skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Wait. The device was within warranty and they gave you a "refurbished" (i.e. not new) iPhone as replacement?

I'm so glad this is blatantly illegal in various countries. They sold you a faulty brand new product, so they must give you a brand new replacement if they can't fix the defect on the device they sold you.

This is akin to telling the waiter there's a hair in your soup and getting a new soup that was returned by another customer but has since been re-heated and de-haired.
What country do you live?
Yeah, I use standalone functions all the time in java. Import static is painless, especially with a good IDE
> Personally, I don't think "well I'm comfortable, so it's okay" would be an acceptable response.

In the 1950's the underlying actions one speaker would have been "guilty" of to make these other speakers uncomfortable would have been what? A gay "indiscretion"? Associating too closely with other races?

If you are uncomfortable, that is primarily on you unless there is a rational explanation underlying the discomfort that is better than prejudiced nonsense like I am avoiding all gays or all homophobes. A portion of the society is uncomfortable with all social events, but we don't cancel them and do everything straight to online video out of deference to their discomfort. We at most try to do what we can to make them comfortable to the extent that they don't get in the way of the event.

My problem with this situation was the conference publicly taking sides and disparaging a particular speaker based on current political winds. Professionalism in running these things is avoiding any unnecessary public slight to anyone whether the society is anti-homosexual or anti-homophobe. It is simply not appropriate for a conference to judge a speaker or any evidence about them.

I think the resignation and reflections in the OP were very appropriate and I hope Kevin will return to organizing future events using this hard won experience.

(edit- I should note that I mean inherently uncomfortable with the other participant, I think it is fine for a group to exclude a participant who has a history of ignoring rules explicitly agreed to. But excluding someone who was "rude" in the past under no specific rules really amounts to ageism eventually.)
On the one hand I agree with you: some people face disadvantages and don't see role models, in tech conferences and other contexts, like actual jobs.

On the other hand that isn't fixed by buckling to vague accusations, attempts to ostracize supposed offenders, or enforcing rules of behavior that restrict who people are. Bias and exclusivity are real problems in tech conferences, in the industry as a whole, and in real life. Changing social norms has to be an organic process, not a battle of grievances and petty punishments and social media smearing.

I've been to conferences where people I don't want to listen to are speaking. I just don't go to their presentations. I'd like to think that when I pay to attend a conference the speakers and topics are chosen for relevance and quality. I'd also like to believe that everyone has an equal chance to get on the speaker list, by considering what they have to offer and how well they can present it, and not considering their personal disadvantages. We all have personal disadvantages, and favoring some over others changes worthwhile goals (respect, opportunity, inclusion) into bickering and vindictiveness.
edit: title changed, thank you.

Development is probably stopping on v3, sure, but that doesn't mean it will completely be unsupported and ignored. Let's say there is some major bug in v3 that comes out soon, you better believe it will be addressed. Otto just wants to push faster on v4 by dropping all existing split dev work.
Funny, was literally about to post the same thing!
The Unofficial Apple Events App for MacOS
Probably the availability of enough code ROM and runtime RAM to support dual-stack operation, if it simply didn't fit before.
Agreed. I find it both amusing and disturbing to watch things like this unfold. This event seems completely unfounded but even if it had merit, we'd still have a paradox of tolerance [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Thanks, this makes the article a bit clearer to me. It's about seeing the operating system as bloat and trying to remove abstractions. Like when I see an editor written in Electron, part of me wonders how many layers of abstraction are present.

Also now I've read a bit more, I can also see how Forth systems can be a bit like operating systems since they normally allow multitasking. So my initial comment was a bit rash (using a different account because I can't remember my password and not at home).
arron swartz was right
If you find any of these points convincing, please have a look at this FAQ, esp. the DANE section:

http://blog.easydns.org/2015/08/06/for-dnssec/
Four Big Power Shifts for Commerce and Payments
> " Rami Odeh, a repair tech from New Orleans, sees up to 100 iPhone 6 and 6 Pluses a month that don’t respond well to touch."

Criticizing the article via guesstimation works better if you read it first.
That's true, it's motivating in an idealistic way but not in a financial sense. You could have made so much money doing other stuff during that time.
5% chrome, 290% safari tech preview.

Cute effect. Seems a bit repetitive though - maybe randomising the timer might help too?
Last month I created a badly-written blog post (it started out as an incoherent email written at my day job which I later fleshed out into an incoherent blog post) discussing Java 8's Optional type: https://jamesadam.me/index.php/2016/08/04/thoughts-on-java-8...

In particular, I both love and hate the new streams API. It's nice to work with but easily leads to code that is hard to read and hard to debug.

No, I wouldn't call Java 8 a functional language either. Its 'functional' features are more of a tease than anything else, as you'll quickly discover their limitations (and they definitely feel tacked-on rather than an integral part of the language).
Why not just power it off whatever powers the lights?!
>People are made from language, and our core beliefs are abstract nouns.

