skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Why doesn't Microsoft get held accountable when a 0-day in Windows is exploited that results in loss of user funds? Without that, there's no incentive to build secure software in the first place.

There is nothing stopping you from entering into a contract with Microsoft that requires them to take on that liability. And there are some companies that have contracts like that with some software vendors -- presumably in aerospace and so on. And those companies pay $5000 or more for a piece of software that you would pay $10 for. If you asked a normal person to pay that much for every app in the store they would just laugh.

If you made developers liable for vulnerabilities, that's what would need to happen. Software would have to cost enough to cover the liability. If you sell ten million copies of some code and you have one vulnerability (down from 75 before this), that vulnerability may cost 1% of your customers $20,000 each and you're suddenly on the hook for billions of dollars. And you better hope none of your customers are large corporations that could potentially suffer even bigger losses, even though the software developer has no control over that at all.

A big part of the problem here is that we keep trying to shield the users from liability, but they're the ones who make the decisions. The user won't be willing to pay extra or suffer any inconvenience for better security if it's the credit card company or insurance company or software vendor that sustains the loss when they get hacked.

Security is terrible because the party who decides how much to prioritize security is the party we give half a dozen ways to get out of suffering from the consequences of poor security.
Yes, she targeted the non-forgotten man and woman like Uber execs and their employees pulling billions to miollions to 6 figures.
I think one of the reasons why people are encouraged to learn programming on their own over other disciplines is because it is perhaps the most flexible field for a large swathe of the learning-styles spectrum. Are you the kind who learns best from observing large complex solutions produced by someone else and tinkering with it? Available. Read from textbooks and answer prepackaged problems with definite solutions? Aplenty. Prefer to build something from scratch learning what you need as you go along? Perfectly suited. And you can prove your competency easily: "here's a thing I built using what I learned and/or I understand how this works perfectly well and I can talk about it."

The skills for other career paths do not have this confluence of circumstances. Learning accounting is a lot of bookwork, you can't just "dive in". Learning to be a car mechanic, you have to get dirty, you can't just read a bunch of textbooks. You want to become a martial artist, you can't just kick a tree a bunch and become an expert. But you can do the equivalent for programming and be just fine.
I've stopped and failed drinking too many times to count.

My psychiatrist told me flat out, "Don't even try to stop on you're own. It's just too f---ing dangerous." I used that terrible advice for years. I kept on drinking.

I went to A.A., and just coudn't stomach it, on so many levels.

I wasen't going to spend my last $15 grand on a expensive rehab.

I did taper off around ten years ago. It took a few weeks. I knew it would be dangerous to just stop. I did everything the experts told me not to do; like have alcohol around the house, and hang around people who drink.

We all drink for different reasons. I felt I was drinking to control my anxiety; and much of the time I was self-medicating. I tapered down to a few drinks a day--I finally got down to one, or no drinks.

My point is if anyone reading this is trying to stop drinking, and the status quo advice just isn't working, if I could taped down, I honestly think most people can.

(Try not to drink hard alcohol. That really did a number on my body. When I went back to wine, and beer; It was only then could I begin to even think about tapering down to no drinks. I'm not giving advice. I'm just stating what worked for me. I really thought I was hopeless. My father, and grandfather both died from liver tumors that metastasized into cancer. Both were big drinkers. I didn't think I had a chance in hell. Plus--I had a nervous breakdown in graduate school, which turned into generalized anxiety. I still drink, but it's not much. I'm not the bloated mess I used to be. My life is still not great, but it's not due to alcohol.)
Will the requester typically provide the datasheets?
How did Obama's endorsement of Clinton interfere with people's choices? There's nothing that says you have to listen to him. And how could he not endorse his own party's candidate? And since Clinton served in his administration, anybody who had a negative opinion of Obama wouldn't have voted for her anyway.
Keep in mind we're not talking just about JS on the web running in web browsers. It runs on servers. It runs as standalone applications. If you are targeting a non-web environment you're not writing for quirks of different browsers, you know the runtime environment you are targeting explicitly. It isn't that bad.
For those interested...

《鹿柴》
空山不见人，
但闻人语响。
返影入深林，
复照青苔上。
Land reclaimed by the sea? Hardly a pressing question. I'll pass, thanks.
They pay drivers more than they charge users. It's pretty simple.

Over 75% of my Uber rides are heavily subsidized in some way:

- pools where no one else is picked up.

- 25% off coupon for 10 rides (I almost always have one of these)

- 50% off coupon for 5 rides (I get like once a month, and have one currently)
Just one question: If a muslim says gay people should not be allowed to be married or a teacher or whatever, is this allowed?
The "writing has been on the wall" is not an excuse, it's mostly blackmail ("port or else you wont run on 3, and we'll stop the 2.x line"). And most people didn't (and shouldn't) fall for that.

