skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think that is a little misleading. They may intermingle, but only in the sense that products share a product page. But you always explicitly see who the seller is, and if you buy from Amazon (seller), you will never get a product from a third party.

The problem is that if you don't know to pay attention to the seller, you can end up buying from a third party while looking at a first party product page.
This would be a great approach but restrictions on Gaza make it very difficult to import even basic materials/tools.

If you are familiar with low cost setups and want to give some guidance I am pretty sure the team at GSG would look into it.
Two books I loved when I read them in my early to mid twenties. I fell in love with their main characters and the decadence.
Since reading it maybe 6 or 7 years ago, I've thought Principles is a great handbook for personal reflection and self-improvement, especially in that it continually guides all discussion back to the lodestar of thinking for oneself and asking "is this true?".

However, I'd also say that Principles is a lousy "how to manage people" manual, because it tries to algorithmically describe how to deal with unpleasant interactions that require emotional intelligence, and harps really hard on the concept of "the truth will set you free and if you can't handle the truth you need to GTFO of our culture". Reading this article has reinforced that opinion.

Two other random observations here:

- These guys are a big Palantir client...I wonder if Palantir has any role in building this new system. They weren't mentioned in the article.

- Isn't "Overseer" is a really, really fucking bad formal job title for anyone at any organization?
I started using SageMathCloud a couple years ago while taking courses from edX and Coursera in physics and data science. I liked it enough that I joined the project as volunteer contributor. At 60+ MOOCs completed, I still use SMC for online learning. Most valuable features to me: 1) not having to install tons of software locally; 2) consolidation of work from different courses & schools; 3) Sage units of measurement and symbolic expressions (good for physics); 4) Jupyter notebooks and sage worksheets, so work from a study session reads like a lab notebook rather than a jumble of scratch paper notes.
"I bet regulatory red tape in Gaza isn't hard" >> You realize that the borders are entirely closed and that hardware can only be brought in with the Israeli army's approval, right? I know a startup founder in Gaza who had to wait 8 months for an Arduino. Nowadays Gaza Sky Geeks brings small equipment to Gaza for founders, but solar panels are a whole other story.

Here's the FAQ from the campaign page:

Why aren't you fundraising for solar panels?

We care deeply about the environment and wish we could use solar panels! We hope solar energy is in Gaza Sky Geeks’ future. In the short term, a generator and fuel are the best option for us because:

Import restrictions make solar an unreliable option: Items brought in and out of Gaza are subject to restrictions. As a result, panels and maintenance parts may not always be available. Also, solar panels only recently became available in Gaza, which means that maintenance/expertise in solar technology is still nascent.

The building we rent cannot accommodate solar: We rent our space and do not have rights to the roof of our building. Even if we did, our building’s roof is covered in water heaters and does not have enough space for the number of solar panels we would need to power a space of our size. Power consistency and ability to meet peak demand is critical when we are running a professional space and charging other companies rent. Due to import restrictions and lack of roof space, we cannot yet guarantee uptime with solar the way we can with a generator.

Solar would cost much more: Through an agreement we have with the United Nations, we receive fuel at a 65% discount to market prices, making it significantly cheaper than solar. In addition, solar is a high up-front investment ($20-30k at a minimum).

--

NOTE: I'm the co-founder of Gaza Sky Geeks and lived there for 2 years.
Since when is Flocker competing with those platforms? It's designed to work with them. http://kubernetes.io/docs/user-guide/volumes/#flocker
I remember trying to setup a Flocker cluster and got brainf*ed. A cert-based auth in local development clusters was probably an overkill.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
And then we will need AI to manage the AI that is used to contain the AI.
Thanks for the pointers!

Your 3rd example is the one I bought, but it is clear, so doesn't show up on a black laptop. They don't seem to have a non-clear version of that one.

The non-clear ones they do have are just the spiral, without the word "debian", which seems a little vague for evangelical purposes.