People are made of the cybernetics of language, environment, sensual stimuli, calculation, and reflexes. Our core beliefs are mostly evolved strategies and tools for navigating a world that has rapidly changed from that evolutionary environment.

With that said, how is a hate crime...a crime? It's ridiculous to expect a tribal OS to abandon its tribal software to such a level that it computes things either as a maximiizing solitary agent or an agent who considers all other agents as equal utlity, despite information suggesting otherwise.

That's honestly a ridiculous onus to put on people, especially those we would consider "the majority". The greater danger is giving government another vague blankish check to react to the demands of the idiocy of a society that doesn't look for things to think about but instead for things to feel about. Which is a fucking horrible basis to start trying to formulate laws and regulations.

I trust the mendacity of government (and most human hierarchies in general) far more than I trust the ability of civil servants to follow a spirit of the law as opposed to disavowing liability by adopting legalistic attitudes.
Totally legit! Yeeeeah, suuuuure!!

Quote:

Activate Windows 10 with KMSpico:

*Turnoff your antivirus software.*

Download KMSpico Here and install it.

Go to the location where you have installed it, commonly in C: Driver.

Open it and click on Red Button.

You will listen the voice message after clicking.

Restart your PC and that’s it.
P4CM Presents Covenant by Preston_n_Perry – His Proposal to JackieHillPerry
So... like Tinder, but with bits about code?
Scheme isn't a very good functional programming language either. Even cons cells are mutable objects with identity: just use eq? everywhere instead of equal?, and use set-car! and set-cdr! instead of creating new cons cells, and you're back to JavaScript.

---

Sorry, can't reply properly, I'm “submitting too fast”.

<ignore>I understand neither the form nor the content of your objection. Is Scheme a programming language? Yes. What does this have to do with whether it supports functional programming reasonably well?</ignore>

Scheme is a higher-order programming language: procedures are first-class objects whose identities can be bound to variables just like any other value. I'm not sure about calling it “functional”, though: the type of procedures isn't fully abstract, because you can query the physical distinction between two procedures that have the same behavior when called. In other words, in Scheme, procedures are objects, but they are not values.
Sounds basically like the Kingdom of Nouns argument: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom...
I didnt even know, Im happy with the toolchain, what am I missing from the latest gcc releases? Better colorful error output, more optimizations?
What a name. Almost misread it for jsonmia. :)
I think this behavior is the correct one.

- If i want to do something, do not make me click more than once
- If I clicked wrong, let me undo it
Political correctness isn't bad, overreacting is the problem.
But what is powering the LEDs? Why can't that power source also feed the relatively tiny amount (compared to a bunch of LEDs) needed by the controller?
I was responding to the hypothesis that many of these 'overreactions' are essentially the result of PTSD symptoms... not the specific case at hand since I wasn't even aware of it.

That a mere comment about a personal experience with this dynamic manages to garner a bunch of downvotes is all the more indication that awareness about such dynamics is sorely lacking in large parts of the IT community... which of course only reinforces those exact same dynamics.
An IEEE conference is a peer-reviewed academic conference whose proceedings are intended to help build the cite record for its field.

Academic conferences might have an invited talk, and/or an invited keynote. But that's it. Everything else will be workmanlike research advancing the state of the art of its field. Usually: real advances in the state of the art, not new formulations of well-established science. Most of it, especially to outsiders to the field, will be small-bore stuff; recall the PhD comic where the contribution made by a single PhD thesis is just a pimple on a gigantic sphere. You don't get thousands of people to sign up for a conference full of small-bore contributions, or even negative results. You get professional researchers to attend.

The kinds of conferences these inclusion controversies arise at are not the same breed. They're networking and entertainment events. Even the selective "invite-only" ones are trying to fill a quota of attendees. They have sponsors. Speakers are chosen based on excitement factor and name recognition. Most of the talks at something like Nodevember --- in fact, maybe all of the talks --- aren't going to move the state of the art forward at all; they're instead going to be (occasionally interesting) re-applications of the existing state of the art.

And that's fine! That doesn't make these events bad.

