skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's always good to see people challenging existing solutions .. this is how innovation happens. But you need to mention other good alternatives like fabric, paramiko, etc to list of alternatives... and plain old shell scripting.

Some of the other options in orgalog seem like a combination of rsync, autossh (which has a heartbeat protocol built in), xargs, and plain old bash might be a better option.

For ad hoc jobs like this, this seems like how I'd go about synchronizing local and remote directories on multiple servers in parallel:

for host in host1 host2 host3
do
rsync -rpae ssh /my/directory/ $host:/remote/directory/ &
done
wait

That will synchronize a local directory with a remote directory, in parallel, and it's readable and uses software you probably already have installed.

Or, if you want to limit parallelization to no more than 16 boxes simultaneously, use in combination with xargs (ie something like xargs --max-procs 16 -n 1 and call a short bash function with the given hostname). Orgalog doesn't seem to support limiting to n hosts at a time?

Here's how to run the example uptime on hosts in parallel, but with batch limits:

orgalog:

orgalorg -o <host>... -x -C whoami

bash:

echo host1 host2 ... | xargs -d' ' -P2 -n1 -I{} ssh {} uptime

Another orgalog example:

orgalorg -o <host>... -p -i ~/.ssh/id_rsa.pub -C tee -a ~/.ssh/authorized_keys

bash:

echo host1 host2 ... | xargs -d' ' -P2 -n1 -I{} scp ~/.ssh/authorized_keys {}
# or, Userify cloud or On Site for >1 users

Of course, I'd just use Userify[1] in a local installation for that (disclaimer: CTO) but you could just modify the rsync example above or just use my old cloudadmins script[2] if your needs are small.

This was obviously a big effort just looking at the dozens of go files! I don't want to disparage what was obviously a huge amount of work from someone who spent a lot of time. A cautionary note for anyone thinking about this: always focus on automating non-security-sensitive tasks first and try to use the smallest amount of magic necessary to do a trick. Rolling your own crypto is never a good idea.

Clearly the OP is trying a lot of new ideas and we should expect good things in the future.

1. https://userify.com

2. https://github.com/jamiesonbecker/cloudadmins
I'm not really talking about paying for privacy, just paying for manageability and support in the case of a problem.
None of those links refute my claim that motorcycles are fuel efficient. The first link says that large displacement bikes are "no more efficient than a prius" which is one of the most fuel efficient cars on the road. Take any new 250cc motorcycle and compare it to any new compact car and the motorcycle will have higher fuel efficiency every single time.

The only article that seems to support your assertion is the mythbusters one, which doesn't refute the claim that motorcycles are more fuel efficient, but instead cites the fact that proportionally more pollution is emitted by motorcycles than by cars which is a completely separate issue altogether. That would be easily solved by stricter pollution control standards on bikes which would absolutely happen if more people started riding. The article then goes onto admit:

"Despite the MythBusters' findings, emissions are only part of the story of a vehicle's true greenness. According to the Motorcycle Industry Council, motorcycle manufacturing requires thousands fewer pounds of raw materials than automobiles. They require less fossil fuel, so they require less energy to pull that fossil fuel out of the ground. They use fewer chemicals and oils than cars. And motorcycles produced today are 90% cleaner in California than they were 30 years ago."

So I stand by my original statement. Did you even read the articles, or did you just whip off a quick google search and link the first three articles that seemed to support your claim?
I realize this is going to make me sound rather dull-minded, but despite the pdf sounding very interesting, I don't have much inclination to read 27 pages of it without knowing more. Can someone summarize the author's main thesis, and whether he's able to robustly justify that thesis with supporting evidence?
> As another aside I do not think there is causal evidence that Valve became successful because of these ideals. On the contrary they seem like the result of success.

