skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The last version was much less restrictive. Regulation is certainly inevitable, but stifling regulation is something we can fight against.
Show HN: OAM
Whitepaper from Arxiv describing their scheme for others who like seeing underlying details of security tech:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.07168v3.pdf

@ ZeroDB developers

I know the goal is to have the cloud provider untrusted in this model for storage/processing. However, have you considered them actively malicious in how they handle the protocol steps with the on-site client? As in, at each step (eg a query), they might try to attack the protocol or especially the implementation (a la OpenSSL infamy). Just make sure you have defenses for that sort of thing.
Actually I wasn't. If my phone had the habit of rebooting while I was on a conference call/webex, I might endanger a contract or lose a customer.

For me, my phone is mission critical.
This interpretation could imply that any software running on a GPL OS that lacks memory protection would also be forced to be GPL. The GPL has exceptions for GPL programs using proprietary OS components, but does it have the reverse?

It's easy enough to claim that a kernel module is more analogous to a program running on an OS than to a library linked into a program.
Oh, I totally agree that it's possible, and even likely that they can and do use your data. That's one of the reasons I don't use their products. I'm saying that they don't rely on it nearly as much as Google, and at the end of the day, we don't know what they collect.
I like the honesty of your answers.

I think an investor would care more if it were making money, or if there was a way to make money. I think charging is a great way to demonstrate that.

You could also just add a voluntary payment and see if people just send some money your way.
Hi!

Thanks for responding to my questions! The whole project is amazing and I hope you keep working on this (and future projects) with the same enthusiasm as you do now! :D
I think the author is completely wrong on the premise that more encryption has meant less privacy. People are using more encryption because we already had no or little privacy. It hasn't gotten worse, it was already this bad.

He is right on one count though, this isn't a technical problem and it cannot be solved through a purely technical solution.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12248588
For me personally Facebook doesn't matter. I wouldn't care less if it dies. I remember when I joined Facebook as part of my university. I was a hardcore user back then. May be this is a bold prediction. I predict Facebook will die a death like yahoo eventually. Most people I knew who were big Facebook users have all moved on. it'll be like having a Hotmail account.
I think that is correct, though I'm not sure if there is anyone who tracks the exact cause, maybe it would surprise us.

Last time I heard about a violence against a taxi driver they were shot in the back in a carjacking, and then the assailant was not able to bypass some interlock device to actually restart the cab. So the cab company makes it hard to actually get away with the car, but the driver is probably carrying a lot of cash.
Amazon is eating the world, so Walmart just bought a Bezos whisperer
If you look at the actual traffic, it's hitting netflix's content servers. e.g. ipv6_1-lagg0-c001.2.bne001.waia.isp.nflxvideo.net

The interesting traffic is not to fast.com.
No, ETC will still be ETC, new forks will just get new monikers. I'm holding out for ET-TNG.
Very good. There are a lot of mall walkers who don't buy anything, just take advantage of the large indoor space and its climate control. And much like the "network effect" people like to talk about, malls don't want to be empty. They would rather be full of non-shoppers than 1/10th full of customers, because perception is everything. If no one is at the mall, why would businesses come to the mall?

Shoppers aren't the mall's customers, businesses are. The mall doesn't care about the customers, they care about luring businesses to locate there and pay rent. And if they have a ton of non-shoppers loitering around, that makes their mall more attractive, not less.
Scientists develop dissolving battery
dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12253044
İzmir Marka Reklam Ajansı
we are making digital backgrounds for furniture photography
www.izmirmarkareklam.com
There's usually going to be some interface between the two worlds, right? You just want it to be highly controlled.

What's left? Optical media? Or are we seriously reduced to a human with two computers reading from one and typing into the other?
Hide+Fake+Torrents+on+The+Pirate+Bay
>Even Rosa Labs doesn't recommend a pure Soylent diet.

When did they stop marketing it as a full meal replacement?
> Did everybody just discover the TUI in 2016 or something?

Guilty as charged. I did just now.

But to be fair, I'd rather use a gdb frontend like realgud in Emacs.
It could work the same for Bitcoin. It actually works better with Bitcoin as there actually is a complete transaction log.

However, the law has frequently decided it can't treat Bitcoin like it treats cash, which has created problems...
The community that's grown around this routing technology is Hyperboria (https://hyperboria.net/), which is mainly an overlay meshnet via the existing internet rather than an entirely new network with dedicated cables and wireless links. It's got about 700 nodes active right now (and about 1800 links), according to the awesome network visualizer at: http://www.fc00.org/
This leads to a strange outcome where the government needs to execute X people per year to ensure it retains the right to execute people in the future.
Should you be using the mobile application if _you_ care about privacy?
Because most political jobs pay abysmally, have little job security, and require painful working hours. As such, there aren't many reasons to go into politics beyond wanting to make a change.
We are making  digital background for furniture photography
we are making digital background for furniture photography
> Regression is a statistical term. If it's going to be used for an application involving data and real decisions, not understanding the statistical issues is irresponsible.