One of these days, I may have to learn how to get stickers made.
This is all predicated on fusion not panning out, correct? I'd also be very surprised to see that there have been no advances that made nuclear more efficient or safe in the last 30 years.
UNU is not AI, it's polling. Bridgewater would like to develop an AI that minimizes human input, not just a better method of combining different human opinions.
You're absolutely right, but after so much success there also seems to be a fair amount of confidence/arrogance that set in at NASA regardless of other pressures.

Additionally, when you have a civilian on board, I think it really changes how you think about what an appropriate level of risk is (13% might have been ok with professional astronauts who knew the risks beforehand, but likely was too high for a civilian).

And the line engineers at Morton Thiokol fought back pretty hard on the decision, even if it might have impacted their careers negatively.
Docker bought Infinit and will presumably integrate it into Docker Engine.
"can't fix" implies they're trying
Maybe the docker infinit acquisition[1] caused it? Given Kubernetes' plug and play storage classes (and gluster's maturity) + docker planning to add infinit natively there might not have been much space for them.

http://venturebeat.com/2016/12/06/docker-acquires-file-synci...
How many people were employed at ClusterHQ? Honestly I never even heard of the company but I had heard of some of the open source projects. Maybe I'm just out of the loop.

Also any information as to lessons learned, etc? Basically why it failed? Looking at the marketing material I didn't see anything really remarkable about it (nothing that stood out as a "oh this is why I would give them money") so I'm curious.

> I’ve been part of big successes as well as failures. While the former are more pleasurable, the latter must be relished as a valuable part of life, especially in Silicon Valley.

Relished? I never really understood the Silicon Valley "failing is awesome!" mentality. Failure is failure. It's not awesome. Why would you relish it? Take the lessoned learned for sure but you likely just lost several people's money and you lost your employees their jobs, what is there to take enjoyment from? Seems a little sadistic and a tad lacking in empathy for others involved.

But maybe that's just me.
Encrypted messengers: Riot, not Signal, is the future
Would enjoy seeing the source.
And "not safe" = "increased likelihood of some really big unexpected hidden costs".
Same thing here. The barrier of entry was too frustrating for a casual evaluation.
Four Ways You Can Protect Yourself from Cyber Threats During the Holiday Season
Your paraphrasing of Feynman's bridge quote is inaccurate. From
Appendix F[1] of the report:

[..] In spite of these variations from case to case, officials behaved as
if they understood it, giving apparently logical arguments to each
other often depending on the "success" of previous flights. For
example. in determining if flight 51-L was safe to fly in the face of
ring erosion in flight 51-C, it was noted that the erosion depth was
only one-third of the radius. It had been noted in an experiment
cutting the ring that cutting it as deep as one radius was necessary
before the ring failed. Instead of being very concerned that
variations of poorly understood conditions might reasonably create a
deeper erosion this time, it was asserted, there was "a safety factor
of three." This is a strange use of the engineer's term ,"safety
factor." If a bridge is built to withstand a certain load without the
beams permanently deforming, cracking, or breaking, it may be designed
for the materials used to actually stand up under three times the
load. This "safety factor" is to allow for uncertain excesses of load,
or unknown extra loads, or weaknesses in the material that might have
unexpected flaws, etc. If now the expected load comes on to the new
bridge and a crack appears in a beam, this is a failure of the
design. There was no safety factor at all; even though the bridge did
not actually collapse because the crack went only one-third of the way
through the beam. The O-rings of the Solid Rocket Boosters were not
designed to erode. Erosion was a clue that something was wrong.
Erosion was not something from which safety can be inferred.

His point about NASA's nonsensical use of the "safety factor" is not that you could drive over a bridge, and look, it didn't break, so it must be OK!

It's even worse, you drive a truck over it, afterwards 1/3 of the steel is cracked, so you conclude that it must be able to safely accept 3x the weight. Nonesense! This is the sort of moronic engineering that killed the crew of the Challenger.

1. http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/roger...
This is Michael from ClusterHQ. Just wanted to say thanks to everyone in the community who helped make the last 2 and a half years a great experience. Sad that it's ending now, but excited for what's to come.
Federal report: AI could threaten up to 47 percent of jobs in two decades
>"The large rooms of which you are so proud are in fact your shame. They are big enough to hold crowds--and also big enough to shut out the voices of the poor....There is your sister or brother, naked, crying! And you stand confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering."

