skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
For me personally, I do know Javascript a bit and have worked through some tutorials, built some toy stuff with it. But I think the idea of "full stack" is such a harmful concept to the profession of programming that I won't go anywhere near jobs like that, and would absolutely tell people that I know zero Javascript just to get them to leave me alone.

I think specialization of labor applied to the software stack is actually so much more critical now than it ever has been, and that in truth most places that seek to structure themselves around the idea of "full stack" only do it under some misguided belief that it's somehow cheaper or more efficient to employ people who can supposedly "do it all." It's further dysfunction when you see postings asking for very inexperienced recent grads who are also somehow gurus in 5 or 6 full-stack domains.

"Full stack" is generally an outgrowth of bad management ideas, and sends up red flags about companies and teams that believe it's super important, or that very competent engineers with experience wouldn't be able to pick up the skills they need quickly because they have "never gone full stack on web" ...

I see a few of these kinds of things that are somewhat tied together:

"Doing things at scale" -- but doesn't actually define the scope of their specific problem in the job listing or the interview. They seem to believe there is some singular platonic thing that is "at scale" for all problems and all situations.

"Full stack" -- but list conflicting skill sets for a position, or (worse) basically admit that they have no idea what you'll be doing for them. If you're trying to hire a machine learning Ph.D. with 6 years of experience in Javascript, then something up the hiring pipeline at your company is messed up. The drive to do a ML Ph.D. (generally speaking) is not really compatible with the drive to acquire 6 years of Javascript experience.

"Fast-paced" / "constantly-changing" environment -- The job of business developers and managers is to present a stable double-sided interface. One side faces customers and the stream of business problems that Nature creates. The other side faces the employees who then implement solutions to those things. Yes, you can't control the problems that nature throws at you. But you can control the way those problems are ingested, broken down, analyzed, and presented to the workers who will solve them. When a business punts on this and basically says anytime Nature throws us something tricky, management will just jerk you around under the infinite excuse of "fast-paced environment" then you should have serious, serious concerns about whether those business managers are actually going to be successful, or whether they will show respect to the intrinsic human need for adequate work/life balance and professional respect for your position within the company.
Police in Canada Used ‘Stingray' Surveillance Device Without a Warrant
FAQ about the lawsuit, compiled by the Software Freedom Conservancy: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vmware-lawsuit...
Ultimately, there's no such thing. A blockchain is simply a data structure that keeps you from editing it in place by changing old entries. If we agree to rewrite it, we agree...

And some forks are done simply by having the majority of the clients (or processing nodes at any rate) agree to make certain things invalid. Such as an attacker's loot address, etc. The chain is all there, unedited, but no longer has the same effective meaning.

We really need a community that rejects these proposals the same way they'd reject photocopied money.
Fastmail is quite reliable, and they support CalDAV and CardDAV. Their android email client is fast but doesn't work offline--fortunately they support IMAP Push and work very well with whatever 3rd party email client you prefer. I haven't moved my personal domain over there yet, but I've been using a paid tier for several emails with them for over 10 years and have been very happy. I haven't tried the exported ical format programmatically, but some of their devs are active on HN and if you shoot their help desk a question about it I expect they'll get back to you promptly.
Also delayed in Portland[1]

[1] http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2016/07/g...
For my part, the wording in #1 looks especially flimsy.

What the hell does "nominal" mean? Is "nominal" measured against some absolute dollar value, or against the scope of the task/services rendered? It's not hard to imagine some massive smart contract transactions that would require a lot of resources to perform, but which wouldn't otherwise have any financial purpose. Would those be deemed too costly, not nominally cheap enough, for this act?

I also wonder about the meaning of "non financial" here. What would this mean for a coin like ETH? ETH does not aspire to be anything more than grease for the Ethereum network. Nonetheless, it's now traded on exchanges for BTC, USD, etc. Does its rising value in trade mark it as "financial" for the purposes of this act, in every ETH transaction on the Ethereum network, even though it's not directly intended for financial purposes?
We also fail to imagine the future crises that were made inevitable by the bailouts. If we wanted bankers to learn, we shouldn't have shielded them from the consequences of their poor decisions.
Why your business needs to be a Startup
I agree, the tool is (currently) poorly documented. I would have appreciated something like this:

bwrap --ro-bind / / id

bwrap --ro-bind /usr /usr \
--ro-bind /lib64 /lib64 \
id

bwrap --ro-bind /usr/bin/ps /usr/bin/ps \
--ro-bind /lib64 /lib64 \
--proc /proc \
ps -x

bwrap --ro-bind /usr/bin/ps /usr/bin/ps \
--ro-bind /lib64 /lib64 \
--proc /proc \
--unshare-pid \
ps -x

bwrap --ro-bind /usr/bin/echo /usr/bin/echo \
--ro-bind /lib64 /lib64 \
echo "to a file outside the container" > /tmp/a-file

bwrap --ro-bind /usr/bin/sh /usr/bin/sh \
--ro-bind /lib64 /lib64 \
--bind /tmp/a-file /tmp/a-file \
sh -c 'echo "editing inside, available outside" > /tmp/a-file'

But it's never going to be easy. For example:

- The above works on my 64bit, combined /usr system, but maybe not yours. The more complicated the example, the more likely differences between systems are to show up.

