skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Strange, suspend/hibernate with uswsusp works like a charm for me. For the first time since kernel 2.6, too. The only bug which occasionally bites me is that after several suspend/resume cycles the screen randomly blanks for a while and then restores its previous state. Killing X doesn't help, it's the same in the console. Only a reboot fixes it. I suspect the Intel BT driver.
Well, assuming you can tell whether you've got an insignificant flash-in-the-pan disclosure or a fundamentally-damaging disclosure, it seems like things are still fine. Break your flash-in-the-pan disclosure, see the short-term price drop, purchase some buy options at the brief, depressed market price. Options to trade at the current market price should be pretty cheap, right?

It doesn't matter, for stock trading purposes, whether you're making a permanent change or a temporary one. What matters is that you can predict the effect.
Ask HN: How do I get feedback about my startup?
I posted a link to my startup many times here on HN, but almost every time it gets barely any votes [1]. The first time I posted it it got considerable attention and it even made it to the HN frontpage. But after months of improving on the original idea and incorporating feedback received specially from HN users no one seems to care anymore.

Has anyone encountered this before? What am I doing wrong if anything?

[1] https://netin.co/teams
Autoclaving is said to be the best of disinfectants; warrantless wiretapping the most efficient policeman.
How to decide when to use a checkbooks or switch
> the EU Parliament has so little power that [...] the whole thing is scrapped so they can try again.

Parliament gets exactly what it wants, or no one gets anything. That's an awesome power in my book!

> Article 50 isn't a serious thing.

Well it's on the books, it's law, so it's as serious as they come. Should Brexit ever come to pass, it will be thanks to that article. As an euroskeptic, you should love it!

> The guy who wrote it [...] didn't put any thought into it

That's a feature shared by a lot of laws at all levels, I'm afraid. They are still laws. We don't pick and choose what we obey depending on our opinion of whether the legislator put in enough effort. When laws are unclear or badly written, there are ways to correct them. There is even a procedure to correct that article, it just requires agreement with the other member countries. But tbh, if you want to leave sooner than what art.50 states, I don't think anyone will stop you -- indeed nobody can, because, again, no army.

> The EU has never seriously considered the possibility any country would actually leave

It wouldn't matter anyway, because "the EU" is all about consensus among member states, which really are the ones dictating the agenda at all times. Without army or police, there is nothing stopping countries to leave at any moment. Despite that, 27 countries are still in there and more are applying, so "the EU" must be doing something right -- unless you believe in lizard people or "mass brainwashing"...
This seems to be pretty textbook not insider trading (at least in the US). This is new, independent research about a company's products. At no point did you receive information from a company insider. You own your own information, so there's no insider trading.

Incidentally, courts have recently been narrowing the definition of insider trading (see US vs. Newman).
This is changing, and I think will change even more rapidly in the coming years. Two things are pushing that change:

* Google is using Chrome's market share to push for Certificate Transparency, which is a monitoring system that allows Google (and everyone else) to supervise the issuance of certificates. Google has demonstrated that shenanigans at CAs will be used as a pretense to force the adoption of CT (or lose your place in Chrome's root store), and has repeatedly responded to problems by penalizing CAs. Being removed from Chrome (or Firefox) is basically the death penalty for a CA business. I don't love CT, but it's a clear step forward.

* Certificate pinning is becoming more widely deployed. Pins allow browsers to do key continuity, the same way your SSH key works. For an individual user, key continuity is nice-to-have but not dispositive of the security issue. But across the whole user base, key continuity is very powerful: anyone deploying an abusive certificate risks being detected by the first browser whose pin is broken by that certificate, and when Google finds out, that could be the end of that particular CA.

A third leg of this stool I'd personally like to see is a browser extension that allows users to opt in to certificate surveillance by trusted third parties (perhaps like ACLU, or perhaps from activist nerd groups) that themselves make fine-grained decisions about which CAs to trust for key Internet properties like Facebook and Google Mail.

Ultimately, I think the major problem we have with TLS trust is not a protocol weakness (it's a shitty protocol, but whatever), but rather a user interface problem. We are essentially using the same TLS trust UX that the Netscape people came up with when they deployed SSL 2.0.
Concur. Generating one's own non-public information and trading on it as a non-insider is not insider trading.

This is no different than doing foot traffic counts (or satellite parking lot surveillance).
USSR was destroyed by stupid government. I'm not sure about western countries, but democracy might have some tools to prevent stupid presidents to do heavy damage (I'm not sure how exactly, but whatever). So the question is, whether Chinese society was able to build a tools to prevent stupid government to ruin everything. After all, Chinese was terrible poor country not so long ago and for many years. How are they going not to repeat the same mistakes?