Ambrose
4th Century
Physical Pitch Decks
I had the idea for the feature that would eventually turn into Unwaffle [1] back in July. It was initially just going to be an internal tool to track trial user actions for S3stat so that I could detect trends to predict who would convert on their own and who would need intervention.

But it quickly became apparent how useful it would be as a product, so I built it that way from day one, with its own domain and API for collecting data. The idea was to build the pieces I needed to do my thing, and if it didn't work amazingly well, to shoot it in the head and move on.

So:

- Idea in July
- Prototype in August
- Decided to move forward in September
- Public site live in September
- Fully functional by around October
- Some minor promotion in November
- Just went live with real customers in December

No paying users yet (and no means of processing payment). With luck, and assuming the first round of trials go smoothly, it should get a proper "Launch" in January.

Naturally, feedback is always welcome.

[1] https://unwaffle.com
I appreciate the honest tone of this announcement without any "incredible journey" nonsense.
Thanks - I had put it in a footnote that got cut, but will edit.
Existence-A Horror Short Film
That's a shame. I've always had great interactions with the ClusterHQ team. Michael, Mohit and Carissa have always been incredibly friendly when I've run into them at Dockercon. Unfortunately my engineering team was never able to fully integrate flocker into our production environment as we relied heavily on custom storage driver actions. Wish you folks all the best in your next projects.
As someone who writes ALOT of vanilla JS and doesn't really get into the new fangled frameworks, tools, transpiling..

Two things: template strings and arrow functions. Async is life-changing, but lack of support - can't use it yet.. Greatest feature since XMLHttpRequest IMO.
"What are best options now for bare-metal?"

Writing it yourself in raw x86 ASM.
You can't feasibly construct small power though. It's hard enough to run an electrical grid built on "big power." Very expensive too. With "small power" you would have to completely change all existing infrastructure along with costs of small power generation . Just think of how long and how much it costed for decentralized computing to become a "thing." and computing is practically cost free when compared to computing
Self-Testing Web Apps
php in emacs is pretty lacking, I wanted to try the spacemacs layer with these additions https://github.com/syl20bnr/spacemacs/pull/3943/files
but after using jetbrains ide for a while i am not really motivated :p, I wish they released an headless version to plug it in whatever editor like eclim does :(
Europe’s 10 Steps Emergency Plan in Case of a Terrorist Attack in Europe
The mycodeschool channel on youtube has a playlist[1] that provides a great visual explanation of this information.

I found it really useful in getting my head around these concepts.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2_aWCzGMAwLZp6LMUKI3...
You started with two mistaken premises, which makes your analogy a poor comparison:

1. Facebook doesn't have "sloppy" security. The company and its software are massive and have many, many participants involved in the product and software development loop. You have unrealistic expectations for a company of that size with a consumer-facing product. Facebook continually recruits the best available talent in the security industry and empowers them to do their jobs without shooting themselves in the feet or getting kneecapped by cavalier product design. They also produce some of the best security research and implement best practices wherever they can.

I want you to look through any of Facebook's main or subsidiary applications and tell me how quickly you can identify CSRF, XSS, SQL injection, or a logical ACL failure like the one presented in this report. What you are not seeing is the utter deluge of bug bounty reports Facebook receives as a company and the nearly impeccable track record it has. The company receives over 80,000 reports each year, and fewer than 10% are valid security vulnerabilities. A tiny portion of those could be classified as "high" or "critical" severity.

You are also not seeing the meticulous, continually running machine that is the overall Facebook security organization. Not only are bug bounty participants aggressively recruited at Facebook, they are frequently put in charge of maintaining one of the most successful and recognizable bug bounty programs in the industry. Have a read through Ryan McGeehan's writings and presentations for a bit of insight into how much investment Facebook has put into incident response and security tooling in the past decade.

