skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
My real criticism here is that Rust isn't able to wipe C and C++ off the face of the earth. Rust solves the three big problems which C fails to address - "How big is it", "Who owns it", and "Who locks it". We need that, with the endless CERT advisories of buffer overflows. That's the real issue here - memory safety is a big, big security issue. The threat is getting worse, too. It's nation states now, not script kiddies.

Rust usage is very low. It isn't even in the TIOBE Top 20 for 2016.[1] (In the detailed listings, it's at position 46, just above Awk.) Why is market penetration so low? I'm arguing that there's too much gratuitous new stuff for Rust to be acceptable to the C/C++ community.

[1] http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/
What is the "Unnecssesary complexity" in this scenario? You literally just run a command and you can spin up a new container with your data.
It's not that installing Linux is a hassle. I just love a lot of the apps I can run on my Mac. OmniFocus, 1Password and DevonThink are two I have running now. I've also got OmniGraffle, Affinity Photo/Designer, Pixelmator and Keynote at least that I use fairly regularly (and I'm sure I'm forgetting some). I do a fair bit that is cross-platform and would work fine on Linux, but there are a lot of Mac-specific apps that are really well designed and a joy to use and I would miss them.

(And, yes, there are open source replacements for all of these that run on Linux. I know, but the UX is not the same!)
Its faster virtual machines, which do not have live migration for that specific use case. Just because you are doing it for years does not mean that it cannot be improved or have an alternative with its both downsides and upsides.
There's a fundamental assumption here: that there is a better way. I'm not saying there isn't, but there's a pretty good existence proof that Signal is the best combination of security & simplicity we can put together.

I would agree with this statement from the article: "there should be a tool that is fully free software (as defined by the GNU GPL), that respects users' freedoms to freely inspect, use, modify the software and distributed modified copies of the software. Also, this tool should not have dependencies on corporate infrastructure like Google’s (basically any partner in PRISM), that allows these parties to control the correct working of the software."

There are such tools. None of them are as easy to use as Signal. So for now, I recommend Signal. I can't, in good conscience, recommend anything else... and given the author doesn't speak to what they recommend, I'm curious about what their recommendation would be.
The rule in the Grand Canyon is that each mile you hike down is 1.5-2X harder to hike back up, so you should turn back once you've given at most 33-40% of your available effort (or make plans to spend the night at the bottom).

It sounds like that multiplier is way higher still in caving. 10X? More?
I'm from Little Rock, though I haven't lived there in a few years. It is crazy cheap, but I'm not sure I would call it a "tech market". The Northwest part of the state is vastly superior to LR in my opinion. You should get up there sometime if you haven't.
> Forgive my vitriol, but after seeing those people flush untold millions down the drain and hurt people and families countless times, they belong flipping burgers or in a mass grave.

We can't, unfortunately. Hacker News is a place for civil discussion; please don't post like this.
Then you put all your dependencies on top and realise how large that is and that by bundling their dependencies with those dependencies security becomes a problem keeping everything up to date so someone comes up with the idea of sharing some of those dependencies and since they are common across multiple things they need a snappy name...hmm, sharing and re-usable how about..libraries, shared libraries in fact.

I jest but as an industry we do seem have an almost metronome-like tendency to lurch from one thing and back.
>It's easy to project hopes into something that doesn't exist yet. But this contender is coming late.

I have to disagree, first off, it's not as if we've seen a massive shift over to HEVC, in fact the x265 developers lamented this quite recently, mainly blaming the licensing debacle which has ensued, with three different entities with which you need to negotiate royalties in order to use HEVC (MPEGLA, HEVC Advance, Technicolor), and the royalties were already much more expensive than h264 to begin with.

Secondly, it's quite clear that AV1 will happen, Google was already committed in creating a royalty free codec as evident by their VPX series of codecs, and now they have been joined by web and tech giants like Netflix, Microsoft, Amazon, Cisco, Mozilla, Intel, ARM, NVidia, AMD etc.

For these players, a royalty free codec makes perfect sense, the streaming giants know full and well that they will only increase the amount of video they stream and thus will save money longterm by pooling their resources and creating a royalty free codec, and on the hardware side, not having to pay royalties in order to implement hardware support is obviously attractive.

And it does exist, it's in full development, not something in the 'planning stage', the bitstream is said to be finalized at the end of this year or at the beginning of next, so we are not talking 'many years into the future' here, it's based off VP10 and is adopting techniques from Daala and also have access to h264 patented techniques courtesy of Cisco.

As I see it, HEVC is in a bad situation, h264 is still good enough and much cheaper to license, and within a year we will likely have AV1 ready to go for hardware, why would you jump on the HEVC bandwagon at this point ?