- You may want to run a program with different privileges in different scenarios, so it is hard to guess what the right thing to do is in the general case.

Both bubblewrap and firejail need to be setuid. People commented on the firejail thread that it has a lot of code to be audited. Bubblewrap addresses that by stripping down to the essentials. It's going to have to compensate for that with great documentation and error messages.
No, that twist exists in the book, too. That twist is even spoiled in the book's title: "Make Room! Make Room!". Soylent Green is always people, book or movie.

(It's a sci-fi exploration of Swift's "A Modest Proposal". It always has been.)

(ETA: Yes, Soylent Red is not people. But the point of the book and movie is Soylent Green's "easy" solution to famine.)
yeah, i hate this style of writing. it's designed to make people feel dumb, but if you're smart enough to actually parse the language, you realize they're not saying anything.

also, they just draw the wrong conclusions.

The Cloud is composed of multiple levels of code, and no one person can see, let alone interpret, the full stack.

this isn't true. i've worked with a handful of people throughout my career that could tell you exactly how the entire thing works, from x86 registers all the way to javascript running in the browser and everything in between, including details of the content addressable memory on the layer 2 switches! certainly not literally everything that exists, but they understand the entire stack for sure. i suspect there are at least one of these types that exist at every 'cloud' company actually building products.

i think to a lay person technology just seems impossible to fully understand because they do not understand even the most basic things. it's just projection.
Thanks for this. I have been playing with CAs recently[1], and doing a lot of GIF rendering based on the Game of Life rules. This water rendering algorithm seems like a great next step for me to experiment with.

[1] https://twitter.com/tweetgameoflife
It's useful (probably more useful for most of us than any kind of deep dive into internals, at least for a first read), but I don't remember it going that deep into implementation decisions.
I hear these people are called 'full stack developers' even. Though I wouldn't want to use the colonial methods of 'looking, collecting, and record-keeping.' I've heard that doing these things is how you understand systems from front to back.

I wonder what will happen when she finds out about the master/slave relationship inherent in replicated datasets. Is Cassandra transgressing the boundaries of colonial data replication?
Most of these problems are created by the attitude of American public to show deep hatred for any group that is convicted of anything. We as Americans are not doing a good job of standing up for the rights of people who we dont like.

The law enforcement always use the words like "we took this horrific sex offender off the street" and people generally cheer up such talk. In reality the guy was merely caught peeing in some bush.

We need to stand up for the rights of drug dealers, sex offenders, suspected terrorists, victims of civil forfeiture and every other criminal because that is the right thing to do. If we start supporting "vigilante" attitude of law enforcement officials sooner or later they are going to come for you and me and no one will help us then.

Currently I see ACLU doing a good job of this at the ground level and Cato Institute doing a fine job at much higher level. But they are far too small. We need to build much bigger organizations that would do this at a larger scale.

Actually we dont have to pursue all cases. Figure out the most tyrannical cities and target their prosecutors heavily. Once you shame few of them publicly and humiliate them everyone else learns the lesson.
I've once heard an argument that one of the desirable properties of the legal system is that its decisions, even if bad, are considered as final by everyone. This sounds kinda similarly.
You should study the history of anti-ballistic-missile defense systems, and you will find that for the longest time nobody wanted them, because that would force the enemy to attack before they were completed.

Never build more formidable weapons or defenses than you are willing to lay your life down for.
5 Things I Learned Obsessing Over Elon Musk During My Internship
> Why shouldn't I approach them the same way?

Practically: because it leads to a race to the bottom, lowering to their level, the world just gets worse and worse

Philosophically: because ethics are a fundamental part of who you are, and strangers acting unethically does not relieve you of their burdens
Makes sense but wouldn't they then use the netflix domain? Something like netflix.com/fast? I could image that if providers throttle it would be a mix of IPs and domain.
Ask HN: What is the fastest way to build  an api for mobile back end?
If you were going to build a consumer mobile app as fast as possible, as a one-man or one-woman dev team, what technologies and tools would you use to build out the server side? Say you have 1 week to put together an MVP.

One answer is that one should use the technologies he/she is most familiar with, but what would you recommend to skilled engineers who are most experienced with client development?