In the following link, Gabe Newell explains some of ideas behind how Valve works. He argues that the way Valve works has been a conscious decision based on his experiences while working at Microsoft and interacting with other companies at that time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QEOBgLBQU
Secret Offshore Deals Deprive Africa of Billions in Natural Resource Dollars
Yes, exactly that. The typical PC motherboards start at $100, and have so since the 90ies. Just one of those, with a socket for their cpu and a translated bios just good enough to bootstrap Linux should not be so much more expensive. Even if they had to sell it at cost it would be worth spreading the technology.
Spinal Tap?

https://vimeo.com/92699399
What's wrong with speedbar-mode?
> Kinda discouraging that everytime I post this lib I am always asked: "there is already imagine, imageXX etc lib out there. why another lib?" I feel like I violated some code of honor or something.

Y'know how people say, "Don't reinvent the wheel?" The emphasis should be on the.

Don't reinvent THE wheel.

Feel free to invent a better wheel.

Better here can mean simpler, which allows users to be more productive. As far as I can tell, you've accomplished this much. So, good job, and thanks for sharing.
Sure, they totally did!

(And because you didn't read it, you'll never know if I'm bullshitting you or not. Don't outsource your thinking.)
What's your source on that? I'm fairly certain that all of Valve's customer support is outsourced, though not specifically overseas, but to contract support teams.
D.C. developer bets $250mm that you’ll live and work in empty office buildings
Uh, my whole point is that JS isn't that hard to learn, so why invest so much time trying to make it look like Java and write worse code in the process?

Thanks for helping my argument, I'm glad we agree that you're a bad engineer.
It looks like the title's been edited after posting, as the url still says "will"--it's definitely a change in the right direction, as while I think this is a good article, it's certainly a little hyperbolic in its language.
Not sure if it is the case here at all. But sometimes those old Soviet-bloc "original research" documents can be hard to find. An example of this elsewhere is the Levenshtein distance -- everybody knows what this is, but the actual original document was a Soviet-era journal:
Влади́мир И. Левенштейн (1965). Двоичные коды с исправлением выпадений, вставок и замещений символов [Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals]. Доклады Академий Наук СCCP (in Russian) 163 (4): 845–8. Appeared in English as: Levenshtein, Vladimir I. (February 1966). "Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals". Soviet Physics Doklady 10 (8): 707–710.
Well, E-F is one semi-tone. That's among the dissonant-est intervals I can think of.
Definitely not a good spot to have a smoke.

PS: The article reads 'And when a scientist digs their heel into the earth, the methane gas is audibly released through the tear in the grass.'. Which scientists? They are clearly hunters.
It is also important to intelligently select where your vertical leg is placed.
You may be able to learn a new language in 2 weeks, but very few people have this ability. I think a lot of developers learn the syntax quickly, but don't "grok" the differences in a language for some time. I still see people trying to write JavaScript in the same way they would write Java, and they wrote their Java in the same way they would write a Basic program (procedurally). It reminds me of a quote I am fond of: "The determined Real Programmer can write FORTRAN programs in any language." -- Ed Post

I prefer Alan Perlis' advice: "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing."

Edit: I categorize myself as one of the programmers who can learn syntax, but it takes me much longer to understand the language.
To paraphrase Frank Zappa, pheeeeuuuw.
> In some places going to the bank with a gun isn't illegal. But pointing a gun in a bank at a teller and saying "give me all the money" is illegal.

Right, it's entirely about intent. Assuming you live in a place where you can legally open-carry a gun into a bank, it's still illegal for you to stare down the teller while motioning to the gun if you're doing so with the intent of stealing money from the bank. It's not about what you say or don't, or how you indicate that you want the money. It's entirely about whether you intend to steal from the bank. If the teller gets freaked out just because you're open-carrying and hits the alarm button, you've not committed a crime unless you had intent.
There is always nationalism embedded in this field. It is naive to think it is free of it.

On the other hand, it is moronic to think it "comes down" to nationalism. It is utterly disrespectful to dozens of scientists devoting their careers to the research. As the article says itself, it is a 'fuzzy picture', as many fields still are, like evolutionary biology. Darwin's theory of natural selection is regarded as mostly correct. That doesn't mean Lamarck's theory is completely wrong. If you have studied epigenetics, you would have re-considered all you had learned on evolutionary biology. That is how science progresses.
Okay, I'm a married woman, and at my previous employer, we were given desktops, which meant we had to use a personal laptop if we wanted to work from home, or check our email out of the office. Totally legal, not a problem.

