skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Intel's 14nm process uses 2 fins per gate for an SRAM cell size of 59nm x 59nm [1, corrected]. Samsung's 10nm process uses 3 fins per gate -- unknown what an apples-to-apples SRAM cell size would be on this node.

It will be interesting to see final benchmarks of performance, power consumption and price (PPP).

It's worth noting that Samsung announced 10nm DRAM back in April [2].

[1] http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-14nm-broadwell-y-c...

[2] https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-starts-mass-producin...
Let me give you a 'fer instance' (this may be the only one that exists, but it's one that had me WTFing until I found the correct documentation to read via stack overflow)

Calling grouped on a Seq.

I've been playing around with some API requests, and needed to batch a long Seq to make reasonable sized GET requests.

So I called grouped on a Seq, then to sanity check I called .length on the grouping.

Then suddenly I had an empty iterator.

Maybe I should have known better, yeah, but the documentation I was reading http://www.scala-lang.org/docu/files/collections-api/collect... doesn't mention this fact about iterators. Again, maybe I'm the only person in the world who didn't realise the problem with calling .length on what I thought of as a regular old batched set.

It wasn't until I hit on the right google combination that I found http://www.scala-lang.org/api/current/#scala.collection.Iter... from a stack overflow reference, and the lightbulb finally went on.
Douglas Crockford, in Atari days, remarked on some procedurally generated content:

"Never once the same. Never twice very much different."

The Diablo 2 / 3 franchises do procedural dungeon generation, as does Spelunky. They have written rather thoughtful articles on some of their techniques.

http://tinysubversions.com/spelunkyGen/

(Hmmm, can't find anything concrete about Diablo. I'll keep looking).
It's quite well known that rich people are the least affected by policies like anti-LGBT. Thiel may not personally have much to lose if gay marriage was banned, but for many people it makes a huge difference. For example child rights, tax advantages, end of life decisions.

Anyways, you're actually very wrong - people ARE trashing rights. People in Trump's camp ARE denying LGBT their humanity. Evangelicals for example. How about "kick out every muslim"? The constitution explicitly doesn't call for a religious test to apply.
> Many of these are old and do not address the content of the emails. There are perhaps 100 significant stories that could have been written based on the information leaked in the past 10 days. We got zero.

The Post has three stories based on emails in the last 48 hours:

- State pressuring FBI: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/docum...

- Goldman Transcripts: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/10/17/...

- Foreign Government Donations (story originated on Reuters): https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hacked-emails-show-e...

It's disingenuous to pretend the mainstream media is not covering the email leaks.
The article did make the claim, it was pointing out how one of the largest clinton foundation donors, as well as straight political donors was given a seat on the state departments Intel board, despite not being qualified. Eventually, they had to step down.

Again, what you said has no bearing on what I said... I wasn't even discussing wikileaks - I was responding to the parent, mentioning how nothing sticks.

As for political ideology, again I made no comment. It's fair to call Hilary corrupt because she is, there's no political leaning involved in my comment. She clearly did a bunch of stuff on the edge of what was moral/legal. She clearly makes deals to gain favors - that's basically what politics is. I made zero comments on trump.

Finally, I am not a supporter of either candidate - they both suck and both aren't representative of my views. Nor are either going to improve my quality of life or increase my personal (or family) security.
> The reason the two party system continues to exist is because so many people insist on there not being other options, despite there literally being other candidates on the ballot.

No, it's because the mechanics of the voting rules themselves lead to a stable two party system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
Because past 300 it very dependent on the specific corpus, so linguists have settled on 300 since just about any corpus gives the same top 300.
I have no expectation that Johnson or Stein could win, except in a strictly mathematical-theoretical sense. They are both on enough ballots that they could win a majority in the electoral college, if and only if enough people voted for them.

But they do not have those votes--largely because many people who share your general opinion keep hammering home the message that if you do not vote for one of the top two candidates, then at best your vote does not matter, and at worst it destroys America.

My concerns are that Trump is a misogynistic sleaze who will undermine US diplomatic prestige, be generally ineffective as a government executive trying to act like a business executive, and will damage international trade; and that Clinton is a corrupt politician who will undermine US liberty, continue indefinitely the harmful policies of Bush II and Obama, and will damage the rule of law. The fact that those third-party candidates have a statistically zero chance of winning actually makes me more comfortable in voting for one of them.

On the off chance that the Republican party could finally destroy itself by choosing an even more unsuitable candidate next time around, I want the Libertarian Party to be strong enough to take its place. And on the even more remote chance that the Democrats self-destruct, I want the Greens to be big enough to step into their shoes. Having lived in Chicago, I have had enough of oily, corrupt Democrats in power. And having lived in the South, I have also had enough of smarmy, bigoted, hypocritical Republicans in power.