My best suggestion would be to just stick with h264 and see how the HEVC/AV1 situation plays out.
Right. You got me there. In THAT context I'm completely with you and the recommendation for these people probably should be Signal, keeping the technical/philosophical differences for places like this one here.

Wishing that Signal would do things differently? Fair. Not recommending Signal to these users if it is your job to train them? Not a good idea.
You don't understand what I'm saying. I agree that crypto alone doesn't equal privacy --- it's table stakes. Clearly: it does not follow from that observation that crypto doesn't matter. If you cannot at least be cryptographically secure, the rest of what you do doesn't matter.

We now have two examples --- CryptoCat and Telegram --- of "secure messaging" systems being used by governments as a way of hunting down activists. Why do we need more? Can't the question be settled now?

As gently as I can, I'm going to push a little further. I poked around your site a little to get a sense of where you're coming from. Your post today opens up like this:

One of the things I do is cryptography and infosec training for investigative journalists who have a need to keep either their sources and communications confidential so they can more safely do their work in the public interest.

Can I ask what your qualifications are in training journalists in keeping their communications secure? Investigative journalists working in hostile regimes, even in smaller countries, are facing adversaries that are better funded than almost any other imaginable threat. Cryptography is incredibly hard. Elsewhere on the thread, you said "I'm not a cryptographer". Neither am I! I've spent the better part of 10 years getting decent at breaking cryptosystems for clients, and I still refuse to do privacy implementation work, because I'm simply not up to the challenge. Are you sure you are?
Not all kids. At age 5, I was perfectly happy to sit in a quiet corner with an interesting book.
According to Wikpedia the all countries which haven't adopted the Metric System are: USA, Liberia, Myanmar.
I sometimes create UML diagrams but I try to simplify them as much as possible. Sequence and Entity relationship diagrams are useful but the rest is rubbish IMHO. I tend to use them only when I'm in the planning phase but I ditch them when they become obsolete and the application is ready. This might not be the best workflow but updating diagrams is horrible. You also can't really use UML for functional languages like Clojure. I feel that they are becoming more obsolete with each passing year.
Splicing clips and adding transitions definitely is editing. What you're talking about is differences in workload, which of course have different IO and CPU requirements. The further you get into those complex workloads, the fewer users there are, and the more likely they're going to be sitting at a fixed station with a large monitor where an iMac / MacPro may be a better choice for said workload.

Even if MBPs had 32GB, you still will hit CPU & thermal limits which matter a great deal in rendering, and which are far less than an iMac. I imagine you're looking at a pretty limited set of use cases where 32GB freed up a speed bottleneck that the CPU didn't then quickly hit. Even more so factoring in these use cases needing to be mobile.

Also, Premiere / After Effects can most definitely take advantage of the improved disk IO, now that its available. As usual, developers will have to adjust to the platforms they're on. Having graphics performance doubled and disk IO up 66% is not a terrible state of affairs for rendering.

I'm not saying 32GB isn't important but there's a pretty understandable logic as to what fundamental constraints they're dealing with and how those compare to the market.
Web URL's are seriously underrated ... You can not go back in time and change what you told someone ... But if you have a blog that has an URL, you can actually update the content.
So with formspree you had to validate every page I believe. Which was impossible for my use case, I wanted to add contact forms at the bottom of each blog post and didn't want to have to remember that every URL needs to be activated. What If I changed the article URL? Have to reactive, etc.

So is this a problem with formpost? Thanks
Actually Cuba is slowly moving to a quasi-free market, at their own slow pace. Sure, there probably won't be any longterm gigs anytime soon (like a couple of decades at least), but its worth keeping an eye for their projects, for the adventure of it if nothing else.
The problem with Apple is that they have solved certain use cases and form factors - and once solved, there is less and less money to be made on fine tuning and iterating on those designs.

For example:

Apple solved the laptop computer with the aluminum, unibody macbook (air ?) with chiclet keys and glass screen/trackpad. That's it. It's over. The laptop computer is solved - and all anyone wanted was a retina macbook air. That's it - that's all we wanted. The same old macbook air with magsafe, multiple USB ports and a graphics port. With retina.

Another example is the Mac Pro (tower) - this is a long-standing form factor in computing that is now solved. There is no doing this better than Apple did it with the last versions (2009 and later) of the mac pro tower. All anybody wanted was a Mac Pro tower with sata3 and usb3 and newer gfx connections. That's it - it was solved.

But we didn't get any of those things, did we ?

Minor iterations of existing designs are not enough for Apple - they have to do new things for economic reasons.