So let me get this straight.

1. A bunch of people you've never met and probably have never paid or financially supported,

2. Gave you a high-quality programming language, for free, to use for any purpose you liked,

3. And then when you and they disagreed about the best way forward in a new version, you claimed their refusal to continue supporting and adding new features to the old version for you, for free, essentially forever, constitutes "blackmail" on their part.

Do I have that right?
For sure. But the implication from these articles if often that ALL "smart" systems are a waste of time/money.
If it helps, there is a single diagram that charts the entire thing: https://cwe.mitre.org/about/images/lg_consensus.jpg

If you can figure it out, let me know :)
Wouldn't that only be if he had to work harder for those additional dollars? How could any higher purchase price have negative marginal utility in this case, realistically?
Uber and Lyft left Austin at the beginning of the year over fingerprinting rules. Since then, there has been an explosion of smaller ride sharing companies: Fare, Fasten, GetMe, and, most interestingly, RideAustin, which is a local non profit started by Austin tech luminaries. The apps were certainly much buggier than Uber or Lyft when they started, but I recently took a Ride Austin, and the app is so similar to Uber (as was the experience), that I wonder if Ride Austin will eventually branch out into other cities, at least by licensing their tech.

The Texas lege will likely override Austin's local regulations next year, so it will be interesting to see what happens when the fingerprinting requirements go away and Uber and Lyft come back.
It's interesting what a difference there is in people's perspectives. To me, Reddit seems excruciatingly polite and well-mannered, often to the point of dishonesty. This is probably because I've been to 4chan and similar places.
If reddit bans everyone on the site, reddit would be a nice place, definitely no trolling anymore.
It's probably closer to $700. Considering this includes a home security system without any monthly fees, it's not expensive at all.
I might be working on something that you would be interested in. MVP is at www.cadwolf.com. I am a structural engineer with an MS from UT Austin. Website in written with php using Laravel and angular framework for JS.

The plan is to link CAD to the mathematics and then link the finite element to this as well. The system would also function as a sort of github for engineering where users can find and use functions to do most standard analysis. Email is in my profile if anyone is interested in talking.
This is RT, which is run by the Kremlin FYI. Gonna flag this propaganda.
The CIA:

-Funded and militarized terrorists in foreign countries^6

-Funded Blood and Crips gangs in California through drug smuggling^1

-Facilitated distribution of crack cocaine, contributing to the explosion of crack cocaine in America (The reporter who broke this story was later found to have died to two gunshot wounds to the head. It was ruled a suicide)^2

-Influenced media and created propaganda through Operation Mockingbird^3

-Claimed 'Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.' No such weapons were ever found

-Funded Jihad and Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups^4

-Carried out an illegal and failed invasion of Cuba^5

Sources:
1 https://oig.justice.gov/special/9712/ch01p1.htm
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb#Dark_Alliance_series
3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion
6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair

Unfortunately, this list only covers errors of the CIA, and while it is far fall inclusive of all of them, there is, however, no doubt that they have also made contributions to the public good. I am merely pointing out that the CIA is not a purely altruistic and infallible source.
You should counter with a price you would sell for then, and nothing lower. Otherwise what is the point of wasting yours or their time? They came to you. Go big or go home... especially given that you are reluctant to sell. This gives you leverage.
When I worked at a bureau, we had a running joke... When a meeting planner asked, "How much is so-and-so speaker?" We'd reply, "What's your budget?" Coincidentally, that was how much the speaker was. Regardless of how much we knew the "rack rate" of that speaker was.

During the 2008 election, Rudy Giuliani was running as a Republican nominee. When his financial disclosures came out, he surprised everyone with how much he made on the speaking circuit. News orgs filed FOIA requests to see what universities and public institutions paid him to speak.

For some events, he'd speak in the same city to different groups. The price each group paid was wildly different (+/- 50k). The meeting planners hit the roof.

Speakers bureaus do not view meeting planners as their clients, the speakers are.
You're thinking of the wrong sort of freedom. RMS was motivated by the need to freely control and alter the behavior of computing hardware not software. The restrictiveness of the GPL is designed to guarantee that happens. BSD and MIT code that goes into embedded devices falls into a black hole of proprietary code no matter how free it was to begin with.
Please add a byline to Hackaday header images, or a rider to the article along the lines of "'Vishnu Stallman' by Hackaday artist Joe Kim". The first thing I did when clicking through to the linked article is to do a reverse image search that dead ended at Hackaday and walked away disappointed, not knowing that it was original content.
What happened to the moratorium on political links on HN?
I don't disagree re the Hue bulb. Personally I went for the GE link ($10-15 on sale for a z-wave LED bulb).
Back then, I said that we needed more structure than Brooks, but less structure than Latoumbe (a professor at Stanford into efficient exhaustive search planning). Before Brooks, there was a long tradition of detailed planning in AI. Brooks totally rejected planning. This is an extreme position, but the planning and re-planning people were having trouble coping with the real world.