They are never going to die out if people keep voting for them and sending them money!
>>- Thiel believes that the 19th amendment destroyed democracy, because women vote in favor for anti-libertarian welfare measures. When faced with the choice between saving democracy and capitalism, Thiel chooses capitalism. Trump shares this antidemocratic sentiment.

This needs a citation, because whenever I've seen people say this, they cite this this essay https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

And frankly, if you think he opposes women's suffrage, you didn't read it. He clarifies further in an addition:

But the most intense response has been aimed not at cyberspace, seasteading, or libertarian politics, but at a commonplace statistical observation about voting patterns that is often called the gender gap.

It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away or that this would solve the political problems that vex us.

>>-Thiel is the (primary?) backer of Curtis Yarvin, the alt-right (read: white supremacist) thoughtleader about "human biodiversity" (read: why some races are biologically inferior).

Moldbug is explicitly not a white supremicist. You can read his explanation here: https://medium.com/@curtis.yarvin/why-you-should-come-to-lam...

He disagrees with you about factual matters of human population genetics, but not about the moral issue about how people with different genetics should be treated.
> You are disagreeing with an argument I didn't make.

> I simply stated that the ideas someone can't be raped if they have previously had consensual sex with their rapist or that they must immediately end contact with their rapist are ignorant ideas.

Agreed. Luckily the commenter you were calling "ignorant" never claimed anything of the sort, so I'm afraid you're the one that started this particular straw man (perhaps unknowingly)
OpenSubdiv is a game changer in FOSS 3d software.

Blender is already using it: https://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Ref/Release_Notes/2.7...

Demo: https://youtu.be/dzIl_S-qHIQ?t=115
The way I read it, he wasn't actually hiding anyone. This reads like sarcasm to me:

> Yeah, I was hiding all right. Hiding by walking right up to the DOJ headquarters in Washington, D.C. and dropping this massive, calculated tax evasion scheme in their laps.
High-fidelity 3D Haptic Shape Rendering on Handheld VR Controllers
Ask HN: Why are there no online databases of whitelisted ubuntu binaries?
I'm looking for a powerful tool to scan for illegitimate ubuntu binaries. The existing tools (tripwire, rkhunter, chkrootkit) seem to require you to maintain your own brittle whitelist of acceptable binaries. Why is there no online database to do this?

My definition of a whitelist is: the set of SHA256 hashes of every binary found in every release of ubuntu.

This is a trivially monetizable idea as well - you can keep the whitelist on your servers and make the users upload their live binary SHA256 hashes to the server before checking them, so that your whitelist remains a commercial asset (similar to the VirusTotal model).

I'd be willing to pay good money for this. Can someone please build this?
>You did know that Clinton called Byrd a "friend and mentor" but didn't know that Byrd repeatedly & profusely apologized for his racism.

No, actually, I did know that. I just didn't believe him at the time, and still don't.

>You did know that Thurmond "apologized" for his racism but didn't know that Thurmond didn't really mean it.

According to whom? You?

> You call me out for not providing a source (which ceejayoz provided below)

A source which a) showed that your "quotes" were grossly out of context and b) when tracked back to its actual source showed that Thurmond did repudiate his segregationist stance.

> Not to mention that we started this thread with your (incorrect) claims about Byrd + Clinton but now we're talking about Thurmond.

1) No, this thread started with Thurmond.

2) My original claims about Byrd were:

a) Hillary Clinton called him a "friend and mentor" and a man of "eloquence and nobility". That is correct. I even provided a link to the video of her saying it.

b) Robert Byrd was a Kleagle (recruiter) in the KKK. That is also correct. He was also later the Exalted Cyclops (head) of his local chapter.

c) Byrd once wrote "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side. ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." That is also correct.

I can only conclude that by "incorrect" you mean "100% correct".

If you have any factual links to refute any of those claims, please provide them. Not "Well, he later said he was sorry, yadda-yadda".

Are a), b) and c) above factually correct or not? A simple yes or no will suffice.

> Maybe next time you should try googling for a few minutes before you press submit.

Maybe you should try reading for a few minutes before you press submit.
I recently discussed this topic with some U.S. citizens in their sixties. It is their impression, and mine as well, that this is the worst election in our lifetimes in that way. Of course there are always some people that vote according to which candidate they dislike less, but this election does seem to be an extreme case.
If anything that cryptic abandonment actually gave me more confidence in TrueCrypt. Was it so hard to crack that the government shut it down?
Isn't Bitcoin a pretty integral part of ZeroNet though? (I haven't tried it out myself yet.)
Is that really an issue? Sometimes I get the number suffixes confused (like us-west-1 and us-west-2). Additionally, would you refer to the Sydney region or the New South Wales region?
Sorry about my previous comment it might have been edgy.

