and wouldn't until 7/25, fyi) and they could have just said someone being indict'd was too much risk and they'd have to go with someone else.

I think this represents ignorance on the way the system actually works. (i.e. She isn't officially a general election candidate until the Convention, merely the presumptive nominee until that point. )
All I can tell you is that they aren't doing the whole 3rd party marketplace out of the goodness of their heart.

What better way to do market research than to pit tens of thousands of individual resellers and manufacturers against each other to determine demand and equilibrium prices of the end consumer?

Then you just private label it and cut out all the middlemen, and sell direct. There's no way they can now compete with you, because:

1. You're Amazon, so you have the brand behind your product

2. You're Amazon, so you have efficiencies of enormous scale (in both manufacturing and distribution)

3. You're Amazon, so you can actually kick them off the market and delete their listing for any bullshit reason you can put in your TOS
The entire reason for Daylight Saving Time (and time zones) existing is that many people have a cultural bias towards certain numbers appearing on the clock for certain locations of the sun in the sky. There is, however, no reason that humans should have to rise at "7am" or consider "2am" to be "late".

If there were no DST, would night stop being night? Would it really make any difference that the clock reads "1am" versus "10am"? The sun and the earth do not care about our clock - the amount and availability of sunlight is not affected by what numbers we choose to use. The sun does not have to rise around "6am" (or whatever it is at your specific latitude and longitude). It does not have to be light outside at "1pm".

These numbers are arbitrary and only have as much meaning as we assign to them. Supporters of DST simply assign more meaning to these arbitrary numbers than its opponents. The trouble is that its supporters have effectively (legally) forced everyone to obey their confusing cultural preferences.

A more efficient solution would be to use the clock for its intended purpose: as a single standard measurement of time. Abolish Daylight Saving Time, Time Zones, and meridian identifiers. Define 00:00 as the zenith of the sun over the equator, on an equinox in a leap year, at a meridian that has no human population.

By doing this, I could, for example, say "The meeting will begin at 16 on Tuesday", and everyone whom that message goes to will instantly know if the meeting is in the middle of their night, day, lunch-hour, or otherwise. No need to remember that DST is starting next week, or that my location is 7 hours ahead (maybe - you never know if my area has some other rules), or whether I mean am/pm.
The problem is that it's very difficult to really quantify the long term effects of DST. I know for example, that there's an increase in heart attacks the first 3 weekdays of switching to DST so that seems bad but then the researcher noted that when reverting back to winter time, people had a decreased rate of heart attacks due to having had an extra hour of sleep. It's things like this that makes me think that it's not so clear cut.

There's also research that shows that DST reduces the amount of car accidents: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4985756_The_Short_a...

On the contrary to a lot of studies, this study finds little proof of an increase in accidents in the first few days after the change and explains that by the fact that they considered a higher number of years (28 years) than most research.

The problem is that with DST we have the typical situation of having short term effects are relatively easy to study and will tend to be negative (due to the one less hour of sleep) but with potential long term effects that are beneficial but hard to quantify. As humans we tend to discount long term effects anyway so the discussion quickly focuses on the negatives.
Can a person born by Caesarean section become president of the USA?
"they had, in fact, been able to acquire vast amounts of wood for $50 a cord, and they’d been able to sell all they had for $40 a cord. How could they be broke? "

By losing $10 per cord?
I have an honest, and probably dumb, question: how do warrant canaries actually avoid the prohibition against disclosing the receipt of a national security letter? Like, how is taking down a warrant canary legally dissimilar from just tweeting "we got an NSL"? If it semantically "means" the same thing, then why is one illegal and one legal?
Drawing pretty shapes with SVG paths (in five minutes)
It's hard to search on that forum!

http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=69169&hilit=serve...

