skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Verizon's costs to deploy FiOS, which is the same underlying tech as Google Fiber, between 2004 and 2010 in some MSA's approached a billion in capital alone. They ended up spending $23 billion in total capital, and only in places where they already had data centers every few miles, conduit, fiber, poles, field cabinets, franchise agreements, a local workforce, a large customer base, storefronts, etc. And that only includes new equipment and construction, not recurring operational costs. $23 billion is more than Google's entire capital budget for the past 2.5 years.

This is almost certainly the result of somebody at Google finally asking serious questions about the total cost, or at least being asked to cut a particularly large check for the first time.
Well, clearly, the folks involved have not bothered to "run a simulation" to have predicted the situation where someone has made money out of nothing. He didn't "mine" it, he didn't invest it, he didn't exchange goods or services for it. He merely exploited an unforeseen complexity to his benefit and everyone else's detriment.

And that's the core reason this rubs people the wrong way: it smells like financial shenanigans. We don't like it when people do that stuff in real life, and we don't like it when it happens in a "funny-money" system that deigns to become serious.

The good news is that (as far as I can tell) no serious real money has been poured into or out of this system. If it has, the money was hopefully treated as a highly speculative investment-- thrill money if you like. Not counting Watt-hours and personal time as money, obviously.
Adblockers automatically update. Users won't have to do anything, and as soon as someone figures out how to bypass the ads and the list updates, everyone using an adblocker will benefit immediately.
This is an overly specific distraction. Accidentally or unwillingly loading FB resources doesn't come with any ethical obligations, obviously.

I'm talking about being a Facebook user, as in maintaining a profile and logging on and using the site. My contention is that by affirmatively choosing to use their resources, an ethical obligation is created.
RC4 is now entirely disabled by default for Microsoft Edge and Internet Explorer
Hiding a wallet is much easier. You can even have several copies of it, so that you can hide it so well that you do not even care if you lose it.
Their site(s) are using python extensively.
https://blog.mozilla.org/webdev/2013/02/22/the-restful-marke...
This is beautiful. By using Netflix's actual CDN and requesting actual video files over HTTP, they're preventing ISPs from whitelisting fast.com without also whitelisting Netflix itself. Of course there'll be a game of cat-and-mouse with DPI, but it's a super-neat way of making it much harder for the ISPs to misrepresent actual video download speed...
There's also value in being able to visually inspect it and say "Yep, that USB port's disabled" versus digging through EFI settings.

Every motherboard is going to have that option in a slightly different place, but if you can put epoxy in one USB port you're pretty well set for any piece of hardware.
I wonder if you could breathe life into this and perhaps mold it to do what you want ?

http://fbcmd.dtompkins.com/
That's a particularly incompetent and irresponsible view of engineering.

The key to modeling anything correctly is to be aware of exactly what assumptions your choice of model corresponds to and how well they match the real-world processes underlying your data.

So you've fitted some curve, but why that curve? What are the implications of assuming linearity between your input and output domains? What have you assumed about the distribution of noise over your predictions? How about over your input features? How would you expect the bias and variance of your predictions to degrade if any of these assumptions no longer held?

As an engineer, if you don't understand the statistics behind your models enough to answer to such questions, their real-world applications aren't going to go far beyond wishful garbage-in-garbage-out number crunching.
> until very recently it was also extremely difficult for two people to privately plot to murder hundreds. Technology has changed the balances on a lot of scales.

Was what McVeigh did highly technical?
Google Fiber just acquired WebPass, which is an ISP in San Francisco and Oakland that already uses point-to-point wireless in a bunch of high-rises there.

Having fiber optic to the building (ala AT&T Gigapower) isn't all that useful if the entire neighborhood is oversubscribed 50:1 -- during PM rush, whether you use FTTH or point-to-point wireless, you're going to see speeds top out at ~20-200 Mbps on a "gigabit" link no matter what.
Most people use the Facebook app though
Or to put it another way: "ensuring you've secured all hardware and software exploits in your stack from top to bottom" vs "epoxy and focus on network exploits". Don't knock physical security.
Yeah, it's happened in the past where they show you little thumbnails of your photos album to encourage you to share/post, but the fact that they created a video (during an eventful, emotional, and exciting but very private time) was a bit much. Your comment is a little reassuring, but the fact that FB doesn't have the greatest track record, and this is hearsay on HN, I'm still concerned/annoyed.
Why Automated Recruitment Tools Fail
In addition to their sites (which have already been mentioned), their build tool "mach" uses Python[1].

