skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Okay, so presumably you are rendering this geojson in something like a google maps data layer, or some other kind of mapping library.

That means if you give it some GeoJSON which describes some points outside the normal screen bounding box you then that is okay - stuff on screen gets shown and stuff off screen doesn't get shown until you pan to it.

So far so good.

Now request and a circle 4 times too big and every time they move the screen, test if the ouside of the screen is outside that circle yet. Don't send another request till it is. Now you have a lot less requests for panning around.

But you want to cache, and all these very unique circles are hard to cache for right?

So instead of fetching a custom circle, divide up the world into a bunch of mathmatically calculated static squares [1]. When they view an area decide what square they are inside and query that. Like the 4xbig circle if you are feching some area outside the current view then it's around for when they pan. But critically - you can cache the result for a query for a square!

Hope this helps?

I haven't done this with rethinkdb.

[1] http://www.ra.ethz.ch/cdstore/www6/technical/paper130/pyrami...
https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison/

It synchronizes directory trees on arbitrary filesystems, so I think the answer to your question would be "asynchronous".

Most individuals don't have TBs of working set continually being updated and requiring a central authoritative copy. They have a small working set and a long-term archive they'd just never want to lose.

Unison's model isn't perfect (eg having to create a star topology, lack of built-in inotify). But it's been around forever, is written in a sane language, and is rock solid.
The CCP's mandate is completely based on constant improvement of living standard

In Europe and US - if living standard decrease from one generation to the next - the worst thing that can happen is we vote in Donald Trump for 4 years.

In china the situation is much more scary as there are no system in place to channel that anger and frustration in a controlled way. The only direction to move is up.

the CCP of-course realizes that they need to invest heavily in renewable, and that is exactly what they are doing. The expectation will be there - and their govt is dedicated to meeting them - with renewable energy is preferable.
His calculations are usually compared to invoices (ie do the numbers match what we were charged for), other reports and historical data. Similarly when one of our DBAs or BAs creates an important report, we check the results against other data sources.
Firing of social media folks, or at least a downturn in social media activity
I wish we lived in a world where X.509 name constraints[0] were actually useful, but unfortunately we don't, and I think getting browsers (never mind other TLS clients) to enforce them is even less likely than the various root stores revoking known-bad CAs.

[0]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#section-4.2.1.10
Three things I can think of that make medical device vulnerabilities more costly than in other verticals:

1. The market is already geared to punish recalls.

2. Recalls, in some limited cases, can be very costly (for instance: in the very few cases in which hardware must be replaced, you may directly incur nosebleed-expensive medical bills).

3. The tort liability that comes from directly hurting people.

But mitigating these points:

1. Hack-and-short is only really interesting if it can be applied repeatedly. Routinizing the kinds of recalls needed to fix vulnerabilities will probably recondition the markets away from punishing these kinds of recalls.

2. Most vulnerabilities, even the most serious ones, don't incur hardware-replacing vulnerabilities.

3. In most (but not all) cases, a human death from a software flaw in a medical device will require deliberate action from, well, a murderer. Which is to say: these kinds of torts are unlikely to be common. Not that I believe that, were a button made available to 8chan that would enable them to kill people on a whim, it wouldn't be pushed regularly! Rather: it's very unlikely such a button will be created at all.
More often than not, even more so than slip, the outer wheel will "hop". This is especially true, if you've done something potentially unintelligent like welding the spider gears together.
Suspend, for one, stopped working for me with sysv-rc. The fact that it's an 8 years old testing/sid mix could contribute.

I found that simple tastes make for an easy switch to... anything (for values of 'anything' not including lunatic fast-moving all-eating godzilla-sized init monsters obviously). My poison is some tiling wm (xmonad or spectrwm work best) + dmenu. A single config file is all you need (my spectrwm config is 4 lines long).

As for a system to switch to Slack seems to be one of the last Linux strongholds. Arch (like Debian) needs tweaking to switch from systemd. There are also those Devuan guys...
We'll see what future holds.
Sony hack sends stock down 10% in past week. Time that on option expiry, make zillions.

Disclosing vulns, though, I,agree not a stock shorting business.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/15/investing/sony-stock-hack/
Sounds like this article is bunk from the comments, but I have simple answer for why they won't own it, or at least why it won't even matter: Automation. With automation eating labor to the core, the supply chain (cheap as it is, though time in the supply chain costs money too) will be the next thing to be eaten. I think we're going to see a much more distributed model of manufacturing in the future and it will involve precious little labor.
I have to agree. The other thing the article fails to mention is how China has invested heavily in other resource production like rare earth metals which are needed for robots and just about all modern things.

They could price gouge us at any moment and they know it. And when they do it will take us forever to build these mines / plants.