It's from some time around Mar 07, 2011.
It's more like building that dune buggy, including the engine, entirely out of glass. It's not very useful for driving, but you can see exactly how everything works.
Let me flip that question. Is risk a positive quality for a startup employee? After all, the startup is already taking a risk in terms of its product/market fit, so it should not be taking risks in terms of technology or internal processes, and hiring employees who like risk means they will make professional choices that involve risk even in situations where they shouldn't.
GCE vs. AWS: Why You Should Never Use Amazon
Ask HN: Is it safe to use Firebase after the Google acquisition?
Is it safe to use Firebase now that it's been acquired? Google often shut down stuff like this, and FB shut down Parse recently.
Normal people that like money. If this article is about how equity compensation can be improved, then that is a fairly messed up world view and kind of insulting. Employee equity compensation is always designed to explode or have no value. Workers are sick of the schemes. Just pay cash. Companies don't want to and never will improve equity compensation. A better solution would be a law that requires a cash value of granted options or RSU's to be reported to workers which would require a look at sale-ability, strike price, volality, expected employee turnover, etc.
Tuvalu is in similar straits.
They have an interest. Whether that interest is legitimate is at the very least debatable, and not beyond questioning.
It certainly isn't integration with JavaScript that held Java back, as Java and JavaScript are about equally old. If I have to believe Wikipedia, both are from May 23, 1995, but I don't trust that date for JavaScript, as Wikipedia also says JavaScript was designed in two weeks in May 1995. Internet time is fast, but not that fast.

JavaScript seems to have shipped as LiveScript in September 1995, but https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript#Version_history also has March 1996 as date for the first version. Java seems to have been shown to the world in beta form in May 1995, with the first JDK available on January 23, 1996 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history), so Java seems a tad older than JavaScript.

I think a few important 'features of WebAssembly', compared to Java are that WebAssembly is going to come out at a time when:

* machines are cheap and fast enough.

* bandwidth is cheap and plenty enough.

* the world knows you need open standards to conquer the world (or, cynically, that getting hold of data is the primary objective nowadays)
At least with jail you have garnanteed food and shelter. Being a sex offender means you're probably never going to be participating in society in any meaningful way anyway and at least prison sentences tend to have an end.
It's interesting to see the popular response to this thread being one where people think employees are better off with salary over options.

This seems crazy to me as I have watched many close friends cash out options from companies including Google, Yelp, Apple and Pandora and buy houses (some with cash), start companies, become investors and/or take long sabbaticals with the proceeds from their options. With salary there is a clear upper bound and the tax on W2 income is simply the worst. I would say that at least in the Bay Area, options are a good bet and much better bet based on what I've seen.

Startups are always a gamble for everyone involved. But outside of the financial industry, where 6 and 7 figure cash bonuses are common, I think options are superior to other forms of compensation if you're trying to optimize for gaining a "life changing amount of money" in less than say 10 years. High salary could only compare if you are very good at minimizing tax and maximizing the money making potential of your salary though investments (requiring additional work). But if you're going to have to invest anyway, why not work for a company you believe in and have a chance at influencing the company's success as well as your own?
How 3 Women Would Hack Tech’s Diversity Problem
Prohibited Businesses
Vpn.
Please don't post uncivil and/or unsubstantive comments.
Single men from Europe can turn to our marriage agency Heart of the East to meet
I think you're right that being "high"/"low" level is basically irrelevant for theoretical security; only the primitive IO instructions matter, and if some combination of those instructions is a security risk, then it doesn't really matter how that combination comes about (via functional programming and monads, via OO service architectures, via actors, via bit-twiddling and gotos, etc.).

On the other hand, I can imagine "low level" (i.e. low abstraction) programs having a harder time implementing their own security models; e.g. trying to segregate third-party code, etc. simply because it's harder to reason at a level so much removed from your application domain. Having security-conscious higher level languages compile into WA would alleviate this though.
I'm curious, what sorts of issues arise with complex types that Haskell-like syntax handles better? (Genuinely curious here -- I've written a little Haskell but am by no means an expert...)