So, what happens if my husband decides that my laptop is also his laptop, and uses it to access to company servers, accounts, and databases? I signed an NDA, he hasn't. Now he has access to intellectual property and trade secrets, he decides to go to a competitor and sell them for the highest price.

Fortunately, the ECPA exists, so even if my security practices were as terrible as the above scenario implies, I'd still have some legal protections.

If I've told him "this is my computer, you're not allowed to access it" and he did, that would violate the ECPA. If I protected it with an easy-to-guess password and he guessed it, that would violate the ECPA. If I had an unprotected computer, and let him use it, but he installed a keylogger to get work passwords, that would violate the ECPA. If I let him access my machine and he uses auto-fill stored passwords in a browser to log into my work email, that's also an ECPA violation.

Not only does this apply to husbands and spouses, but also parents and children.

In addition, the separate/community property laws vary from state to state, and most states allow for common-sense separate property laws within marriage. In most states, my spouse can't use a computer given only to me, or a computer I had before we got married, or a computer I purchased with my own separate assets (what constitutes a "separate asset" is a huge discussion, but you get the idea). You can make a written agreement that "this is separate property" and even if you didn't do that, it would likely be a strong argument in court that an unwritten "separate property" agreement exists for a particular machine, in certain circumstances.

"Just because your wife buys it, it's still yours" is absolutely not an ironclad rule.
Ideally, we would lose the notion of “authorization” and only retain “authentication”, with respect to a network of autonomous systems.

Authorization really only makes sense in the context of command and control (i.e. getting someone to do something that you want, and getting them to stop doing something that you don’t want).

But (as you know), the Internet operates by negotiation, where autonomous components adjust their goals (and sub-goals) based on their best understanding of the environment. Components don’t exchange commands, just information, and they make their decisions based on not only on the content of a message, but also its provenance. Thus, fraud is the actual impeachable act, since what we really care about is the authenticity of a message.

Admittedly, this regime does not allow for the prosecution of something like a SQL-injection attack (though it probably could be stretched to do so); but ideally, SQL-injection vulnerabilities would almost always be treated as negligence.

Of course, we all know that the world is not ideal and compromise is necessary (it would be ironic for me to suggest otherwise), but it would be nice to do the experiment.

(Yes, this is just recapitulating the arguments for capability-based security)

(On the other hand, while the Internet is not a command-and-control environment, it probably needs one on a meta-level.)
To me that is a lot of the skill I have learned over the years, trying to figure out what people are trying to do when they say they need something. User suggested solutions are usually not the best.
The Y in DRY is "yourself". Therefore, if you are a strict adherent to DRY, feel secure in knowing it's perfectly allowed to repeat someone else.
Is it? That might only apply in some jurisdictions and is likely something many will keep making laws against until one sticks. If it is protected under the first amendment is something that could easily switch, being so many loop holes have since been created for it.
Based on the judge's reasoning, I would say yes.

Until the 3rd party received its own cease-and-desist, then Power would switch to another 3rd party provider.
If people don't help support it at $4k, it will never reach $2k.
That was my thought as well, that the combination of note frequency and box size creates the standing waves photographed.

It's still beautiful to look at though....
Tim Armstrong was in the news a couple years ago, but the only reason I remember his name is because he shares it with the lead singer of Rancid.

And yeah, if you haven't noticed the widespread backlash against executive compensation in the past few years, you really haven't been paying attention.
> If what you say about "requests" and "responses" is both true and dispositive of the issue of authorization, then you're saying that virtually every SQL injection vulnerability on the Internet is also an "authorized" form of access to people's backend databases.

I would say that the SQL/HTTP equest with the SQL injection is _per se_ legal. The damage that it has intentionally caused is what the law should punish.