No, it isn't.

It's curve fitting. The goal is to fit a curve to the data.

In any engineering application, no one cares what's the statistical interpretation. They only want to fit a curve to the data, and do it in an optimal way.

Hence, you get the sum of squares of the difference between the curve and the sample point (i.e., the residual) and minimize it by determining the parameters which minimize the regression.

That's it.
...and we have to assume you are a master agent leading a crack team of saboteurs.
That reminds me, years ago I was on the corporate buyer end of a sizable project, and everything was rolling smoothly toward closing, until a fellow engineer and I went on-site to see the code. It was as if it had been run through a human obfuscator. The entire C codebase was a single main() function in one file, all "subroutines" copy/pasted over and over, cryptic variable names, no comments, no indentation. The "programmers" had to convince us this wasn't a prank before we walked out in shock.
Any USB device gets to be a keyboard and mouse. If it comes down to it, the device could just "type" its payload.
Same here. I have a "friendless" account on FB with a few postings liked to my blog.

Being 'avantgarde' these days means having an empty FB account and no Linked-Ins at all. ;-)
If you could simply program a human's behavior into a machine, that would be fine, but humans aren't capable of encoding their neural circuitry in a programming language; in fact, the combined efforts of all humans have only begun to shed light on what human behavior is. As such, generating formalized information (that describes behavior) requires some process (other than human hands) to do it -- and in the case of a machine that interacts with the world, "turing machine" is not a complete description of any such process.
>isn't ETH's "The Code is the Contract" ethos morally override any complaints people could make about unfair marketing?

I am no moral authority, though I certainly have my opinions. I think the moral question breaks down to the following:

1. Do I have a moral obligation to perform a contract that I entered only as a result of fraud?

Let me ask you, what if you and I enter a contract where I will pay you $10 to pull a string of my choice and you agree. After you enter the contract I show you the string and it is tied off to a trigger on a gun pointed to someones head, does the contract ethos morally override my unfair disclosure? That is obviously an extreme, but how about if you had a elderly parent who was on their death bed and I told your parent the Will makes you the sole beneficiary but it really made me the sole beneficiary, would you have a moral obligation to allow the Will/contract to stand that overrides your complaint about unfair representations?

At the end of the day, people signed up for the DAO, but the DAO as executed was not what they signed up for, no matter how much people say that is the entire point of the DAO. If it were me I would feel no moral obligation to accept my losses as if it were losses based on a legitimate investment opportunity that simply didn't perform. I think people must determine for themselves what is moral, and while keeping ones word and fulfilling contractual obligations is a moral issue, it applies to all parties (the solicitor and investor), and that is why the law doesn't permit fraud, deceptive and unfair trade practices, contracts with minors, contracts with people who lack capacity to understand them, unjust enrichment, etc...
Which many members of conspiracies would be more than willing to do, hindering the investigation of organized crime, and (genuine) terrorist cells.
Ah yes, because who doesn't want to return to the days of AOL's "channels".

I think you're completely right, btw. After AOL, it only took a few years for websites to become rapidly Flash-based. It looks like we're going back to that again (not Flash, but same thing - black boxed).
Everyone in the space who was paying attention knew the DAO was likely to be a debacle, which is a major secondary reason that many people opposed forking to save it. This is what moral hazard looks like in the world of cryptographic "smart contracts".
Ben Goertzel of OpenCog fame has argued for this for a long time.
I ran a greasemonkey script that tried to delete everything. What ended up happening was everything was switched to hidden from timeline. I don't know if something was wrong with the script (looked good to me) or if facebook just doesn't want to delete anything.

But I was truly bummed to see that it is impossible to delete anything.
They simply pretend that all skilled attackers are state actors.

Due to how the industry works, they're usually correct.
> Only if you think the original meaning is what governs today.

That's a circular argument: "The meaning of the words to the people who wrote the words doesn't matter because we don't think the original meaning is what governs today."

> Obviously many others do not, hence the mix of people you see on the Supreme Court today.

I think that's actually a bit of a strawman of the "living Constitution" position. If I write a letter that is read 100 years from now, it would be absurd to say that what my words "mean" should be interpreted in any way other than how I would have understood them. Clearly, very smart people would not subscribe to a patently absurd idea like that.

Instead, I think they subscribe to the idea that the meaning of the words on the page isn't the be-all end-all. That the framers intended the independent judiciary to exercise discretion within the general bounds of the Constitutional text.