Brooks' Roomba is an expression of that model. The Roomba has a few simple behaviors - go in straight line, spiral, follow wall - and a state machine to switch between them. It has no idea where it is. Most later robot vacuums have actual navigation, because Roombas are notorious for getting themselves into the same traps over and over. Both overplanned and purely reactive systems have trouble coping with the real world, but they fail in different ways.
has been cancelled: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13131251
Uber is already running autonomous car tests with customers[1]. They have an entire division devoted to self driving technology[2].

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/14/1386711/
[2] https://www.uber.com/info/atc/
The penny drops..
The title was encouraging and intriguing.

The website was amazingly confusing and discouraging. Not sure how to proceed from main page...
Ditto on the water sensors. I have a Samrtthings hub and the no-name Zwave water sensors from Lowes placed behind all the toilets, along with a Zwave valve on the main supply line. Works great. Had a toilet tank break a few years ago; came home to water pouring from the ceiling.
This is the perfect answer. The fact that you could split zip files across several diskettes was huge.
That's a significant time, cost, and effort you're spending on what amounts to micro-optimizations though. Using a standard light switch is maybe half a second of effort. (Not an improvement over getting your light-control ap out.) It only makes some sense if you live in a huge space where you have to walk for 5 seconds to get to the switch or your heating takes 2 hours to warm a room.

Color me cynical, but it seems like a big hassle to solve a non-problem.
I agree, which is disappointing. MITRE has an interesting history, and they've done a lot of very advanced technical work since the 1950s.
You're arguing for features that would be genuinely challenging for companies to implement and support.

I'd love to have the freedom to modify the software in every gadget I own. But the $40 digital toaster oven with absolute crap firmware coded by idiots doesn't even have a USB port or any way to attach it to a computer; it's probably got its code permanently burned into ROM and isn't even software upgradable even with the right hardware.

If it were programmable, it probably would have cost 5x as much.

Say it's a device that already supports updates, like your smartband likely does. By locking down, say, a smartband, you've made it much easier for your support personnel to be able to answer questions -- and they won't have to say, "Sorry, you've modified the device, so I can't help you." And they won't have to field questions from hackers who are trying to follow the poor instructions that engineers pieced together on how to rebuild the firmware.

And that's if they even have the right to distribute the firmware to begin with. Just because your smartband manufacturer wants to do the right thing (in this theoretical universe) and make it hackable, doesn't mean that the chip manufacturers are happy with that. So they might need to switch to another, possibly more expensive chip.

And that means the goal of "hackable" needs to be a design goal from the start. Shortcuts they might have been able to make with a closed system are now off the table. You've added another constraint to the design, and every constraint takes time. And money.

Advocate that companies produce modifiable devices, sure. But don't pretend that it won't increase their cost at some level. It's not ethics; it's simply good business to lock down products that 99.9% of users won't try to hack.

And I'm a fan of hacking devices. I just can see the other side of the argument.
Emerson on Talent vs. Character
I was baffled by FFT, too, when I first encountered in math class. It seemed useless. It's not until I started working with sound that it really dawned on me how it's being used.

I think the best illustrated usage of DFT (FFT is just the fast algorithm of DFT) is the sound equalizer. Sound comes in. DFT converts it into the strength over frequency on the equalizer. You can visually see the strength bars on each frequency slots (from the high, the mid range, to low frequency slots). This let you adjust the frequency strength in each frequency slot individually. You can bump up the high frequency slot or depress the mid range slot. The adjusted frequencies are combined to produce the new distorted sound.

When a sound comes in straight, you can only adjust its amplitude (volume). Now with DFT, you can adjust the decomposed frequency components of the sound individually, giving you finer control over the sound's pitch and quality. You can amplify the high frequencies to make it higher pitch. Or amplify the lower frequencies to give more booming bass. You can chop off the low frequency completely to remove background noise. You can chop off both the low and high frequencies to make the sound "clearer."

DFT/FFT basically let you control the different dimension of the sound (or any time-based sine wave data).
"FB revenue growth is still insane"

Agreed, but in order to justify the massive P/E they would have to be growing quite a lot for the next 10 years.

I don't seem them delivering this kind of growth over that time.

Maybe.

Google was able to do it for a long while.
> Imagine if pressing a wrong button on a washing machine would cause installing malware. Would you like to buy such device?

A washing machine isn't a Turing machine.
the rotation animation when turning your phone to landscape mode.
I don't agree with everything in this article but I think a part of it really put into words something I had been feeling for some time. I had always found it easy to agree with Stallman's view of free software. I think most reasonable people who didn't have a stake in proprietary software would agree with him. But, something about Stallman that made it hard for me to really take his movement seriously enough to want to take up his banner and follow him, and I think this article hit on why. He is right about the problem but there's a flaw in his approach to solving the problem.