2. On a more technical level: rate-limiting is vastly simpler than overall security vulnerability resolution. It is comparatively straightforward to implement a rate limiting system with enough sophistication to combat a sizeable botnet attempting to crawl through a web application or automate user actions. Facebook does this using a variety of heuristics and even machine learning, with collaboration between the security (incident response), risk and data analysis teams doing the heavy lifting. While the work itself might not be easy, the deliberables and outcomes for such a system are very clear. In contrast, application security is a hard problem which primarily results from a software implementation that doesn't match the design spec (logical errors) or a design spec which fails to correctly incorporate a risk assessment. It is not straightforward to eliminate every vulnerability, because you can't just write a script that proves immunity from the OWASP Top Ten and be done with it.
At least in Russia, it was almost a rite of passage to have "nettle-fights" - you and your friends all put on a pair of gloves and some shorts, everyone grabs a nice nettle, and then you start whipping each other with them.
Thank you for your comment. I think your argument that inequality is the logical extension of humanity's ambition is very common in the tech-sector.

How would the mercy of not "making it so insufferable that the poor leave as economic refugees" actually work out? Don't millionaires need non-millionaires to clean their houses, cook their meals, and walk their dogs?
I never said it was competing. I said it didn't seem to fit nicely. I run several very large clusters, and we evaluated Flocker and it didn't fit nicely into ecosystem. It felt very "bolted on".
there are people crying in the bathrooms at every big firm on the planet.
Adjust the laws so that the following formula is true:

perceived_chance_of_getting_caught * perceived_penalty > perceived_benefits
There are all kinds of micro-everything circulating out there, from timing and IO drivers to entire network stacks.
Uber's Woes Mount:CA Strips Driverless Cars' Reg'n,Losses Rise, VAT Charges Loom
We've been running Kubernetes (500+ containers) in production for over a year now. I believe (and hope) that 2017 will be the year that persistent data storage will be solved. We are ready to move our data out of OpenStack and have our data services (Elasticsearch, Cassandra, MySQL, MongoDB) join the rest of our apps on Kube-orchestrated infrastructure.

But, we're not there yet. The options just aren't good enough. Look at the list of PV types for Kube [1]. You have technologies like Fibre Channel that are simply too expensive when compared with local storage on a Linux server. There's iSCSI, which is mostly the same story. Ceph is great for object storage but not performant enough for busy databases. GCE and AWS volumes are not applicable to our private cloud [2]. Cinder, to me, has the stench of OpenStack. Maybe it's better now? NFS? No way. Not performant.

I'm looking forward to seeing what shakes out in the next few months. It's just really hard to beat local storage right now.

[1] http://kubernetes.io/docs/user-guide/persistent-volumes/#typ...

[2] Beyond a certain size, it becomes more cost-effective to host your own Kubernetes cluster on managed or colocated hardware.
Maybe things are different in India, but why did you think HR is going to help you? HR is absolutely worthless to non-management employees. Its a totally corrupt profession. My policy is if I absolutely have to talk to HR and can't solve it another way I will just quit instead.
For those with adblockers: https://archive.fo/eazBq
> This is the sort of moronic engineering that killed the crew of the Challenger.

Note that it wasn't even engineering, reading the story in full (it's great, and covers the software side for which Feynman had nothing but praise) Feynman repeatedly noted that engineers were fairly realistic[0] and had been ringing alarms pretty much all along, this was entirely manglement mangling.

[0] unless the spectre of manglement was involved, at least for some of them
No, I fully understand that, which is why I said "probably." However, it would be a sophisticated botnet to challenge Facebook's rate limiter, and moreover, it would still have the problem of producing an excessive amount of noise when Facebook saw an influx of users and IP addresses continually inviting and uninviting other users.
Ruling by EU Court Could Render the UK Gov.’s New ‘Snoopers Charter’ Unlawful
Yeah, it's definitely an interesting question. I took two full years of biomedical ethics, and I think you could make a pretty strong claim for either side.