Western world believes in democracy (at least some people do), but it's not generally accepted truth. I think that democracy is stupid, though I don't have anything better to offer.
>...would generally be considered impolite in real life

1. Neither would insisting that someone have a public debate with you. The entire situation was not at all like "real life".

2. I've been on both sides of "we should stop talking about this because we'll never agree and won't learn anything". I've never felt uncomfortable or rude on either side of that conversation.
Right sub-continent?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/1...
There is not a 1 to 1 correlation between options and stock price. There is a risk volatility factor as well. Do some options trading and then come back and talk about this.
Hopefully there's a better outcome than just lowering prices per unit though.
In 1 minute, Slack founder will make you rethink how to sell innovation
Logitech at least, if not other IP camera producers too, aren't interested in security. My flatmate had a Logitech which "uploads in your Dropbox account", only to discover that it uploads to Dropbox... when the computer is on. As in, the Logitech driver downloads the files from the cam periodically, and you can set Dropbox to backup the data folder to the cloud. Pretty useless security if you have a laptop. And that's for a mainstream several-hundred-dollars camera.

Besides, 3 years after leaving the flatshare, I can still see his home through my Logitech iPad app.

If I inadvertently can rape his privacy through the official Logitech app (Note: I was on the phone with him and we were testing his camera), I'm afraid there's no need to worry about attackers. What a creepy world we live in.
This situation seems colored by the specifics of the case. The questions of morality and ethics wouldn't be involved were the company in question, say, a cybersecurity firm. In that case, it might seem perfectly reasonable to use this type knowledge advantage as a means to beat the market, especially if the firm were unwilling to pay directly for the information.

The origin of this sort of behavior, it seems to me, is a lack of understanding on the part of firms. If St. Jude's appreciated the market value of securing its devices, it would surely pay for the exploit. However, there's an inefficiency in the market and this prompts "hackers" to seek alternative means to profit from the work and research that they've done.

I personally would not engage in this type of exploitation, but these situations will lead companies to place more value on security of IOT and other connected devices than they currently do.
Sure, but my core argument is that there really aren't that many vulnerabilities that how powerful impacts on stock prices.

If the markets are essentially a random function, and any given stock a random walk, and the influence you wield is marginal, then you're taking a dangerous bet when you spend money to buy puts. Even if you can predictably harm the price of a stock ceteris paribus, you could easily lose money if your timing sucks and you try to employ your scheme when some macro event (or just a company announcement, or any other instants in the random walk of a stock) sends the stock more-than-marginally upwards.

I am not here to question whether Justine Bone can pull this particular scheme off. She picked a perfect target: a product in the medical industry, which is heavily regulated and whose vendors are punished harshly for product recalls, which was in the process of closing an acquisition by another medical industry giant.

My point is that Bone's win here is highly situational. That is great for Justine! I have nothing bad to say about her evil scheme. I'm just saying it's unlikely to be the future of vuln research.
they could be highly inaccurate. i had experience of the actual location being as far as 500 miles away from the IP's location
Not sure I agree with the DNSSEC rant. What we trust implicitly are the registrars (and they already manage the NS records for your domain even if you run your own primary DNS server), and the TLD and root-zone operators.

If you cannot trust the registrars, then all is lost, because if your registrar account is breached (or your registrar is playing tricks on you), then whoever breached your registrar account (or, the registrar itself in case it's backstabbing you) is easily able to validate against any existing CA and obtain a HTTPS certificate. There is no additional security gained by having the CA roots external to the registrars, but it opens a huge avenue for attackers to obtain certificates without breaching your registrar, whether we're talking rogue CAs or evil TLDs.

By merging the registrar and CA role (and preferably ensuring that for any given domain, the CA === the domain registrar), you eliminate all unrelated venues of attack.

But you've always needed to trust your registrar (and TLD+root-zone operator).

TL;DR: If DNS is untrustworthy then so is the current broken CA system because it emails validation tokens based on DNS MX records.
> For most of them English is a second language and thus they have to deal with the spelling on top of the difficulty of dealing with a foreign language. I think that makes it so English spelling is a bigger hinderance for them than it is for students where English is their first language (such as the majority of the US), and so spelling reform would help them more than it would help US students.

What negative effects do they suffer if they misspell something?
Nailed it. This is exactly what happened at the startup I was working for. I saw the writing on the wall and left, along with 2 other senior developers. Replaced by a set of fast-hire "interns"* that couldn't code. Then management started flip-flopping between a bunch of different projects with severe micromanaging: standups twice a day, constant focus on Jira metrics. Deadlines became very tight under monetization pressure from investors. Ultimately, the grand "2.0" version of the app that was going to save the company never launched, the series B was not raised, and the company fell apart.