IMHO a Rust-style type `Option<HashMap<String, Vec<u32>>>` is a little noiser than the Haskell-style type `Maybe (Map String [Int])`, but not fatally so. Maybe there are much worse cases though?
Minor nitpick: if you're using classList, you might as well also use it to toggle the "open" class (instead of y.setAttribute('class', ...)):

y.classList.toggle('open', y == e.target && !y.classList.contains('open'))

As the behavior of what to do with the "open" class is only dependent on whether `y` is the clicked element, i find this version more readable:

y == e.target ? y.classList.toggle('open') : y.classList.remove('open'))

Aaaand, it can be made less readable again by selecting the classList method to call conditionally :)

y.classList[y == e.target ? 'toggle' : 'remove']('open')
If the code is written with a proper testing suite from the start, it's not hard. If you're dealing with a legacy code base that doesn't have a testing harness (I've done this a lot), then the first thing you should be doing before making changes is writing tests for them!

Every time I do the "I don't need a test for this, it's just an obvious little bug" thing, and I implement a test-free fix, it fails! Every. Single. Time. Maybe it's because I'm stupid, but I like to think I'm above average. So if above-average programmers have a high risk of releasing "bug fixes" that don't actually fix correctly (or cause other problems) because they didn't write good tests, that really turns the "not worth the risk" response on its head.

It's not that it's not worth the risk to write tests. It's not worth the risk to not write tests!
Nice try, but the wording says no information was marked classified, not no emails. In addition:

>There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for [a classified] conversation.
Writing C++ for Linux on Visual Studio
Helpless to Prevent Cancer? Actually, Quite a Bit Is in Your Control
Hah! I was just playing that game on my break. If I had a genie lamp, I would absolutely spend one wish asking for a multiplayer version; at this point, the only challenging AI opponent is the very last one, Hate Bit, and I win against it about 50% - and that number is slowly increasing as I improve my deck.

I actually thought about trying to make a web-based multi-player version, but I don't want to rip off Seanbaby's hard work. (I also don't want to make a 'skinned' version that I could argue isn't a complete copy, because I don't want to have to come up with the hundreds of units that would require.)
Your argument is surely moot because it assumes that startup employees take on no risk. Not to mention conflating IPO with startup options/shares. There are many companies out there that have never, nor will, take investment or IPO yet are still successful. There's also an argument to say that any company that isn't profitable from day one shouldn't exist in the first place.
Your argument also suggests that founders must go "cap in hand" to investors to beg for startup capital. In all scenarios I do not see a positive outcome for the employee, and it seems only more and more difficult to attract new talent
I value stock options at zero. There is potentially a huge upside if you are an early employee at a company that gets enormous. Even then, you have to be top 20 or 30 to get f-you money, and even then it might not even be that.

I had stock options (not RSUs) at BigCo where I worked for 2 years. At one point, had I been fully vested, I was sitting on about $240k worth of stock. After a 3x1 split and the company going back down to almost the strike price I was granted stock (and most of it was worthless because was given it as part of a raise at a high strike), after I parted ways with the company and sold my options (had to as part of the severance agreement), I walked away with $2000. Basically a $1k/yr bonus. I would have gladly taken extra salary instead of stock. Lesson learned.
You can assign the death penalty to every offense above stealing and it won't make a difference, the vast majority of actual criminals don't know or don't care and the vast majority of defendants (in the US anyway) don't know or didn't even think they committed a crime.
>Despite an impressively vast sample size, the survey received some flak for the inherent bias it produced by surveying its own, less-than-comprehensive user base.

Frankly, Stack Overflow is probably the most comprehensive developer site on the web. If you're a programmer of any stripe you can be expected by numbers to use it. It's not like there's a 'no girls' sign on the front, assuming their survey is representative is damn well justified.[0]

But yes, forgetting selection bias in your analysis[1] is a bit silly on their part, and not even raising the hypothesis suggests whoever wrote the analysis wasn't thinking about it as deeply as they should have. Moreover attaching the Stack Overflow brand to conclusions that are based on not-super-rigorous analysis and could have a large impact on already quite plausibly disparately impacted groups is grossly irresponsible.