But when you see kids dying on beaches you become wary of America interventions. Which will only increase with Hillary. http://www.salon.com/2016/02/05/in_debate_hillary_clinton_bo...
It was never meant to be multiplayer in real time afaik... just that you would see the impact of other players in the world... however confused the marketing became
Full article (illegal):

http://www.nature.com.sci-hub.ac/articles/nmicrobiol2016162

Please support Sci-Hub: https://sci-hub.ac/donate
> drone warfare, warrantless wiretapping

I find myself in a position that there are things that I dislike about both nominee's policies (in that they are the same or both suck), and things that I exclusively dislike about Trump's policies but not the other way around.

Can you give me some examples to balance the scales?
That's democracy in general and one of the problems with it. People will generally vote for whatever is in their best interest at the expense of someone else. The 2 party system exacerbates the problem and steals choice from people by not allowing them to vote on specific issues.
I've been thinking about what bothers me about Clinton and here's an example:

In 2008, Clinton declares she's opposed to gay marriage. Now it's 2016, and the majority of the American people are in favor of gay marriage. And guess what, Clinton is in favor of gay marriage. The battle has been won and now Mrs. Clinton proudly jumps on the barricade.

Now you may say this is just the reality of politics, but at some point you wonder what she really stands for except saying whatever it takes to maximize her vote count.
Trump is not doing better than other recent Republicans among blacks or Hispanics according to most polling, which shows him doing far worse than other recent GOP nominees with these groups.

The only way you can defend this kind of claim is cherry picking a high outlier poll against the comparable-time polling consensus (or low outliers) for previous GOP nominees.
Yeah, I can see this - and the overton window for various parts to the political spectrum no longer match up.
I agree with the sentiment and hope to raise my children without tiger parent pressure. Though graduating with a psychology degree and studying copywriting seems to make for a tough life ahead. I certainly don't want my child to "have to break [their] neck to make a living", but it seems like that might end up being the case here anyways.
I thought your thesis was that there was no actual collusion between politicians and the media, just aligned incentives. I agree with your point about the incentives, but don't you agree that this email shows that there was in fact actual collusion going on as well? The evidence seems pretty compelling to me.
Have you ever practiced controlled intermittent fasting?
Ask HN: Good sci-fi movies?
CVE-2016-4324 Dereference of invalid STL iterator on processing RTF file
I'm skeptical of my own opinions, especially in any case where I do not have access to unfiltered direct evidence. IMHO to not be skeptical of opinions derived from Nth hand data is insane.
Sure. And just because you think something is true doesn't make it true.

What percentage of black people were voting for KKK-associated politicians? Was it 43%? Why do 43% of voting age women disagree with your take on the matter? Are they all delusional?

> Maybe you can spin that as an opinion, but to me you're denying a logical sequence of reasoning that tells me that everyone deserves equality and respect.

'I am perfectly logical, and anyone who disagrees with me is illogical'

> everyone deserves equality and respect.

I absolutely agree.
Really? That makes no sense to me. Like it being wrong to work part time because you pay less taxes.
I don't know about that, at least regarding rocket technology they seem to be ahead and not by a small factor, probably a decade. (they have been upgrading their ICBM's and missile defence systems very aggressively in the last 15 years)
I don't disagree with that. I absolutely agree that arresting and shooting and villifying people has a chilling effect on their actions.

At the same time, while I am not a journalist I've talked to many of them.

What has been true in all of the journalists I've met has been both a passion about their mission and a recognition about the risks to themselves about that mission. There reports that over 150 journalists have been killed covering the Iraq war[1] and issues in the middle east. One could argue that dying is the ultimate threat and the most "chilling" of any effect. And yet journalists, even now, are reporting on the heroic efforts of the "White Helmets", the human cost of the sieges and bombing, and the various factions engaged mortal combat there.

Journalists, by their own volition, go to centers of conflict. They do that to understand the conflict and to tell the story behind it. They may be idealistic or they may be pragmatic, but they know the risks.

And one of the lesser risks is one that you will get arrested and put in jail. It is a "lesser" risk because "getting arrested" already pre-supposes that there is a civil system that is operating well enough to have a notion of "arrest", "trials", and "sentencing". Covering the Contras in Nicaragua you didn't get arrested you got "disappeared."[2]

It is so common that the USC School of Journalism nominally assumed that if you were a journalist covering a story in a trouble spot you would get arrested. So anyone who has studied to be a journalist should expect that they might be arrested from time to time and prepared for it. Their parent organization should have legal resources on call, and when arrested the journalist should have a checklist of things to do and not do. Which is what the USC seminar was teaching.

As a result, having one of the expected outcomes come to pass, should not be a surprise to someone who was already expecting that could happen. And while having it actually happen might cause them to re-think their career choice, it has been my experience that people willing to go out there and get the story, it is not a disincentive that someone might arrest them.