[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Developer_g...
Which is interesting, because that removes about half the defense for using ad-blockers (third party ads are a security problem) when discussing the implications of consuming content while purposefully avoiding paying the cost (in space and attention) for that content. At least for the people that bother to accept content producers should get even the smallest consideration in constrol over how they allow their content to be consumed.
Read "The $65 million Bitfinex hack shows that it is impossible to tell a good bitcoin company from a bad one"[1] on Quartz. They can't even find the company's offices. The Hong Kong address is a mail drop. The British Virgin Islands address is a mail drop. The CEO is missing. Looks a lot like an inside job.

Fingerprinting cryptocurrency company management is a good idea.

[1] http://qz.com/753958/the-65-million-bitfinex-hack-shows-that...
Often very low. Urban 24Ghz/60Ghz point to point connections are usually 2ms or less per hop.

My house (rural small town) is 4x5Ghz & 1x11Ghz hops away from my datacenter and I get ~15-20ms ping times to Google, League of Legends, etc). At various times I've had Frontier VDSL2 and Charter DOCSIS and both had higher latency.
I just found out about it and thought there might be others who could use it but did not already know of it.
What I did was to feed them noise. I clicked the like buttom on popular things, followed popular people. It is kind of a chore, and it can prompt their anti-bot measures (like asking me if I'm interested in pig (the animal?)).

This, of course, has its drawbacks.
Peering Through a Glass, Darkly at the Future of Real-Time Transparency
That's a very strong security claim. What's behind it?
Which is whey reed elsiver sold there recruitment arm a while back
This is incoherent
Hah! I'm suddenly laughing and crying inside at the thought of massive Useragent strings with individual EULAs in them.
> Instead, it is: given a history of moves, can you determine whether or not a computer was playing?

No, it's really not. For the Turing Test, the AI is meant to be adversarial—it's objective is to convince you that it is human.

AlphaGo's objective isn't to "play like a human," it is to win. If they gave it an objective of playing like a human, I'm sure AlphaGo could play in a way that would be indistinguishable from a human.

> Since they have access to the AlphaGo system, they can just calculate the probability that each move corresponds to one AlphaGo would make.

Peeking at the system/data is cheating. Obviously the person who sets up a Turing test knows which player is AI.
The observations being made are correct in that what he's describing is actually and actively happening. The spot where things stop working is in the very last paragraph in that it very neatly wrecks the argument:

Slapping unbreakable crypto onto more and more packets is just going to make matters worse. The only way to retain any amount of electronic privacy is through political engagement.

The words "any amount of electronic privacy" are where we have big problems. When it comes to protecting privacy from the prying eyes of a hacker, the only amount of electronic privacy that is acceptable is total privacy through unbreakable crypto. This is the problem our politicians have a difficult time grokking but most of us understand: what the government is able to break into (i.e. a lesser amount of privacy from total) is also able to be broken into by a hacker. And, in fact, it becomes more easy if it is government mandated since a hack only need to attack the specific method used by the government to inspect those packets.

I agree that political engagement is necessary, but so too is slapping unbreakable crypto onto ore and more packets. The political engagement needs to come in the form of educating politicians on the realities of today's internet-connected world. We either have solid, unbreakable encryption[0] which necessarily includes protection for people performing financial and otherwise sensitive operations over a public network or we have limited and government-breakable encryption that offers less security than "in the clear" transmission[1].

[0] To the extent that such a thing is possible since this isn't a "set it and it's done" sort of situation but an ever increasing arms race of privacy vs. attacker. This includes such things as ensuring researchers are allowed to test/expose and validate said technologies and not be hindered by legal requirements that prevent them from notifying people of the dangers of broken crypto.

[1] At least, potentially less. Assuming the "backdoor" method is used and protected as well as TSA master keys, we now have a scenario where limited use results in easy to identify "high value" traffic and less security because the hacker need only attack the government for the masters. Even if a much more "well thought out" method is used for providing government access, the problems multiply since now we're not only having to create sufficiently attack-resistant protocols but also manage sufficiently complicated escrow or other processes to provide access. Complexity is the enemy of reliability.
> I can understand the concerns of companies that are unsure about a market so they shop out to recruiters, but it simply doesn't work for anyone.

I worked for an RPO (outsourced recruiting with access to internal systems and hiring managers). Maybe not work for everyone, but that's really dependent on the recruiter reaching out and the experience they initiate. Made plenty of hires, multiple teams did better than their internal recruiters.

>despite that I removed my phone number... but it's cached somewhere =/

What likely happened here is they are using a another product outside of Monster itself, like Avature CRM. They have your past info on file. As soon as you updated your resume you show up on their filter (ex. only resumes updated within last 7 days), they matched your email address and combine your profile so they have your phone number as well.