While Stallman is right in asserting that software should be free, he moves into Zealotry in insisting that he only use free software and thereby excluding himself from much of the technology available today. I think ordinary people looking at something like this would be reluctant to follow him or take up his cause because the average person's reaction would be "I could never live like that, yes I agree with him, but I'm simply not willing to give up my facebook, or google chrome, or microsoft word."

I don't think Stallman would look like a hypocrite or have his point weakened if here were to advocate for legislative changes to make software free while still using proprietary software. If someone challenges him or calls him a hypocrite he could just respond that he is living within the unfortunate realities of the current day, which is dominated by proprietary software, while still fighting for a better tomorrow with free software. I don't think any reasonable person would take him less seriously just for using software that, in many cases, he has no other option but to use. I mean really, this guy doesn't even browse the internet because websites have proprietary software and instead uses some kind of software to get info off the web - that's extreme.

I don't think convincing the world to only use free software is a very realistic goal, because most people don't really understand the problem, let along care enough about the problem to make the huge sacrifices that a life without proprietary software would demand. Instead I think he would have a much stronger chance of succeeding if he worked to protest and raise awareness geared towards legislative change to prevent software companies from using the restrictive licensing agreements they use today.
Ah, the glorious days before the Internet of Things made everything a general purpose washing computer.

For instance: http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/home-appliances/laundry/w...
From your perspective I think the most powerful thing you can do is let them know you're willing to walk away. I don't know what to tell you to ask for in terms of price but I do know $10k is the starting point of the negotiation and is probably not their best offer by any means.

Don't automatically assume you have to accept their terms and negotiate on price. You can ask for anything you want. You don't get what you don't ask for. If it's a publicly traded company why not ask for stock? A stock deal might be more valuable than a cash deal. Something to consider.
The SmartThings has the logic inside too; cloud is just used for setup. I can pull the Ethernet and power cables, and it works fine, triggering my water shutoff valve when a leak is detected.
The share structure is kind of a different thing.

There are shares outstanding, generally they are 'worth' the same, but with some differences maybe due to voting which affects price a little ...

Most of the companies stock are not 'floating' meaning, they are not out there on the market. So Zuck's shares are not.

The 'share price' is usually just the price of the last transaction of buy/sell on the stock.

If Zuck sold all his shares at once, he mighn't be able to get that price. But he wouldn't anyhow.

There's nothing nefarious about 'others contributing to his wealth' - people are generally buying the floating shares given what they think it's worth.

But here's a trick: if a company has a 'high profile' - often it's shares have some premium simply because there are more people looking at it. Supply and Demand.
Show HN: iOS Interactive Notification
What is it that you want to do that the GPL will not allow you? How is the GPL taking your freedom or society's freedom away?
Ask HN: How did you become successful?
My question is those of you who have $700k or more in net worth. How did you made it?

If you made bank after successful startup, how did you do it?
Those are all good use cases.

But the tech to implement is costly, fragile, cumbersome.

'Not worth it yet' for me, and frankly, I don't see it happening for a while yet.
I think you've hit on the underlying issue with the common belief that Uber will be saved by self-driving cars.

If I can produce as many self-driving cars as I want (i.e. I'm Ford), what is my incentive to sell them to you?

I can make more money by owning them myself. Remember also, my cost to make is less than your cost to buy. Then I just tell them to drive off the assembly line and start picking up fares.

If self-driving cars are really a panacea, then the car manufacturers will be the ones who profit. It will also lead to extreme consolidation amongst low end manufacturers, since those with the best self-driving systems will make a lot more money per car from self-ownership than regular cars sold to customers can earn over their lifetimes.
Can't agree with this more! Seriously, if you're a fan of live music, grab a pair and just try it at the next concert you go to.

Its a signal/noise attenuation, you'll hear _more_ detail, not less.

A pair like these are what I'd consider 'high end':

https://www.amazon.com/ETY-Plugs-Fidelity-Earplugs-Standard-...

But I've always got a cheap set from the pharmacy in my pocket or the car somewhere. Something like this is perfect:

https://www.walmart.com/ip/HEAROS-High-Fidelity-free-case/15...
" it's the same story every time, just with a different company."

No - it's definitely not the 'same story' :)

The same was said about Google and FB, and Amazon - and they are doing very well.

It was said about Twitter and they are failing.

These companies are all quite different.
#2 and #3 are why taxis are regulated. Yet people complain about medallions and taxi regulations.
Haskell doesn't reject sequencing. f = g . h will require h is evaluated first.
My SmartThings hub is fine. I routinely test the leak detectors, and have never had it fail to shut off the water and alert my phone. Also have it controlling lights and garage doors, and the scheduling works fine.