*I say "interns" because they were actually full-time hires at 1/4 the price of developers.
That statement is clearly not true.

And what is worse is it is apparently from one of his own studies!
absolutely. we pay over a hundred dollars for a single 15 minute (if that) visit, most of which is hidden by insurance. even family care pulls home 200k+, add a specialty and your talking 300k+/year. the high cost of doctors pay limits our face time with them, limits our desire to schedule an appointment even when we are sick, and those costs cascade on us in the future.

even if you dont agree with me, the cost of paying the doctors far exceeds the cost people are paying in epipens, worse on worse is that everyone bears that burden, not just the people who need an emergency pen.

while the commenter above points out they have long hours, thats not uncommon for many professions including engineers who spend their weekends and nights learning new skills, or people on wall street that it is politically correct to envy how much they make, were as you can see on HN the very mention of doctors making too much brings a flurry of down-votes. "hey, he disagrees with me, silence him! hail our new kings and queens with MDs!"

and about those long hours? if we increased the supply of doctors to bring down the costs, those hours would reduce drastically as well.
A century on, the National Education Association is getting their wish: we're spelling it as 'tho' instead of 'though'. Linguistic engineering is fascinating.
Except that many/most local governments are in turn covered by insurance. So suing them is not fundamentally different than suing a private citizen with similar insurance. Both costs are born by the pool of insurance purchasers, private and public.
And an amazing example of why operator overloading is not the evil that people make it out to be.
One more thing to think about, on this line of questioning, is efficiency in "normal" driving situations.

If you're driving in a straight line, with good traction on all wheels, will a single larger motor be more efficient than two smaller ones on each wheel? For many people, I think that's 99% of their driving, so it makes sense to optimize. Especially on electric vehicles, where increasing battery capacity is much harder than just adding an extra gas can.

Maybe in that case the complexity of AWD/4WD/Traction control makes sense in that case.
I re-phrased my summary of the reviewer's portrayal of Thomas Mann before you posted—but, yes, I agree that it's an unfair and misleading picture of Mann.

Mann became an outspoken opponent of the Nazi regime after he emigrated, especially after his arrival in America, but like many other prominent Germans of his era, he was silent during Hitler's rise to power. Despite abhorring what Nazism stood for (and despite having a Jewish mother and being a gay man—but also for those reasons), Mann did not publicly denounce the Nazis until 1936.

There were reasons for his passivity that did not amount merely to his being a "great respecter of authority." My intention in posting (aside from sharing a favorite line of his writing) was to point out that the reviewer's portrait of him as such lacked nuanced.
The short answer is yes. That's because (1) a classical system like HOL can use external automatic theorem provers ("sledgehammer") that are based on classical logic (most of them are), in a way that constructive systems like Coq cannot (at least currently). Moreover (2) classical proofs can be shorter and simpler, sometimes considerably so.

In practise many other dimensions also play an important role, in particular available tactics, tactic definition languages, proof editors, available decision procedures for the specific axioms one is interested in, libraries and so on.
On mozilla.org: https://observatory.mozilla.org/analyze.html?host=mozilla.or...

>Score: 40/100
Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article.
"Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be
shortened to "The article mentions that."
> https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The comparison with Napster is troubling, because it gives the impression that the balance of right and wrong is the same for science and for music.

The main difference with Napster is that, in the case of music, there was some argument to be made that piracy was harmful to music, because some (tiny) part of music sales benefited the artists (and, as we all know, every pirate download was a lost sale...).

In the case of science publishers, the money simply never goes from publishers to researchers. Scientists are paid by entirely different actors (who ironically also end up paying publishers, for subscription fees to access papers). So the only possible argument left is that publishers are somehow beneficial to the science publishing process, which is a much weaker argument.

Imagine if music sales did not bring any money to artists at all, but the music industry argued: "sure, music would get composed and recorded without us, but how could it be distributed without us?" This is the situation science is currently into. The only explanation to the current state of affairs is history (pre-Internet science distribution was complicated) and the unimaginable inertia of prestige.
The `u dot del u` term is describing the "self-advection" of the velocity field.

You can interpret `u dot del u` as `(u dot del)u` where `(u dot del)` is an operator which seems to sometimes be called the "advection operator" or the "directional derivative" or the "convection derivative" and probably even more names I don't even know -- which makes it really annoyingly hard to look up information about.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advection and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Del (section "directional derivative").