Specifically, are there tools that significantly speed up the api development process, e.g. scaffolding tools, or stuff like Amazon API Gateway + Lambda?
Triple signal of ‘alien megastructure’ star baffles astronomers
Inbox Gains Trello, GitHub, and Google Alerts Support
Why not also measure upload speed? I get it, it's because their business model only requires people to download stuff. The current state of the internet is much like the old days, where only big corporations had the ability to "broadcast".

So I'm not enthusiastic at all.
The problem with natural language processing is that we are trying to learn it
(read: construct models of it) from utterances, things that are being said or
transcribed. And that is a big, huge problem because there is a lot more to
language than utterances. Hell, there is a lot more to language than language
itself.

There are things you cannot put into words, and yet you think them. There are
things that you can't put into words and yet you can make people around you
understand them. There are things you understand without even knowing you
understand them. But even before we go there- there are so many things that
people can make utterances about that are not possible to collect into example
sets and train models on.

How do you collect examples of whatever it is that makes people lie on the
beach to get a sun tan? How do you collect examples of imagination, dreams,
abstract thinking, all those things that your brain does that may be a
side-effect of self-aware intelligence or the whole point of self-aware
intelligence in the first place?

How do you collect a data set that's as big as the whole world you've
experienced in your however many years of life? And even if you could, what
machine has the processing power to train on that stuff, again and again,
until it gets it right?

Machine learning meaning is hopeless, folks. Fuggeddabout it. There's not
enough data in the whole world, there's no machine big enough to process it if
it existed. We 'll make some advances in text processing, sure, we'll automate
some useful stuff like translation (for languages close to each other) and
captioning (for photographs) and then we'll stall until the next big thing
comes about in a few generations from now.

That's what the current state of the art suggests.
I remember the "likes" counts always being incorrect. Specifically for categories of things such as how many movies, bands, TV series, etc I had liked. Back around 2010 I cleaned up my list of liked movies and experienced the same thing: the count displayed was not synchronized with the number of movies appearing on my page.

I wonder if this isn't something akin to the YouTube "subscribers" bug. Users could repeatedly subscribe then unsubscribe to a channel. Only the unsubscribe actions were counted, and the channel's subscription count could be driven down to 0. That bug was around for over a year before being addressed.
What I've hated about my schools library, and why I will likely never use it, is that it's a huge pain in the ass to use their search systems.

That and the amazing existence of google's great search engine and I can not only find information but google can likely take me to the exact page (Google Books) that I need to read to get my information.

The user experience for someone is just not there to make it easy to use.
"No privacy" has certainly NOT been the standard. Before the information age, people were more likely to communicate extremely private information in person. Until the invention of microphones, this communication was most certainly private if you could avoid eavesdroppers! Now, with everything from TVs to phones to lampposts listening in, this type of communication carries less of a privacy guarantee, but it's still one of the only methods to obtain actual privacy under the right conditions.

So let's all go back to in-person conversations, right? It's not that easy. Friends and loved ones no longer live as close as they once did, as technology has allowed us to stay connected at greater distances. This means that our options under the current state of the world are (a) keep sensitive information away from our trusted confidantes until we see them in person, whenever that is, or (b) get used to the idea that sensitive information could be exposed. Either one of these options brings with it increased psychological stress. This is a big reason why people want "unbreakable" security, and there's nothing nefarious about it!
You fail to grasp the key point here:

If the state cannot break your encryption, they will break you instead.
>Originalists/textualists just think the words on the page are the words on the page.

That is incorrect.

>No, it's logic that mandates you interpret the meaning of the words on the page by what they would've meant to those who wrote the words.

Only if you 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. Arguing that there is one and only one correct way (because "logic dictates" or whatever else) is an ideological argument on theories of constitutional interpretation. It's an ongoing and lively debate if you're into constitutional law.
Original article:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.01316
IMO, the technical mechanisms are irrelevant. the ethical questions easily map to a face-to-face interaction.
If you break someones kneecaps, you may get the information they have, but you will never get anything more. After that they and their whole network will take precautions, even going as far as never communicating electronically if required. Such bullying may also easily backfire, which limits its use.

A broken communication channel in contrast is the gift that keep giving. You can get up to date information that the opponent think is confidential as it happens, and they will not take precautions, and you can continue to use the information against them, giving you the upper hand. This is why NSA was so determined to keep their actions hidden.
Plex Acquires DemandCaster, a Leader in Cloud-Based Supply Chain Planning
I'm working on an project to solve this type of issue. What we do is put test servers throughout your provider's network and then provide a browser frontend that will test your connection (throughput+latency) to each point on your provider's network on your way out to the Internet. I would love to come up with a way to do this without requiring the provider to install anything, but so far that doesn't seem technically feasible. One of the main problems is that so much of last mile networks is now layer 2, so traceroutes aren't particularly helpful at narrowing down the network segment causing the problem.