Also, if you're being messaged for experience that are years to decades old. You can just leave those as generic titles and only have details with most recent work. Say you'll provide more details if requested. This will limit search terms for what you come up for.
Which style do you use for this? I tried doing something like that once, but there were issues with visibility in a lot of the sites, so I ended up having to go back
To add, here's a good standard text to help you learn to "diagnose your model" for bias & classical assumption violations. And how to fix it.

https://www.amazon.com/Introductory-Econometrics-Modern-Appr...
You've done it Pied Piper! Don't let that nasty Hooli find out how.
And also destroying and redlining minority communities in NYC for decades to come.

The man's legacy is decidedly mixed.
I would say: Optional type checking outsourced to a third party tool (mypy) that catches perhaps 90% of the errors if you are lucky.
Just out of curiosity, can anyone reading this say that their mind has been changed, even a little bit?
Mozilla uses Python for many things. To name just one example of many, the mach build script for Firefox and Servo is written in Python.
Ok, now the standard question: when will this feature arrive in the Android mobile app? It is really cool!
Indeed. It seems to me that the only concern was building hype for the DAO (in order to solicit further investments) and ethereum in general. I kept seeing claims about how smart contracts would enable autonomous corporations to pay employees and run factories and other clearly impossible things, everyone was so excited about the possibilities that nobody sat down to critically examine what is actually possible.
On page 4 the paper states

"if we outline a scenario in which Bitcoin reaches the same value of the current global fiat money supply, supposing that the energy consumption of global Bitcoin would grow linearly with its value"

This supposition is highly unrealistic, since the scenario will likely play out over many decades, during which there will be many block reward halvings (once every 4 years), which will severely dampen the energy consumption.

Viewed differently, each halving allows the value of bitcoin to double while maintaining the same energy consumption. At least until the reward drops to a level comparable to the transaction fees...
What did you move to? IMO FB Messenger is the best IM network available. Their competitors are really awkward or impossible to use from a laptop.
How would this bill prevent that? I'd argue it wouldn't, because shenanigans like this aren't happening at US-run bitcoin companies.

We already have federal MSB regulations, and should solve this at the federal level. The proliferation of state MSB regulations make it incredibly expensive for new fintech companies to compete against incumbents and internationally.
> We should not expect more privacy from law enforcement than we would from any other stranger.

We should most certainly expect a greater measure of accountability, care to rights, and due process from law enforcement than from random encounters with strangers.

Random people see where you are, their cell phones make incidental record of you in their photographs and videos, but these aren't really actionable for said random person. ISPs and cellular providers have all sorts of info on you, but in theory this isn't being used for continual judgment of suspicion against you (though it wouldn't surprise me if it was). Aggregated together and accessible to law enforcement, though, becomes a greater threat to individuals due to false positives, corrupt police organizations, bad laws, suspicion via incidental association automatically eroding rights, and so on.

Add to this the basic human nature in that our unthinking day to day actions and thoughts are messy, flippant, and not done with care to judgment. We need privacy to be socially healthy.

I think what happened in response to the Boston marathon bombings is a reasonable model: Private cell phone footage and CCTV captures were held individually, and voluntarily offered up to law enforcement for analysis for a particular, egregious crime. In the hands of unaffiliated private parties, that information is innocuous. Aggregated, it is too powerful to not be bound by a far stricter due process. Law enforcement only had access to this because the situation warranted it, not because they had carte blanche access to everything unchecked.
Devil's advocate, walls and the enablement of taxation also centralized capital and enabled cities to spend it on public works that might not have been built otherwise (and before I get the "then they shouldn't!" retort, I think we can all agree there are shared infrastructure resources that w/couldn't be built by private actors).

In a world where all phones are loosely controlled Android derivates competing on slim profit margins, is anyone going to make the drive for hard hardware-enabled crypto? And even if they wanted to, could they afford it?
His previous hack relied on browsers rounding the result of an opacity calculation in order to force a binary outcome (i.e. one of two colours rather than multiple shades). Once they improved the accuracy of those calculations this trick was no longer applicable

I'm probably not explaining it very well, but you can read the full details of the hack here:
http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/css_calc/
Most likely to make sure it works everywhere (browsers, proxies, etc)
Lithium! shakes fist
As a young IBM engineer, seeing APL keyboards put me off programming for a decade. The incomprehensible hieroglyphics were daunting.
There are ways around ads in apps.
It's a browser addon to cleanup Facebook: www.fbpurity.com
I find this reply confusing, and I think your citation is a little confused too. "This can be taken to ridiculous lengths: giant "holograms" composed of curved, polished metal rods become practical. The metal rods are the interference fringes!" We have obviously left the traditional definition of "interference fringes" well behind here.

You say "They use a combination of diffraction, diffusion, and parallax". But the source you cite says, first thing, "They employ no diffraction in reconstructing images" (quite apart from the fact that diffraction is a form of interference).