So for the journalist, getting arrested was great thing. It gives her a headline "US Authorities Jailing Journalists!" that grabs at a very closely held American value, freedom of the press. But as a very closely held value it has been litigated extensively and the only time journalists do any jail time at all is when they are held in contempt for not turning over sources. There is a ton of case law here, and if she was just there covering the story, she won't have any issues. And look here 48 hours later, on the 17th the Judge dismisses the case (and her arrest)[3] because guess what, she's protected by the first amendment.

Her getting arrested was a non-story.

[1] https://cpj.org/blog/2013/03/iraq-war-and-news-media-a-look-...

[2] http://catholicherald.com/stories/We-were-disappeared,13011

[3] http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/17/watch_amy_goodman_spe...
I think the two examples are different because you are suggesting that Java knowledge become a sort of pre-requisite for learning Scala, whereas the Linus' quote mentions C which, AFAIK, doesn't have a pre-requisite-other-language-that-you-have-to-learn-first (if anything, I would suggest new programmers to learn C before moving to higher level languages!).
From your link:
"The process starts with a scanned photo of the target user’s fingerprint. This image is scanned, then some fiddling with contrast levels may be required."

"Cao told Quartz that the spoof worked on the iPhone during an earlier attempt, but it didn’t work when he tried to replicate the result for the technical report. “We unlocked it at the start of the project, but when we prepared the report, I could not unlock the iPhone. I used the same protocol and method. I’m not sure why it didn’t unlock,” Cao said."

I wouldn't exactly say this was a slam dunk then, eh? Seriously I'd like to know if someone can reproduce the exploit on film using non-exotic materials or process (ie, no latex glue or pre-existing high-resolution images). Of note, if feds can get fingerprints through existing paperwork, why do they need a seek a warrant for this?
The power/performance advantage holds up. First or exclusive use of new chips might aid them offsetting the fallout from N7 disaster.
This is an interesting observation that also applies to other (non-mathematical) problems. Our minds try to find answers even if there is no data to deduce it. Thus, we come up with (un-)logical explanation and get the result that looks "about right" to us, but of course has nothing to do with the reality.
Just look at the openssl debacle.

One critical and almost ubiquitous piece of software and the funding it was getting was ridiculous.
He seems to be interested more in internal issues.

It seems extremely generous to characterize Trump as being interested in anything at all except himself. All accounts suggest that he doesn't read. On his private plane he watches his own TV appearances. He has put his name on a hundred products, but he's not an entrepreneur and doesn't care at all about developing the actual products.

Trump claims to be an expert on taxes, at least... But his former accountant Jack Mitnick says he did all the work, and when Trump visited once a year, his wife was actually asking more questions than Trump himself.

Really the best-case scenario for a Trump presidency is that his quantum-sized attention span moves to something else and he leaves the United States to run itself, like he did with the Trump University. That means Vice President Mike Pence would be the effective president, supported by a Republican Congress... And you can look at Pence's track record to see whose interests he represents: ultraconservative fundamentalist Christian Republicans. Pence is as much part of the establishment as Clinton. Is that really the change America needs?

Trump's speeches - mostly non-sensical, yes, but at least he's not pretending to be truthful.

What do you mean by that? He is definitely pretending to tell the truth. For example, since last week he has been saying that the election is rigged against him and there will be widespread vote fraud. There is not a shred of evidence of this. Republicans all over the country are actively countering the notion that the election is somehow being rigged. Yet Trump persists. That's not a harmless white lie -- no candidate has questioned the legitimacy of US elections since before the Civil War.
How about firing someone for damaging your brand and your business through their personal actions?

Billy Bush wasn't fired for the things Trump said, he was fired because his association with Trump during that incident caused real damage to his company's brand.
Federal prisons (min to medium security) cannot take away role-playing books. They can limit you to 10 books total, though. And, as long as your papers do not have any prison layouts or escape plans, they cannot take them either. There are legal courses of action an inmate can take to force the facility to comply with policy with regards to these things. Allowed subject matter is set by BOP system-wide.

It would have had to be a state prison or perhaps a pre-trial facility
Except for the critical fact that she was never found to have violated any law, everyone involved says this. Anyone else having done what she did would have lacked the authority to do so, whereas she did have such authority. There is no comparable situation.

The fact that others would have been dismissed or fired if they had done what she did isn't relevant, because the only person who could have fired her would have been the President. She was different, insofar that her boss wasn't a member of the State Department, he was the head of the executive branch.

Additionally, quoting legal code is pretty ignorant; it's ignoring the huge impact case law has on the US justice system.

Finally, she didn't lie under oath, in the sense of a legal "lie". The word doesn't mean the same in colloquial speak as it does in terms of a legal definition.
You don't even have to use it actually :)