The good news is that many of the smaller providers (where they exist - maybe your LTE provider is one?) are very excited about adding something like this to their network. Where the incumbents would rather just hide problems from you to keep you locked in, the smaller providers are very motivated to keep you on their network. They're often overworked and resource strapped - so a system that will help them narrow down the source of network problems and reduce truck rolls is usually very exciting to them.
Probably to the Intel Management Engine/AMD Platform Security Processor. By the time your machine is booting it is too late to detect the infection. Reinstalls won't work.

If I wanted to own a machine and not be detected, that's where I'd live. It's also complex and closed source so you are basically guaranteed to have exploitable bugs that won't be fixed. It has access to network and system busses at a layer below the OS so ex-filtrating can be done at a layer below what the OS can see.
Its internal legal departments of large companies (and some medium sized ones). They tend to be most highly concerned with the patent provisions in GPLv3, and yes, GPLv2 is much more palatable, though I've often seen requirements that the code is not contributed to.

The denial is not from the GPL it's from the corporate legal team. This is a big reason why the Apache 2.0 and MIT licenses are much more popular among tech companies with private codebases (in addition to the Open Source code that they release).
Lessen the Friction of Moving Data with NiFi
Who said writing monoliths was a good idea? Because that wasn't me. Monoliths are bad. And yeah, you shouldn't write your app in C.
This is exactly the premise of The Talos Principle :-)
My results were similar on DSL:

Speedtest 12.6 Mbps

Fast.com 13.0 Mbps

But differed on LTE:

Speedtest 40.0 Mbps

Fast.com 73.0 Mbps
This Battery Will Self-Destruct in 30 Minutes
Dyson sphere
I agree fully. Women elsewhere surely wore much more colorful dresses than the Bedouins. At least the younger ones, the black color was at least in some cultures common as the "mourning" color.

Having women wearing black in the areas where the Sun could kill them while men at the same time wear white was surely practical for Bedouins restricting their movement and making them any kind of the "escape" riskier. Luckily, Persia was something else, thanks to its history.

Kindly allow me to be very subjective, to my eyes, Iranian women are beautiful above average (the ones I've met didn't wear headscarves). I do understand the people becoming poets in their presence.

As you are the OP, any chance of obtaining access to the other poems mentioned in the article? Any affiliation?
Yep. Scarcity rules: https://journal.dedasys.com/2007/02/03/in-thrall-to-scarcity...
Try mtr, it's like a combination ping/traceroute
Computers are programmed only using text, even if the text has just two symbols. Sensor interfaces use digital signals, again symbol streams.

That would beget the question if there could be machines mightier than a Turing Complete one. I'm sure that's missing your point.
Failure Is an Option – Choose When to Fail: Part 2 of 3
How is this pertinent to the discussion about serving and blocking ads on facebook.com?
Power of Machine Learning in Excel: Predict Olympics Results
> that why its social networking attempts are failing

IMHO the real names policy killed their projects even before release. I would've loved to use Google+ as a less invasive alternative to FB but the policy killed the deal for me (and generally everyone around me, both tech-savvy and not... who wants another Facebook?)

AFAICT they relaxed on the policy but it was way too late.
"The code is law" - Slock.it

Said in plain english, in the same privileged voice that discussed their intentions.

They were careful to state that if the code and their wishes/statements disagreed, that the code was the authoritative answer.

The Technological-Savvy-Investor (you called them a hacker) was induced to play a code-based Nomic for real money but was then cheated out of their prize by the conniving and dishonest administrators.
It's vague on purpose, as vagueness gives the appointed bureaucrats more power in their rule-making processes. Strict, detailed laws don't give them any extra leeway to make rules that favor rent-seekers and friends.
Check out the way state-of-the-art machine learning modeling is possible now in Excel for any spreadsheet. See the example of predicting Rio 2016 gold medal counts.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12242095
If it's intentional throttling, fast.com would actually not be much of a problem. It'd still be easy to selectively apply traffic shaping to streaming but not to the speedtest traffic.

It would be harder (though not impossible) if there is an actual capacity problem, and the bottleneck is outside of the ISP's network. For example insufficient peering capacity, which seems to be where most of the Netflix / ISP friction is.
I neither said not implied anything about the anti-terror programs. I solely wanted to address your claims about reinstating prohibition, lest someone support it based on that flawed analysis.
You probably want MathJax (https://www.mathjax.org/ ) or KaTeX (https://khan.github.io/KaTeX/ ) support, I hope with these 2 keywords you can find something.