Which was the point of my original post upthread: it's not really unclear what the text "means"--we just disagree about what to do with that information.
Not necessarily. If something is widely accepted, both domestically and globally, as the standard punishment for a particular crime that is itself infrequently encountered, than that punishment for that crime is not unusual, even if the crime itself is unusual.
To be fair, the NSA did have a very high profile incided where they were considering legally mandating a physical backdoor, called the Clipper Chip, until it was proven that the chip had a gaping vulnerability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip
0db - that's I was thinking of. Way to fight 0days
It's a little odd that they elected to invent their own way of requesting just a range of bytes in a file. It's built into HTTP: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7233
You could take a look at testing with spock & groovy. With those you can instantiate browsers and control their behavior with just some lines of groovy code. Haven't heard of any tools that still work and do the job right, so though it might seem a bit of an overkill, it may just be worth the effort and you learn something cool ;-)
I agree that this point of view is actively harmful. Users not being part of the political process, realistically, is part of the political process design. The average user doesn't have the time or money to lobby like a corporation with clear financial incentives to inhibit Progress in Congress.
Dwarf Fortress Is 10 Years Old
There is absolutely no reason you should say so, and further no reason for my own reply.
Maybe your ISP is generally throttling your traffic but whitelisting speedtest et al to hide it.
Valeris: Four hundred years ago on the planet Earth, workers who felt their livelihood threated by automation flung their wooden shoes called sabots into the machines to stop them. Hence the word sabotage.

Uhura: We are experiencing technical malfunction. All backup systems inoperative.

Chekov: Excellent-I mean, too bad.
> We need extraordinary privacy because we have extraordinary vulnerability

I don't understand that statement. Do you mean we need a widely defined right to privacy, aggressively enforced, because observation is so easy?

I view it the other way. Observation by anyone/everyone is so easy and natural. We should not expect more privacy from law enforcement than we would from any other stranger.

More specific to the posted article, it makes sense that a corporation should be able to sell secure encryption and possibly win in the marketplace because users appreciate their privacy. If users turn out to appreciate convenience instead, then they should expect the FBI to have the same capability that the vendor has to look at users' data.
Location: NYC · New York

Remote: Sure

Willing to relocate: For the right company, sure, but prefer to stay here until 2017.

Technologies: Broad knowledge of web technologies including HTML, CSS, JS, Python, Django, Hugo, UX, Graphic Design, Wireframing and Story Mapping.

Résumé/CV: http://simongriffee.com/resume.pdf

Email: simongriffee@gmail.com
Given throttling by ISPs targets primarily streaming (i.e. downloading), they designed a specialized bandwidth tool to illustrate this. If this were generic, sure, then your complaint would be valid, but this is not a generic tool.
> "No privacy" has certainly NOT been the standard. Before the information age, people were more likely to communicate extremely private information in person.

The first problem with this is that influence and power in society is proportional to how many people a person has access to and is around in some way. So yeah you could be private before but you couldn't do nearly the same damage or have the same influence without having people around. Technology empowers people across the world while at the same time potentially leaving no trace. The second problem is that communications is one thing, but evidence and 'data at rest' is another. Things like sexual abuse pictures, financial logs like cryptocurrencies, gps coordinates of where you've been, app logs in your phone and whatever else that may serve as evidence. In the old world, you had no choice but to burn or bury that evidence, but that also eliminates their usefulness to the criminal so there's a choice to be made by them before they destroy it.

Basically in the old world you had physical items in a physical world, observed by the people around you, and your only friend was physical isolation, physical obfuscation (burying, using a safe, both of which aren't 100% private), or the decay/destruction of the physical items. Today you have pristine copies at global scale with 100% privacy and this is far more effective.
The most ridiculous patch notes from 10 years of Dwarf Fortress
The Japanese language puts students at a disadvantage
Since the current usage means people who do something without being paid, emphasizing the "love" would shift meanings quite a bit. For example, I have to assume that many professional (paid, that is) astronomers also love what they do...
Ask HN: Project sauron source code?
Hey

I was reading that project sauron is a very sophisticated bit of software. I was wondering if anyone has the source code to it they can share?

Thank you
A
And the government has never had omnipotence. Fuck you Comey.
This is indeed true for our standalone, open source database (https://github.com/zerodb/zerodb).

However, it is not the case for our Hadoop scheme (nor our future support for structured database). In these cases, there is no round-tripping required. In fact, it's significantly more performant than existing Transparent Data Encryption in Hadoop, from both a latency and key rotation perspective.

We'll likely release a paper describing this new scheme later in the year as well as publish at some conferences.
> the DC's weren't patched

As I understand it, airgapped systems are not in the habit of bringing software updates across the airgap, so unpatched everything is likely.
Typically (in the US) it's been the executive branch that has tried to subvert privacy (see COINTELPRO), and the judicial which has (sometimes) upheld it. However, because crypto would actively impede the ability of the judicial branch to use warrants, I imagine it would alienate our typical ally.
Each spreadsheet is a probabilistic generative model, and we allow you to express uncertainty in some cells using functions like GAUSSIAN, NEAR, CHOICE, and also incorporate already known data using function ACTUAL.