[0]: Was this survey only open to members? If so that was a foolish decision, learning why people lurk and what demographics lurk your site as opposed to contribute would have avoided this exact accusation, as well as providing some very interesting business data for StackOverflow themselves.

[1]: Comparing to base rates helps.
Oh to be young and carefree again :)

It does feel like an earthquake. The most powerful subwoofer I've ever heard doesn't come close to the teeth-scraping body-slamming whump of a near miss from large ordinance.
This is sort of explains why I have chosen OS X. Its a UNIX operating system that makes for a great modern desktop machine. I don't need to worry about poor and or glitchy hardware support. Its 2016, I don't have the time to play around with finding WiFi drivers or graphics drivers that can hardly support 3D-acceleration. Everything has always worked out of the box. Having had two MacBook Pros, I haven't had one hardware or software issue to date. They (OS X/Apple) have the advantage of being unified. People aren't constantly arguing over stupid shit as they seem to with Linux. FreeBSD's development on the other hand is just too slow for my desktop use. Despite what the article says, I have found that there is usually a support gap somewhere after an install; with drivers or whatever else. This isn't to say I dislike Linux, I do love Linux. I just wish they would get their shit together on a few issues. As for FreeBSD, it still has a strong spot for secure, stable servers. I suppose it's all a matter of preference. At the end of the day however I will always choose a UNIX system for my day to day use.
Windows 7, desktop machine, and windows update don't really work without a functioning network connection.

But if you don't believe me, and choose to believe those reporting issues with Linux, just do a google search on windows install and network issues. There is plenty of people reporting the same issue. to cite windows own support page:

"If Windows can’t find a new driver for your network adapter, visit the PC manufacturer’s website and download the latest network adapter driver from there. If your PC can't connect to the Internet, you'll need to download a driver on a different PC and save it to a USB flash drive so you can install the driver on your PC"
This is sad to read. :/ Can people convicted of this be around their own children?
I consider it one of the biggest mistakes in Marine Corps aviation. It has an abysmal safety record and performs its mission half as well as the aircraft it replaced.

I've lost two friends from Osprey crashes, so I have a personal (and perhaps biased) viewpoint.
I wonder if there's any correlation between anti-vaxxers and those folks who insist on getting antibiotics that they don't need.
Is a single trigger RSU somehow different in trigger than single trigger options? I've always been told that single trigger, at least for the majority of engineering, means your company won't be purchased.

Single trigger makes sense for legal, accounting, etc who are likely gone in an acquisition.

Double trigger makes sense overall.
Why monthly and not daily? Or hourly?
REMOTE | Romania

Wirestorm is looking to hire Full Stack Developers in Romania. Please apply here: https://wirestorm.bamboohr.com/jobs/view.php?id=73
Eh, more like "stop forcing people to like the things you like" christianity was undoubtedly coerced upon them
AFAIK not really. Detecting C&C is not that easy in unsupervised settings. The MIT paper (link in the TC article) makes claims, but this is mostly PR.

There are some reports from Google as well that you may find around, and at least at the time (few years back) they make the same observation we do with my coworkers: the rate of false positive remains high, and thus it is the job of trained security operators to spot the sophisticated attacks.

Empowering the operators with more data mining tools is a good step not yet fulfilled I believe.
>We must avoid "one-size-fits-all" labels for those convicted of a broad range of offenses.

I don't know what the author is going on about. At least in my state (WA), sex offenders are registered on a spectrum from I to III (most violent).

>Mario was a sex registrant because, as a teenager, he inappropriately touched a fully dressed boy on two occasions.

Uh... so her sympathetic example is a serial child molester? Note she does not say how old a "boy" or how old a "teenager" he was -- you can bet that the "boy" was probably under 7 and Mario was a 19-year-old, otherwise she would have given more details to make him seem more sympathetic (like she did with "fully clothed").

I am more concerned about the victims of our laws regarding petty drug offenses (i.e. small amounts of marijuana) -- those people are true victims.