I personally think that performing a basic reading of an ultrasound or an ECG/EKG would be fairly simple with some training, but I also have a lot of experience reading raw data. I have a few friends who are Radiologists, and I'm going to have to ask them what they think. I'm really not sure what they'd think about all this, and I'm definitely open to the possibility that I'm massively overestimating my ability to interpret even "simple" diagnostic data.
So does every large technology company including Google, Apple, Twitter, Facebook, Netflix, etc.
So the argument of "at least we're not sending them to concentration camps" is supposed to justify the neglect and mistreatment of the less wealthy?
I see, sorry for misunderstanding. What did you move to for persistent volumes?
> It's been longer since I read Feynman but I recall his assessment as being a lot more grounded, and fairer to the engineers.

Feynman laid the vast majority of the blame on management ("NASA officials" in his Appendix F), noting that engineers had fairly realistic views of the matter (and failure rate estimates) and IIRC that they'd tried to raise concerns but those had gotten lost climbing the manglement ladder.

The one unit for which he had nothing but praise was the Software Group:

> To summarize then, the computer software checking system and
attitude is of the highest quality. There appears to be no process of
gradually fooling oneself while degrading standards so characteristic
of the Solid Rocket Booster or Space Shuttle Main Engine safety
systems.

Nothing that they had to constantly resist manglement trying to mangle:

> To be sure, there have been recent suggestions by management
to curtail such elaborate and expensive tests as being unnecessary at
this late date in Shuttle history.
On older versions of clang (including macOS 10.10 / Xcode 7.2) and, I believe, GCC this code

#include <stdio.h>
#define is_same(T, x) _Generic((x), T: "true", default: "false")
int main(void) {
int arr[5];
int arr2[7];
printf("arr === int[5] -> %s\n", is_same(int[5], arr));
printf("arr === int[7] -> %s\n", is_same(int[7], arr));
printf("arr2 === int[5] -> %s\n", is_same(int[5], arr2));
printf("arr2 === int[7] -> %s\n", is_same(int[7], arr2));
return 0;
}

produces

arr === int[5] -> true
arr === int[7] -> false
arr2 === int[5] -> false
arr2 === int[7] -> true

Unfortunately either clang or GCC (I can't remember) decided the obvious behavior was wrong and changed it so that _Generic behaved as-if array expressions decayed to pointers. The C11 specification for _Generic was insufficiently precise, and for various reasons both vendors and (IIRC) the C committee are going to go with the least common denominator approach (just treat them like pointers) for consistency.

So newer versions of clang and GCC print out all false.

But another way of showing that arrays are real types is with

#include <stdio.h>
#define countof(a) (sizeof (a) / sizeof *(a))
int main(void) {
int arr[5];
int arr2[7];
printf("countof(arr) -> %zu\n", countof(arr));
printf("countof(*&arr) -> %zu\n", countof(*&arr));
printf("countof(arr2) -> %zu\n", countof(arr2));
printf("countof(*&arr2) -> %zu\n", countof(*&arr2));
return 0;
}

which produces

countof(arr) -> 5
countof(*&arr) -> 5
countof(arr2) -> 7
countof(*&arr2) -> 7

on all version of clang and GCC, and should on any other conformant C compiler. Although I would think that the simple sizeof proof should suffice to show that arrays are real types, notwithstanding that their evaluation rules are peculiar.

Alas, the disaster with _Generic and array expressions only proves that the situation is less than ideal. Although part of the problem is that _Generic was a novel language feature that didn't fit neatly into the historical translation phases. IMO C++ gets a lot of things wrong about C semantics, but apparently they got decltype right (presuming the behavior is a product of a clearer specification, and that behavior is consistent across implementations).

To be fair, although inelegant the compromise behavior for _Generic makes some sense. The principle use for _Generic is to implement crude function overloading. Because arrays always decay to pointers when passed to functions, it's convenient that _Generic would capture array expressions as pointers. OTOH, it makes some useful behaviors impossible. And the convenient behavior could have been had by manually coercing arrays to pointers using a trick like:

#define decay(arr) ((0)? 0 : (arr))
#define is_same(T, x) _Generic(decay(x), ...)