That's the thing the article also gets wrong. It takes time and money to keep up and to even copy (robots).

I really can't agree with much in the article.
Quora is almost 10 years old and has no business model. Asana is profitable but no longer growing. No knowledge on Cloudera. And Path was a bust.
> I expect theses and advising a thesis must have been a very different affair at the time, than what they are now.

For sure, I assume that before the mathematical formalism of the 19th century, these relationships were really more of a less formal mentor/mentee. Though I do feel that my advisor was definitely a great and very personable mentor in addition to the more formal (somewhat administrative role) of a modern PhD advisor.
Jason Bourne in 3D is making people sick
Right, startup companies do open-plan because it is cheap, not because any actual developers are more productive or happier that way. It's supposed to be something you put up with until the company can afford offices... Only that point got lost somewhere along the way.

Hell why doesn't GE just remodel their offices to look like garages, because obviously that's the reason that Apple was successful...
You, sir, have a way with words.
People stop telling you the "why" of things, and/or you stop believing them.
Isn't this article just another sign of western/US based interests feeling like they might have already lost the race ?
It feels far more like a 'feelgood' article to prevent panic and to reinforce propaganda of western superiority for the masses, I just can't view it as a structured argument...
Optimail – Email campaigns powered by artificial intelligence
Seems accurate, though I think his point is that the overall team quality is decreasing instead of increasing. On the flipside, keeping a strong team probably means the team is always much smaller than it could be at any given stage. IMO this is well worth it and I strongly prefer a tiny team. But it could potentially decrease a valuation where company size/number of employees (especially engineers) is taken into account.
Jet engines are not "efficient". The SFC is worse than piston engines and in fact, the smaller the turbine the worse the efficiency:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumptio...
Seymour Papert and Paolo Freire: The Future of School (1980)
I was just thinking about this last night. I've discovered a pretty serious security issue with a leading manufacturer of IP cameras. To keep it short you can takeover every single camera that is connected to the cloud (not by randomly enumeration of the devices, you have access to the central database with more than 1mil connected devices).

I did the "right" thing. If I'm lucky I'm probably going to get a 4 digit bounty and a nice blog post for my CV.

But I can't help to think what would happen if I handed this to a competitor or just shorted the company (listed with billions market cap) and helped create a nice clickbaity media shitstorm.
For that scheme to work, it has to actually work: you need an attack that can damage the fundamentals of a business. Most trades aren't made by randos reacting to the news: they're allocation decisions made by pension funds and endowments and mutual fund firms, all of whom are run by people who understand that if they dump a position when it's down 10% because of the news cycle, they are going to look stupid and potentially lose their job when it turns out that the news cycle had nothing to do with the fundamentals of the company and the stock recovers --- probably not from the hack, but from whatever macro trend is jostling the market that week.
This seems a little glib wrt the meaning of something being "true". We have undecidability results: the Axiom of Choice and its negation are both consistent with the Zermelo-Frankel axioms. The continuum hypothesis and its negation are both consistent with the ZFC axioms. The Parallel Postulate and its negation are both consistent with the other Euclidean axioms.

Are we justified in saying that for each of these, one must be true and the other false? Of course not. To resolve them one way or the other, you need additional axioms; none of those six propositions is true platonically. What you choose depends on the problem you're trying to describe.
Yet first order logic encompasses 99.9% of the mathematics anyone ever does, even professional mathematicians. The only people who consider anything but first order logic are people who have gone out of their way to make a point to study it just for its own sake. When the general subject of discussion is proof assistants and proofs in normal mathematics, I don't think it's necessary to constantly mention "only in first order logic". It's like discussing structural integrity of a building and constantly mentioning that all the calculations only hold on in our reality, but if we were living in an alternate dimension and the physical constants of the universe were different then the results wouldn't be applicable.
I think you'd find the company's competitors pretty disinterested. You might find that doing so simply gets your bug disclosed to the vendor through its competitors, costing you credit and the bounty and potentially some legal fees.
I think it comes down to the fact that he hasn't needed to and that he prefers the tools he already knows. He's also not part of the IT department, so it would be similar to having your CFO have direct database access. Possible but probably not the best use of time.
We can do it without breaking websites: a TLS implementer could reject all certificates issued by a particular CA after a certain date.

(For the obvious issue) WoSign's recent certificates are in the CT logs and they're promising to put in all their 2015 certificates as well, so they could be whitelisted.
Dilbert calendars are healthily cynical, not elements of denial like non sarcastic motivational posters.
I would say that anyone expecting a collaborative approach to market efficiency was raised on an inefficient set of rules.