`(u dot del)` expands to `u_x * d(__)/dx + u_y * d(__)/dy` in 2D -- a function taking a scalar (plugged into where I wrote the `__`s) and which evaluates to a scalar. As indicated on the 2nd link above, to operate on a vector just apply it to each component (similar to how you'd normally multiply a scalar and a vector). So that means that `(u dot del)u` becomes:

u_x * d(u_x)/dx + u_y * d(u_x)/dy
u_x * d(u_y)/dx + u_y * d(u_y)/dy

which can be factored into a matrix-vector multiplication (by pulling out the `u_x * ___ + u_y * ___` part into a vector):

[d(u_x)/dx d(u_x)/dy] [u_x]
[d(u_y)/dx d(u_y)/dy] * [u_y]

As you can see, that's what was written in the article. I'm not sure why the author wrote it out with a matrix like this.

As DanWaterworth said in the other comment, `del p` is just the gradient of the pressure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xGp5anlXSA

The video posted in another comment doesn't look that bad.

I am not sure about the grade, but one of the Bangalore's weekend gateway has some steep sections(a low average grade but some sections are steep).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0_MyaPzM88

That footage is from a rally but every weekend, fwd cars with 800/1000cc engines and a peak torque of about 70 Nm do it just fine. Most of the cars have 2-5 occupants decreasing the already low torque/kg, and almost the whole climb is done in a bumper to bumper traffic(no momentum for the climb).

https://dc-cdn.s3-ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/dc-Cover-nj6b...
Just last week my three person startup had a payroll issue, bank error affecting one employee only. On top of the previous months payment being late by 15 days! As the founder/CEO it's freaking scary to know that money is the prime source of trust for my employees and if I lose it => REKT!

If your CEO fucks around with YOUR money at ALL watch out!

And don't be shy about asking about finances. If you have stock grants or options then you are not only an employee but also an INVESTOR and may be entitled to these details - but you have to ask.

As for my employee: the second time the bank messed up I had to stop payment on the pending one (time w/bank +fee!) then went direct to Western Union to wire cash within the hour (+fee). If payroll is late I expect the CEO to spend two hours immediately fixing it and assume costs necessary to expedite.
> if you're well known and liked author, you often get a pass on your papers and they're not well checked for errors.

A friend who was advised by a "famous" (i.e., in his/her field) mathematician told me basically the same thing. This person unquestionably has had brilliant insights during the course of their career, most of which turned out to be correct. But (s)he has also published several false results, including one "major" false result. Some mathematicians are known to be sloppy and the field puts up with it, which seems weird to me.

Regarding Coq, never tried it, but here is my guess at what's going on. Coq seems to be mainly embraced by algebraists and people doing discrete math, less so in fields which are more analytic (optimization, probability, functional analysis, PDE, etc.) Proofs in the latter branches of math seem to more commonly invoke geometric or "intuitive" arguments which, while completely rigorous, are harder to reduce to a sequence of logical statements. Take for example "convexity implies continuity". You can basically prove this in 1d by drawing a picture, whereas the full, gory, rigorous version, though elementary, requires a little effort. Proofs in modern algebra, otoh, involve a lot of symbol pushing, which computers excel at. Just a guess.
Also, growing your own senior devs is something responsible companies do.
The post directly addresses this concern. I'll stick by those arguments. But I'll add these: by merging the registrar and the CA role, two things immediately happen:

* The FVEY IC gains de jure control over the TLS keys all of the Internet's most important sites, including (along with the COMs and NETs and CO.UKs) every .IO host.

* It immediately becomes impossible for Google to use CA-level revocation to punish shenanigans (Google can't "revoke" .COM, or, for that matter, leave it.)

It is mind-boggling to me that a community that is so animated by the Snowden disclosures and the leaks of the Equation Group exploits could entertain the idea of DNSSEC even for a moment.
The trick with the hummers was slightly different.

Hummers have torsen diffs, which have a pair of worm gears where a conventional open diff would have single star gear.
As a result, the torsen diff sends some fixed multiple (changes with model) of the torque used by the easier to spin side, to the harder to spin side.

Of course if one wheel is spinning in air, the easy side uses effectively 0 torque, and 0 times anything is still 0, hence the brakes.

Applying the brakes increases the torque requirement of all wheels by a fixed amount, but the hard to spin wheels get More than that amount of extra torque.
OK, I see where the disconnect is. I think the best way to address it is with an example.

Many people today would object a priori to businesses using race as a factor to predict loan default risk, regardless of whether doing that makes the predictions more accurate or not. In many cases, using race as a factor WILL get you in trouble with the law (e.g., redlining is illegal in the US).

Please tell me, how would you predict what factors society will find objectionable in the future (like race today)?
There was a post on Reddit a few days back that I thought had some great answers:

https://m.reddit.com/r/startups/comments/4zkka8/what_are_the...
Very hard to read because you bunched everything into one huge paragraph but if I read it right then you are absolutely correct.