You then say "a scratch hologram is the superposition of the equivalent of many zone plates". But a zone plate, being the intersection of a planar wave and a spherical wave, only works for one wavelength. Scratch holograms have no wavelength-dependent effects. Furthermore, the geometry isn't even the same - in a zone plate, the ring spacing gets smaller as you get further from the center. This is not the case with the curved scratches on a scratch hologram: http://amasci.com/graphics/swatch.gif. And it's perfectly clear why - it's not about wave interference, but about maintaining curvature. It's much more akin to a fresnel lens.

So, unless I'm missing something deep, zone plates and interference etc are a total red herring and not useful to understanding scratch holography at all.
Yes but only with the provisions I added that you didn't include in your quote :) (e.g. quick, efficient appeals process to where I can talk with a human judge). Plus the laws would have to be written in this fashion so it would be far, far less murky than what it is today.

So that's a lot of ifs and provisions...so I wouldn't expect this to happen ever.
Download Galaxy Note 7 Stock Apps – Fully Working
You're missing the point.

An acceptably low break in rare using mathematically valid encryption.... Yes, fine... Given a perfect implementation.

You haven't got one of those.
Well of course that's what I meant. Any information an average person knows is contained in text, somewhere. That is all common sense knowledge. Everything from detailed descriptions of trees, to the color of the sky, to the shape of the human face, etc. But also much more, like all of our scientific knowledge and written history. Billions of things the average person doesn't know.
Just to clarify, I didn't say the government should provide such services, but rather invest heavily in the cheapening of such services, such that the private sector can provide them at such a low cost that they become trivial expenses. For example, subsidized agricultural research results in cheaper food, but the government isn't responsible for growing crops or distributing them.
As someone who has suffered a significant loss from the Bitfinex hack, I still prefer technical over regulatory solutions.

You should also note that Bitfinex used to have a much more secure setup, with most of its Bitcoins being stored in cold, offline storage. However, US regulation required them to use segregated accounts for each user. Under such a requirement, the cold storage variant does not work any more, so they moved to keep everything online so they could physically move the Bitcoins back and forth as they were used for margin loans within Bitfinex. It was too much misguided regulation that made them vulnerable in the first place.
There's a typo under heading 7.

...And thanks for the awesome write-up, makes something intimidating for a beginner like myself (gdb) seem somehow less so. Feeling inspired.
What's with all this nonsense about could have "been developed only with the active support of a nation-state"? Do nations suddenly have access to some sort of advanced, alien software development teams?

Feels more like political sabre-rattling to get the public to eventually condone a future attack from our homeland shores of Oceania against the evil Eastasia or Eurasia.
Slightly unrelated to OP's question... but something I just thought of, how would trying to reduce one's footprint impact the algorithm? i.e. would a lot of removals of likes invoke Facebook to suggest radically new content different than the thing which was removed? Or would it continue to suggest similar content?

For example, if someone unliked and removed every post and/or action that had to do with goats. Would they still get suggested content about goats or animals in the same family; would they get more animal-based suggestions than someone who'd never liked goat content? Or would those kinds of suggestions drop off entirely and change to common trends?

I have not used Facebook in a long time, so I'm curious if anyone has insight into the behavior.
Yes, if those people did it frequently and explicitly and wrote posts online about how great it is and how everyone else should do it too.
Can you set range headers from javascript? Can you set them from random video player SDKs?
Too many people without security clearance can access and modify Linux. In any real security environment, open-source is poison. Period, end of story.
I agree that learning to reason about the world likely does not require experience with motor control and proprioception (i.e. literally how babies do it), though I do think that you either need at least some sort of tempo-spatial experience (e.g. visual). Tempo-spatial representations are just extremely hard to convey by text only. You might get the idea of closeness by saying 'close is when two words are close in a sequence of words' and ordering by saying 'this word comes after that word', but I think it would be very difficult to extrapolate that concept to more than one dimension, and dimensions that actually have not just an ordering but also a metric (just think about our inability to reason about just the fourth dimension). You need rich representations of our 3+1 dimensional world to be able to reason about it and text only gives you perhaps "0.5" dimensions (because it lacks a metric, i.e. it does not convey durations in terms of the ticks of the recurrent network). But I doubt, too, that interaction with the world is necessary, in fact I think it would be rather easy for an AI to simply write motor programs in a programming language given unrestricted and noiseless memory once it has learned to reason about tempo-spatial patterns from just observing them and identifying them with our language-coded shared concept space. It is not constrained to real-time performance of actions as humans are, therefore it can take the much easier way of programming any interaction with the world as needed, on the fly. Our shared concept space likely sufficiently conveys our general (common sense) knowledge how these patterns are known to interact and evolve over time once rudimentary tempo-spatial representations are in place.
Getting hacked is a different problem, but solving it with rollbacks means any future country would likely do the same if adopted.