"You are free to tell me whatever you want, but beware: if you catch me offguard and make a damage, then you will be punished for it."
Yeah I noticed that. But can someone explain how she got such varied patterns from individual notes?

I agree that the picture may say more about the vessel and the water than the note itself. But then why do the pictures look so different? Was there a different vessel per note?

When the tuner registered a note—reading 220 hertz, the frequency that produces an A, for instance—Louviere stopped adjusting. As each note’s unique vibration induced its characteristic pattern into the water, Brown captured it with her camera. The pair worked together to obtain a “portrait” of each of the 12 notes.
I wonder if Verizon worked out a deal with the mozilla foundation over the search bar exit clause? That's basically a billion dollar pay out over 3 years if Mozilla decides to trigger it.
That's like not reading reviews before going to a restaurant.
> BC-1.2 defines a Dead Battery Provision (DBP) which allows for an extremely simple handshake to request that 100mA be available for a longer term — up to 45 minutes.

45 minutes is such a long time, what is the practical difference between always providing 100ma and only providing 100ma for 45 minutes? A device can be plugged in at any time, even right after a previous device had used the port for 45 minutes, so this rule seems to me to de facto say that a port must provide at least 100ma. If my understanding is correct, then why have the rule at all? Just make 100ma the unnegotiated power instead of 2.5ma.
I agree that java interop is a big deal, but mainly to library writers.

End users, I think, end up using clojure wrappers around java libs instead of java libs directly.

For end users (application writers), the single most important thing are the easy to use yet very powerful data structures.
Use data analytics tool to predict next Pokemon location
Introducing B12 – Intelligent software to design websites
I love using Spacemacs in hybrid mode.
If you're using one of the supported layer you're in a ton of lack as the only configuration job you have to is minor tweaking of stuff you don't like.
At any company (Microsoft included) where performance-based compensation exists, there is a budget for that line item. Therefore it is a zero-sum game - to pay someone more because of their performance, that means that someone else gets less (or zero) from that line item.

So, depending on how you interpret the term "stack ranking", you can either look at it as "forced removal of the bottom x% of the company" or "people aren't ranked / bucketized". In the MSFT case, I believe that the former has been removed. But the latter definitely cannot be removed if you are to have performance-based compensation.
> Why do you believe that (completely reasonable!) examples from physical laws should be used as guiding analogies towards digital problems?

The examples from physical laws articulate the principles underlying those laws. One of those principles is that the mechanism of the trespass is totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter if Bob gets into my pool by sweet-talking a dim-witted security guard or rents a plane and does a HALO jump. All that matters is the end result: he's using my property even after I told him not to. Why should that principle be modified for the digital world?

Now, I think that in the digital world, it can be harder to know what the property owner intends than in the physical world.[1] I think it's reasonable to require a higher standard in the digital world for proving that the alleged trespasser actually had notice he was no longer welcome. And the 9th Circuit did that when it held that a TOS was not sufficient notice. But that's not in play here--Facebook clearly and unambiguously communicated its intent to Power. Why should anything else be required?

[1] Maybe it's also harder to know when someone's property was accessed intentionally. But the CFAA has a pretty stringent standard for that--the access must be "knowing." Accidentally sending packets to Facebook's computer and getting a reply would not be enough. And there is no claim here that Power didn't "access" Facebook's servers nor is there any claim it did so "unknowingly."
Instead of a mark and point, it could have a mark and modern cursor. This wouldn't lose any of that functionality and it would be less annoying for people used to modern software.
I hadn't seen that, thanks! I think the giveaway right now is that machines don't understand how to tell stories-- the language sounds humanoid, but there is no point. It's actually very similar to listening to a child tell a story, where everything makes sense, and things are even described, but you're left feeling, "...so?"
Extra money for excellence comes with an implied message that the regular money is just for showing up. You really don't want your employees to feel that way.
Windows itself ran fine on ARM. Windows RT failed for a couple reasons: there was no backwards compatibility for x86 Windows software, and there were a couple artificial limitations in place that made ARM-native desktop software impossible. Essentially, Windows RT threw out the good part of what makes Windows Windows (decades worth of third-party software) in an attempt to make a "dedicated" tablet OS a la iOS or Android.
"Avoid sin" and "cleansing" does not always goes together with self-improvement, but it usually goes tight with regret. I would have agreed with you if you used self-control as self-improvement.