You would do yourself a greater service by analyzing why you are surprised that this is a legal form of risk.
Also the last straw argument "Chinese can't innovate/be bold because only Liberal arts degree holders can do that."

While conveniently forgetting that current leading company in Drones DJI is a Chinese company and they brilliantly managed to build their own Tech industry. Frankly American journalists are deluding themselves if they assume that all asians are like what they chose to show in Hollywood (where they are portrayed as lacking communication skills) and as if innovation is a western monopoly.
Yes, and that is a case where he's right in an obvious, academic way that is clear from the numbers to pretty much anyone who seriously works in the markets (ie: the kinds of people who made decisions about the macro trades that really set prices in the market).

But we're meant to believe that some doofus with an SQLI in some backend component is going to send GM tumbling?

I am, let's be clear, prepared to be wrong about this. But I'm happy to give clear voice to the opposing viewpoint on this hack-and-short meme.
> Why does the bootloader (which is now part of the systemd project, of course)…

Please say you're joking. This is frightening.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when off-road vehicles start becoming electrified. Separate front/rear motors eliminate the need for that middle differential or transfer case, and if we eventually transition to a separate motor for each wheel, we'll be rid of all of the differentials and have much better ground clearance as well as better traction.

For now, I suppose electric trucks/jeeps are more affected by "range anxiety" than daily-driver sedans, since people tend to imagine themselves driving to some remote location when they buy them. But as technology improves, I would love to see something like a modern reincarnation of a 1960's era CJ-5 (but with better safety features) -- simple, easy to modify, nothing that doesn't need to be there, and reasonably priced.
>So the question really is if there are non self-referential unprovable statements, and the answer seems to be yes

Some mathematicians believe that many popular conjectures are true but unprovable. Like Goldbach's conjecture, Riemann's hypothesis, or perhaps even the collatz conjecture.

We know these things are probably true. If the prime numbers are distributed randomly, there are probabilistic proofs that show the probability of goldbach's conjecture approaches 1, and there is a similar argument for Riemann's hypothesis. However it's just a "mathematical coincidence", there is no reason there can't be a counterexample at 10^500+1, it's just really improbable, so it's impossible to prove.
I'd be concerned that taking any action with securities could be construed as insider trading (the SEC has been expanding the definition recently).

On the idea of giving/selling the information to a competitor (possibly for some stock as well) seems like a reasonable course of action. The current bug reporting environment doesn't properly motivate some companies to fix their issues and reward the people that find them, maybe develop one that does.

If a company letting fatal security issues through became a competitive problem, we may stop seeing as many fatal security issues.
> "Bluff" has a very specific definition, and it requires that the person bluffing knows they cannot successfully follow through on the bluff.

From a game-theoretic perspective, this is incorrect (even though it accurately describes everyday use of the word).

Think about a poker bot which bluffs. It makes no sense to talk about "knowing" here. The GTO strategy to poker is just a solution to a gigantic series of equations.

My point was that talking about "thinking" and "knowing" is missing the deeper point. You can talk about bluffing without those concepts.
> Except that demonstrating a flaw _by predatory profit-driven entities that have a direct stake in said flaw_ leaves plenty of room for spin and hype.

I think we're at a point where getting some money behind spinning and hyping the seriousness of security vulnerabilities is probably a Good Thing™.
It actually includes a summary result for https://securityheaders.io on the page. That site, your suggestion, says "A scotthelme.co.uk project - CC-BY-SA 4.0" so I wouldn't be surprised given the similarity in presentation if Observatory was based in some way on SecurityHeaders.io.
How could it be huge without continuous media stories tying major vulnerabilities to stock price drops? This is the first such story anyone I know directly has been involved in. Also: in 20 years of working with companies on vulnerabilities, never once has this ever come up.
You may be thinking of a similar vulnerability discovered with StartSSL's StartEncrypt tool - https://www.computest.nl/blog/startencrypt-considered-harmfu... .
False, options price risk and pension funds don't play in that arena. Way too illiquid.
Oh boy, that sprint to the bank sounds absolutely devastating. :(
If you want to enjoy the benefits of a FreeBSD desktop without all the hassle of making it to just work, take PC-BSD for a spin.

http://pcbsd.org
Also, most innovation in the US is done by engineers and scientists, people who are not versed in liberal arts.
> Even if you pick a trustworthy CA, you're at the mercy of the weakest link (any random other CA elsewhere in the world).

This was solved RFC 2692 & 2693, in 1999, and the entire industry has studiously ignored the solution and refused to use it. Had we paid attention, DNS would be secure — truly secure.