Then, the plugin generates valid scenarios given all assumptions and actuals. You can explore scenarios, see averages (expected values), enhance the model, and repeat it until you are satisfied with the prediction quality.
An Introduction to Futarchy
> What I see is that if evidence collection becomes seriously hampered because of strong encryption, then hacking, backdoors and surveillance will have to go up to compensate, and that's not a good situation either.

I don't see why it should. Encryption isn't taking something away that the government has always had, it's about taking something back that they never should have been collecting in the first place, and evidently don't know how to use properly anyway. Just because we've taken away their new toys doesn't mean they get to continue to abuse the system.

> Maybe we just haven't seen the actual consequences yet.

Really? I've been pretty civil with this, despite my inclination that you are just trolling, but I can't even take this part seriously.

> Unless the FBI and the police are lying

Either they are being malicious, or they are being ignorant. I'm not sure which is worse. But we have plenty of evidence that they are and have been lying.

You keep framing this discussion as though it's reasonable they are the good guys looking out for everyone, but there's just too much evidence that this isn't the case.

EDIT:
> 650 of 5,000 electronic devices investigators attempted to search over the last 10 months

How many conversations about crimes were had in private that they couldn't record? I'm guessing many more than 5,000. Does that mean we should ban non-transcribed conversations?
Of course, it was just an example to show you Americans that things work differently here.

I don't know how on earth you could misinterpret my comment as having anything to do with common law. I was describing the difference in German procedural law between the court as an active fact-finding organ in criminal cases and a passive organ in civil cases, deciding upon facts offered by the parties (and only those).

I think you're mixing something up.
The only problem with that is people don't typically carry keyboards around and plug them into different devices.
The main thing they have is a very large, very profitable industry whose income rises and falls with minor changes in legislation. If the fourth amendment were the freedom to eat sugar, I guarantee that their advocacy would be just as effective.

Direct action is the only effective form of engagement other than direct payments.
> free software has mostly won.

The impression I get is that it's mostly the opposite: people have mostly given up on the notion of having all (or majority of) software being Free, and see that more and more as a pipe dream. Hence they don't want to "waste" their enthusiasm on something that feels like a (literal) utopia now.

There's a lot of reasons combined to get people there:

* seeing corporate behemoths everywhere that want to keep critical software proprietary

* many more people wanting to monetise their own software, and seeing that GPL-ing software offers only a few (and
not-universally-applicable) monetisation strategies

* seeing that the "all bugs are shallow" and "everybody pitching in will make Free software the best there is" turn out not really true in practice

* seeing that in practical terms, having access to read and modify source code means nothing in 99% of cases because of software overload and others' code being so hard to get into that it's often practically impenetrable.

Not to say that I agree with all or any of these completely, but it's easy to see such a multi-pronged attack pushing back hard against the FSF's message. Further reducing FSF's ability to spread the message is the widespread character assassination of RMS as an "insane, overly idealistic, and rude slob" that has been going on for at least a decade.

As someone that read the Halloween documents non-stop overnight, it makes me a bit sad too.
If we ever want 'true AI' then interacting with the world would certainly be a crucial component of building one. Text is a crucial component, but ultimately being able to 'see' gives one an entirely new perspective on what words mean. There's a reason after all, for why toddlers touch hot surfaces even after repeatedly being told that it will hurt - until they experience it for themselves, the word 'hot' doesn't quite connect even if they heard it dozens of times and have a very good abstract sense of what it means.
http://prog21.dadgum.com/121.html
The cult of Done
Reminds me a lot of that classic Stephen Bond essay: https://web.archive.org/web/20131204031113/http://plover.net...
Installation: http://www.courier-mta.org/cone/INSTALL.html
Why couldn't they just fork to ETH (majority rule) and ETC (contracts inviolate) and let the voting mechanism be a currency exchange contract between the two?

If you prefer ETC, you trade all your ETH for ETC, and vice versa. The "winner" is the currency with the higher valuation, but everyone can still use whatever fork they prefer.
If you're on Facebook, they know what you're doing whether or not you're blocking their ads. Blocking ads from third-party sites makes sense for the reason you indicate, but blocking ads served up by the very site you're visiting does not actually help privacy at all.
> Once these publishers swap over to proxying ad-content through their own domains

Do you know anyone who is doing this already?
More likely your ISP is cheating and you don't actually reach 350 outside speedtest and some other routes they make sure you are unthrottled on. Would not be the first.
I was more asking why the two hypotheses have to be mutually exclusive.