Honestly, as someone who has no interest in an ipad or an iphone or an iwatch and has always worried that focus on those items would cannibalize Mac and OSX ... looking back I wish they had focused even more on the iDevices and just left the Mac products alone - albeit with the little iterations of processor/ram/usb3/sata3/etc.
Everything you said and the fact that the 'surface' to learn anything well is now huge so we have lots of abstractions all of which leak and require you know a fair bit about all the layers underneath if you want to consider yourself 'good' at what you do.
Journalists can claim they aren't paid for their articles, but when their articles are overwhelmingly positive about certain parties (coughApple, Googlecough) and they get exclusives that guarantee them tens of millions of page views... Yeah, they basically got paid.
I used to live in Colorado Springs, just outside north fence of the Cheyenne Mountain Complex. It's not in active use these days--the USAF has moved their command center out to Peterson AFB east of town. If you're sneaky about it, you can actually hike to the top of Cheyenne Mountain, staying just outside the fenceline. You're crossing private property but once you get past the neighborhood, nobody will bother you.
And? Even if GCM was completely secure, you are forced to use closed source libraries to pass messages onto GCM or root your phone to load microg.

Both can compromise you.
> e-mail the lead maintainer.

Check that there is not a mailing list first. This is where the "read the contributing guide" kicks in.

I for example have quite a lot of filters, that make sure I reply to mailing lists, but if you email me directly, you may end up lumped in with all the commercial "include my $thing in your project please" emails (purely by accident)
OK, this obviously looks like a web browser (native...) using json instead of (xml-like) html, though it's not good as a markup language.

Interesting is having declarative templates on the client side, instead of server-side, for accessing json APIs. Of course you can do this in browsers (and it is done), but this is cleaner and simpler, being a fresh reinvention.
The preferred form of communication also depends on the project. Do they have an issue tracker? If so you could probably file one along the lines of "Page X could use some improvement" and ask whether they're interested and how it's done.

Some projects use mailing lists, forums or even irc.

Open, group-based forms of communication are usually preferred because it allows anyone qualified to respond instead of pinning it on a particular person.
Native packages are nothing more than packaged software with startup and maintaining scripts, (and tested) so as long as you can manage these, I really don't see I have to stick to what my vendor thinks best.
The bootstrap nodes were probably the first ones on the DHT: hence, no bootstrap needed. If it's a new bootstrap node, it's connected to the old bootstrap nodes, or some other set of nodes in the DHT, just like any other node: distributed, not federated.

But once a node is acutually inside the DHT, it should never need to talk to the bootstrap nodes ever again: that's a pretty major win, in some respects.
Not so much, no.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12723517
According to the docs, it gives you the option deep in the settings to add your own STUN and TURN servers. It seems like it doesn't ship with any preconfigured. That makes it a non starter for me.
Just make them regular glasses instead. It's probably why we Haven't heard of it in 2016
To be clear, his audio jack doesn't work. He gets audio via USB. So no less broken than an iPhone 7.
All of the Skylake i7 mobile CPUs can handle at minimum 32GB and at most 64GB [0]

[0] http://ark.intel.com/products/codename/37572/Skylake#@Mobile
Ask HN: Blind User testing – How effective is it?
We've been meaning to launch a new version to our e-commerce website with a revamped UI/UX and some new features. The way to test it out in the wild is to setup tracking/analytics as necessary. We are also trying to get blind users (users who don't know about the app/website/business) to just browse and go through a cycle of ordering a product (or till they close the browser tab) with us live on screen-share (or in-person) with constant verbal feedback of what they are thinking/seeing/doing with the page they're on.

What I was wondering is, how effective do you think is it? Are there case studies that have proven that these methods are helpful? What are your personal views on this type of testing? Should the results make a compelling impact on the UI/UX/features?
The presidential election is only one of many things on the ballot.
I think the key is to find a project you care about, or care enough about that you're willing to put in the effort to get to know the project and how it works. Some communities will be easier to get involved with than others. It's great that people want to get involved and volunteer their time and effort. They also need to keep in mind that managing the community takes effort as well, and that increases by some margin with every new contributor. Try to be as self-supporting as possible.

That goes for any project you want to get involved with, regardless of how you want to participate. And probably stuff you already know.

Want to work on the website? Documentation? Does the project already have tickets or tags for these types of issues? Maybe a separate mailing list? Look at the issue tracker. Subscribe to the mailing list. Look at the mailing list archives. The commit history for the website or documentation. How recent is the work? Who are the people involved? After you've gotten the lay of the land, figure out where you might want to start and ask if people the project would be open to having you work on it. Maybe take a stab at it yourself to get accustomed to the project and tool chain. Take a look at what's there already. How would you improve it? Compare it with sites or documentation for other projects you think are good or enjoy using. What can you apply from those sites to the project you want to work on?