It does, however, call into question the standards needed for selecting speakers. In particular: we shouldn't pretend that merit-only selection is going to clear away misunderstandings and bias from a conference like Nodevember or LambdaConf or Strange Loop. Because what does "merit" really mean at conference whose presentations range from (say) an engineering talk on kernel programming with Haskell to the release notes for a new edition of Scala to what it's like to ship web apps in Elm?
Because it is discriminatory to use comfort as a criteria to exclude people in the social sphere. It's like trying to ban your ex-partner from a local bar because bumping into them evokes strong feelings like anger or jealousy, and therefore makes you feel uncomfortable. This is not only wrong but it is an immature way of dealing with personal issues in real life.
There's no particular reason to think that the repair shops which the author of the article chose to speak to are special in any way, so it's reasonable to assume that all the other repair shops are seeing similar numbers. It's definitely not reasonable to assume that the only iPhones that are failing are the ones served by that handful of repair shops.
Lineinfile be damned
Life in BIOplastic, It’s More Fantastic: A Review
Happens to me all the time with mobile; the flag link is a bit too easy to click by mistake.
So I lost my NAS password
The story in the article was about a phone no longer under warranty. Was yours still under warranty?
>The second is called OVERHEAD, which uses U.S. government satellites orbiting above targeted countries to locate and monitor wireless communications on the ground below — such as cellphone calls and even WiFi traffic.

Is this really the case/possible? I know low power transmissions can go a long way, but seems insane to me that you could pick up meaningful cell/wifi traffic.
Can't run rust on it!
Snapchat gears up for augmented reality hardware launch
The cost of the review process in this particular two sided marketplace (which publishing is - how do you decide which journal to send your paper to?) is not just the unpaid labor of the reviewers, but rather the establishment of the credentials and authority which the journals build up over time, which basically drove down the cost of reviewing to be much smaller than if it were simply a free for all.

To see this in action: Many OSS software projects have trouble attracting quality contributions because they are simply not well known. To the community as a whole, the cost of soliciting contributions is not merely the difficulty of modifying the software, but in addition the promotion of the project itself to the point where the only costs have to do with making said modifications.

I could have worded it better (maybe cost of the review + credentialing process), but I think this is going to be the pain point in open access, just like even folks here on HN say that OSS sometimes resembles the wild west.
I am willing to bet it is almost zero. Android does the job for most people that crave modding-ability/customisation, so Ubuntu Touch is really only interesting for a very small niche.

Among the people i know who really care about open source and security, the max is running Android without the Google Services, but i have never seen Ubuntu Touch in the wild.
PyDev of the Week: Reinout van Rees
that url is going to be disappointing for people looking for help with insomnia
I don't understand why this comment is downvoted. What a3_nm says is very important. There are multiple forms of open access, and the EU is being lobbied by publishers to push for their idea of open access, sometimes called "gold open access", in which the authors pay to publish.

This is a really bad model as it makes money part of an equation which should only be governed by scientific concerns: should this paper be published or not?

Now, researchers is poor countries may be able to access existing research but they won't be able to publish their findings…

And even thought it kind of solve the problem of mass access to scientific publications, it doesn't deal with the fact that a lot of public money is going in the pockets of private academic publishers for no good reasons. With this model, research is still paid for at least 3 times (for doing it, reviewing it, and now publishing it instead of accessing it) by universities and research institutions, while publishers are making an awful lot money for hosting PDFs. This money which could be used to do more research, as only a tiny part of it would be necessary to support the necessary arXiv-like infrastructure.
> So if it's not violence...why is it illegal and why should it carry a serious jail sentence?

All (properly) criminal activities must have a victim, but they don't have to involve physical force.

Some examples:

+ theft

+ defamation

+ espionage
Seriously, everyone from the reviewer to the AE to the editor is doing this for free in almost every case. Or not for free exactly, but not for money either. For academics, reputation is the coin of the realm. Academic publishers have tried (quite successfully, until the last couple of years) to corner the market on prestige. This means they can get academics to do all kind of work, without spending any actual dollars.
8 Best Practices to Employ When Working with a Technology Consulting Partner
I'm upvoting this just for the Aqua puns.
I'm not even sure how they would try to argue against it.

"Yes, the phone developed a fault under typical use within the warranty period and yes, a lot of other customers are having the same problem, but" ...?

Apple devices are luxury goods sold at a high premium. You expect that stuff to withstand at least the same everyday handling as their competitors' products in the same market segment.
In the last couple of years the Sale of Goods Act protections were weakened as part of bringing us into line with Europe. It's now been replaced by the Consumer Rights Act which although clearer gives fewer rights to refund from the seller.

Note it's the retailer rather than manufacturer who is liable, so we have much more confidence that what we buy is "of merchantable quality", safe and legal to sell. Quite a number of HN threads have made this advantage clear.
My home router can't really do more than about 100ish IPs.
Wow. I thought you were exaggerating until I read the whole article! Completely absurd. Reminds me of all the groups in the movie PCU. Everyone's a victim these days.
This is the third time you've posted this link (and that's fine; it's far from the third time I've written an anti-DNSSEC comment --- though I do take the trouble to rewrite them each time).

Each time, I'm going to point out that the author of that

(a) there was an HN thread that addressed it:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10019029

(b) the author of the post actually mailed and apologized for its tone. I don't know how much of it they continue to stand by, but I think they might write it differently now regardless.