Plus... the concept of sin depends on the religion.
Both. It would be interesting to use bot generated works as seed.
Just a heads up that your first link doesn't seem to exist anymore.
I think the post title can use some work!
I still have an old NT 4(?) install disc with x86, MIPS, Alpha, and PPC arches.
New Beta 9.0 of C#/XAML for HTML5 Available
SSH config supports lots of esoteric options, like setting non-standards ports, usernames and specialized routing (using Proxycommand options).

Three issues, for me, with adding hosts to DNS:

1) I work from several networks - work, home, tethered. I only control the DNS zone that is set up as my default DNS search domain on one of those networks.

2) I work on hosts in several external networks - they shouldn't all be in the same DNS search domain.

3) I work primarily with cloud hosted, ephemeral servers. Cattle, not pets. Right now I have a tool that adds hosts from my EC2 accounts to my ssh config file (https://github.com/fredsmith/aws-ssh-config.)

I also have solved this problem using 21 lines of bash in my bashrc. (https://github.com/fredsmith/dotfiles/blob/master/bash/dsh) Mine doesn't have quite the level of polish of yours, but since it uses the system ssh binary, it handles special ssh configurations and seamlessly uses ssh-agent. I've used this on hundreds of hosts simultaneously, and it executes in parallel very quickly.

[derf@pan][12:01:01]-[~] $ dsh smith.bz uptime
pandora.smith.bz: 12:01:09 up 38 days, 2:40, 0 users, load average: 0.30, 0.23, 0.23
dione.smith.bz: 12:01:11 up 42 days, 14:22, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.05
tethys.smith.bz: 12:01:11 up 23 days, 3:26, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.05
hyperion.smith.bz: 12:01:12 up 23 days, 3:01, 1 user, load average: 0.89, 0.87, 0.76
io.smith.bz: 12:01:12 up 23 days, 3:26, 1 user, load average: 0.38, 0.73, 1.73
janus.smith.bz: 12:01:12 up 31 days, 3 min, 1 user, load average: 0.37, 0.37, 0.28
rhea.smith.bz: 12:01:12 up 42 days, 14:29, 2 users, load average: 0.03, 0.05, 0.07
> So, was there a government initiated prosecution for this criminal violation?

There was no alleged criminal violation. CFAA provides both civil and criminal causes of action; the interpretation that this sets a standard for criminal law is not that this was a criminal violation, but that the requirement which was being applied applies both to civil and criminal CFAA provisions.

> How can you use CFAA violations in civil court without a criminal conviction of the violation?

You can do so because the CFAA explicitly creates a civil cause of action not dependent on a criminal conviction,

> By using preponderance of evidence in lieu of reasonable doubt seems troubling for a criminal violation, or is this not the situation?

There is (in general) no "criminal violation" involved in a civil CFAA action.
Check the status on the Pokemon Go servers
If I understood the ruling right, then I send FB a "cease and desist" letter prohibiting FB from accessing my computers, et voilà, all carte blanche privacy violations by FB will go poof because they would be committing a federal crime if they so much as showed their icon in another website I visit?
You can also listen to him giving this speech here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqzcCfUglws

I revisit this material every couple years. It's so easy to fall into these traps in your thinking.
To refine your example:

If you were given a trespass warning, would your telepresence robot entering the same space, be a violation?
I definitely struggled to find a satisfying approach to recursion in my own current language project. What I'm doing right now is passing the closure value of the callee as a hidden first argument to every call. Nonrecursive functions just ignore that argument but recursive functions can always call themselves via that hidden argument.

It doesn't allow you to support syntactic mutual recursion but it's easy to do and can be implemented without data modification at any level.