For contributing and improving documentation, if you're new to the project, you've got a great opportunity to help produce better content for new users. What were your stumbling blocks? What was hard to find? What would you have liked to see as you were getting started?

And remember, you're likely entering the epitome of bikesheds.[0] :) Wear a thick skin! Some of my first contributions were in design and documentation. People like well-designed things. And they can be a great introduction to a community.

Was this helpful?

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
They were homogeneous for centuries, then non-homogeneous for a few decades. Maybe it takes a few decades for the adverse effects of the non-homogeneity to become apparent.
> Rosetta PPC backwards compatibility on Intel worked well

Rosetta worked, but I don't know if I'd say it worked well. It was brutally slow to the point of being unusable with some apps on mid/low end Macs.
Previous discussion, a couple of days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12862789
Apple Engineer Talks About New 2016 Macbook Pro (parody)
My main concern with GCM is that it's unavailable on fully open OS builds, so requiring it compromises the security of the device as a whole, rather than Signal in particular.
Wi-Fi enabled

What could possibly go wrong?
The problem is we'll probably use renewably energy in addition to all the fossil fuel we burn...
Usually when Lyft does these kinds of promotions they take the hit, not the drivers. It's the main reason why Lyft isn't profitable.
...No, not unless you're converting from an external ID. Matrix IDs are decentralized, last I checked.
None of the examples I gave will be transitory.

A 10W-rated USB-C cable meets spec and power a hub but won't be able to charge a laptop.

A USB-C cable will work for Thunderbolt 3 so long as it is less than metre long and has 'satisfactory' loss. Again it meets spec.

You can connect an on-spec USB-C cable between a laptop and monitor and discover that the monitor doesn't support HDMI in Alternative Mode. Well, actually, you won't discover anything as it just won't work.

Even if all the cables you buy are 100W platinum-plated ypu can still walk into a meeting room to find an on-spec cable that doesn't work for your use-case.
> I think in a laptop thinness and lightness is one of the most important factors to me as a pro user, otherwise I'd get an iMac

What? I have an iMac and a rMBP. Just because the rMBP has to be portable doesn't mean it has to prioritize thinness and lightness over functionality.

> Their breaking online preorder sales records indicate that they've made the right choice.

Not really. It's an industry trick that Apple and others use. They control how many units are available at launch, and then the next time they launch a product they make slightly more products available and they say "Oh hey look we broke our previous launch record!" What a shocker!

Yes the fact that demand beats supply is an indicator that the market wants this product, but that's because many people are overdue for an upgrade. There has been a lot of outcry about the problems with this product.

The real indicator will be if it continues to sell over the next year or if sales drop after initial launch demand.

I honestly don't expect sales to be that bad because the reality is the majority of people who buy MBPs are not professionals. It's not truly a product focused on Pros, it's just Apple's upmarket laptop.
I have a Drift HD Ghost, but it's a couple of generations old by now. It still works great though.
Terrible, horrible click-bait title.

Lenses. do. not. work. this. way.

You can't coat a contact lens with a magical coating that expands your ability to see.

This particular technology allows you to build infrared light detectors, as in photo cells or pixel arrays. You can make them as thin as you want -- they're going to do fuck all on a contact lens.

This whole article should die in a fire.
Ambient light sensor API in Chrome
I'm in the same ship - I have a nice several year old MBP but unless apple come up with something compelling my next machine will be something else running Linux.

That all said, I think apple are up to more than is immediately apparent. They're spending huge amounts on r&d. From the frankly incremental improvements seen on their existing hardware line over the last several years the majority is going somewhere unseen. We saw patents for hmd/ar related tech a few years back.

I wouldn't be surprised if they do something nobody currently expects and move aggressively into the hmd/ar space.
For some reason this reminded me of Discworld's Ambiguous Puzuma:

A big cat with a unique black and white check coat, the ambiguous puzuma is the Disc's fastest animal. Due to the Disc's standing magical field, which slows down light to approximately the speed of sound, the puzuma can actually achieve near-light-speed. Therefore, seeing a puzuma in motion means it isn't there. Puzumas commonly die from complications caused by Sangrit Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle; they lose concentration because they cannot simultaneously know who they are and where they are, frequently causing them to crash into an obstacle. Many males also die from ankle failure caused by excessively running after females who aren't present.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flora_and_fauna_of_the_Discwor...
Tox is another system using DHT for identity (among other things), and it does have perfect forward security. So you may want to try that.
Really understanding PGP [video]
I imagine you don't have to be too far along into Alzheimer's to decide the side effects are worth it.