(I reserve the right to cut/paste this particular comment in the future).
More extruded blockchain product for sucker VCs. There's four or five of these at the moment, all using the same buzzwords. I wrote some up here: http://rocknerd.co.uk/2016/09/01/fools-gold-rush-blockchain-...
Baidu and Nvidia develop AI system that can imitate voices
Seems entirely reasonable.

The response to this highlights something I've noticed watching Open Source stuff for a while: this attitude that a piece of software can never simply be finished, but that it must constantly be changing to be alive.

This is a good example of that. Bootstrap 3 has been out for a while and it mostly works for the things it was designed to work for. If you look hard enough, you can find bugs and situations where it's not suitable to use. But that's fine. It's a super valuable thing that we all get for free. The new site I'm building on it looks way prettier than it ever would if I was designing it myself, and will remain so indefinitely, even if these guys never commit anything else to the project.

I don't see anything wrong with the guys who built it stamping it "done" and moving on to the next thing.
> Adding a new Converter for another entity-DTO pair (like User, Address, etc.) needs just creating a new UserConverterImpl class, implementing its own UserConverter, which in turn should implement GenericConverter.

This is exactly what is wrong.

Unnecessary complications resulting from not merely over-engineering but piling up completely unintelligible crap, produced in order to... well, use some Java 8 features.

Imagine that in math instead of doing algebraic simplification one would go into the opposite direction.

Same kind of madness, BTW, is going on in the realm of Javascript frameworks.
Since there is no source, nor official distributor, there is too much risk that you install a well-hidden trojan.
Just a wild guess but is it so that each CPU can have it's own stack/allocate memory from each end without conflict until they meet?
"Columbus was actually a clown"

Come on man. He was much less clown-like than many, many, many of his contemporaries. He did something novel and pushed the world forward. Sorry he didn't do it in the manner you would have preferred.
How China Upended Life at India's Ship-Recycling Yards
Certificate Transparency (especially if mandatory) guarantees detection after the fact (if we assume the domain owner is properly monitoring known logs). It also adds a certain chilling effect that will probably cause attackers to look for other methods of compromising the target rather than risk sacrificing one of the CAs under the attacker's control (which, arguably, is what intelligence agencies are already doing as many high-profile sites have deployed HPKP).

It's not a real-time protection mechanism for targeted attacks and such - the mis-issuance event won't be noticed immediately, and revocation is both slow and, well, broken in general.

The existence of HPKP is still a good thing for the Gmail's of this world, but I agree that mandatory CT is probably good enough for 99 out of 100 sites out there.
what an unnecessary waste of time. only a large, antiquated company like Adobe wouldn't see that.
Now we have computer-generated fake peer reviews
Embarrassingly I happened to do this on a desktop - waking up so more then likely due to being groggy!
one, two and zero are all numbers.
First: no, not only is it not true that we must trust the DNS, but not having to trust the DNS is literally part of the thesis statement of SSL/TLS.

Second: you only need to break the weakest of the keys to attack the system. It's 2016, and we're talking about deploying a system that aspires to RSA-2048 or ECDSA, both of which are outmoded.

It actually gets worse. DNSSEC was designed in the mid-1990s with the assumption that cryptography was too expensive to deploy at scale. It's for this reason that DNSSEC uses signing-only constructions and requires support for offline signers: that is, support for people who will sign once, offline, and then never touch cryptography again.

All sorts of badness flows from support for offline signers. In particular: DNSSEC responses themselves are not encrypted. Despite relying on the most expensive cryptography primitive (public key signatures), the protocol offers no privacy at all.

This would be funny if it weren't for the fact that it turns out you need online signers anyways. Without online signers, there's no way to simultaneously (a) authenticate negative responses (ie: prevent someone from spoofing an NXDOMAIN response) and (b) not reveal all the names in a DNS zone. Surprisingly (at least to the people on the working group), pretty much everyone demands (b), and so pretty much every real-world DNSSEC deployment is an online-signer, so that it can synthesize NSEC records to trick out people trying to dump zones.

It's an incoherent protocol that deliberately handicaps itself in an attempt to achieve a design objective that turns out not to be possible to achieve.

Moreover: the more DNSSEC gets deployed today, the harder it will get to deploy fast, modern, misuse-resistant curve signature schemes. That's because anything you try to deploy on DNSSSEC needs to be supported by pretty much all the DNSSEC resolvers, because DNS is an infrastructure protocol, not an application-layer protocol.

It's for the same reason that DNSSEC failures cause sites to vanish completely from the Internet rather than generating pop-up warnings.
As I've been dabbling only with PICs (lower numbers and asm only), I'm looking forward to 'graduate' to something more like this!
Disagree. Google looked like an incremental improvement - not a sea change in the same way the transistor, airplane etc... did

I certainly switched at the time but I thought it's first results were comparable to dogpile, which was my go-to search at the time.