But we don't, and every month we see another issue. Why? Cui bono?
ISS freezer is space limited. They might spread samples over different dragons for safety, if they have the space.
I really think that proof assistants like Coq are going to eventually be the future of math. Once they are less painful to use :(

I spent a term working as a research assistant on Coq, proving a new induction scheme for Featherweight Java classes. I came into the term quite hopeful, and already with some Coq experience, but I really don't feel like these tools are good enough to expect regular people to use. Even mathematicians.

I'm hopeful that in the distant future, we can get some AI assistance going on, so that the proof assistant can actually assist, not just check and impede.

I would like my month spent on transitivity of subclassing back :( It's really hard to use these tools as they are now.
I think the only strong argument in that article is that no one wants to ship the materials to China, only to have to ship them back. The only thing that China can offer is better manufacturing, which at present it does not have.
Sony Mobile: Build AOSP Nougat 7.0
Lack of users and usage.
Do they still use stack ranking?
China's "manufacturing engine" has not "largely stalled". Here's China's GDP growth.[1] 6.7% annually this year, down from 7.9% in 2023. The US is 2.2%. China is not "stalled". If you want numbers that can't be faked, inbound container counts at the port of Los Angeles are up.

The claim that "75 percent of all robots used in China are purchased from foreign firms" only makes sense if you count Hon Hai/Foxconn as "foreign". HQ is in Taiwan, but Foxconn has over a million employees in China. Their Foxbot robots [2] are being produced at a rate of 20,000 per year. The US only has 26,000 robots total, mostly in automotive.[3] Foxconn claims they have good enough robotic precision now to use their robots to make iPhones.

The article is really a rehash of a paper by Dieter Ernst.[4] The "manufacturing decline" in China reflects layoffs in mining and metals. Those are both industries where even basic mechanization cuts the number of employees enormously. Those industries were mostly state-owned, and were oversized and overstaffed for the demand. About a third of China's state-run firm jobs (30 million) disappeared between 1998 and 2015. Ernst writes "Outside of mines and minerals, manufacturing apparently continues to act as an employment absorber." That's not manufacturing decline; that's modernizing the steel industry. (More high-quality stuff, less rebar, fewer workers, less pollution.)

Ernst complains that the 13th Five Year Plan isn't specific about how new jobs will be created. He points out that salaries for college graduates seem to be declining, and unemployment rates for college graduates are up. This matches US experience. There's the usual complaint about not enough pre-trained vocational workers. However, companies in China are used to having to train their people - after all, many are right off the farm.

The article has a picture of "carbon fiber silk thread". There is no such thing. There is, however, a stock image from Getty Images miscaptioned that way.

It's a typical Vivek Wadhwa article, written to get attention.

[1] http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/gdp-growth-annual
[2] http://www.scmp.com/tech/innovation/article/1829834/foxconns...
[3] http://www.ifr.org/industrial-robots/statistics/
[4] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2820433
I have heard this before as well, but having rented cars in Maui many times I can't say that I have ever been told not to drive on certain roads.
I don't understand this comment, which seems to suggest that pension funds, endowments, and mutual funds don't own Sony stock.
I like this quote:
One way to create controversy is to say something that's true, but many people don't accept and will therefore argue with. Such journalism can push the world forward by calling attention to mistaken ideas.

This article, like many by the same author, might be dubbed 'wrongtroversial'. That is, it creates controversy by saying something wrong.

Wrongtroversy is far more scalable. It's very hard to discover something that is: (a) true (b) not widely accepted (c) not recently mentioned by other journalists. But if you drop condition (a), you'll never run out of ideas.

The most effective wrongtroversial articles assert something that's wrong for several different reasons. People will then proceed to argue with each other about which reason is more important, generating follow-on controversy.

Credit to @pg for coining this term.
Thank you so much! I was looking for some good reading material of this sort!
They haven't invested in rare earth production so much as they have sacrificed the environment significantly for it. The article is bunk, but I totally expect China to be a barren toxic wasteland if they don't change their export-oriented development philosophy (and they haven't, inspite of what Xi is saying these days).
Watch out for any change of habits, especially regarding what employees spend on food at lunch time.
Do you mind telling who you work for. I work in the oil/gas industrial automation. from the article I really couldn't see what they could offer. I have thought for a while that a company should offered an azure like service that the small firms like mine could build custom services on top of.
I think the argument goes that the main reason manufacturing moved overseas was because of cheaper labor. When robots take over, that advantage disappears. It's not that China can't make robots, it's that they don't have as big an advantage over other countries anymore.
In some sense, every company is always at risk of failure.
Fortunes can turn quickly.
Also, every success story has a few tense nail biters on the way.
If you are an employee (not a founder,) then keep a rainy day fund on hand, and leave if the work is no longer what you want to do. Also, make sure expense reports and paychecks are paid on time, even for successful companies!
The similarities are striking, and their intent is literally the same.