skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Q: why should we be entitled to a posix-compliant operating system that is free? (or anything at all, really?)
A: I dont feel entitled, I just wanted to know, if it exists, I might want to use it.
Test your keyboard for N-Key Rollover/Ghosting
There's also something to be said for the replication crisis in certain highly-politicized fields of sociology and psychology.

People (rightly, IMHO) realize that political activists sometimes work under the guise of scientific researchers. It shouldn't come as a surprise that this kind of conduct erodes confidence in the field as a whole.

Sadly, the baby has a nasty habit of being thrown out with the bath water...
Facebook said "our users are dum fucks?"
- what more you want from them ?
Holy shit! -4 to that? I don't mean to get all meta, but really I must be further out of touch than I realized.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_r...

Leaving off energy companies, 9 out of the top 16 companies are American.

4.5% of the world's population, ~55% of the world's great companies.

I'm sure at will employment alone wouldn't crush the American economy. But it'd be a hit to it.
I really wanted to use the .NET port of this, but unfortunately it is GPL... dead in the water for commercial software...
So first of all, any significant drop in employment is overwhelmingly likely due to the GFC.

Second, I must take issue with the idea that they (the administration) "redefined" the metric. As I said above, there is a genuine (and basically settled, I believe) question in economics about what the right way is to summarize the state of the economy's labour force in a number. So any concern with it is going to have to be a technical concern: does a measure summarize the state better or worse than another measure. In fact, the BLS consists of professionals with a specific job to do, so I would be really skeptical of a claim that the administration redefined a metric that was inconvenient to it. It is rather more likely that it was already settled on economics grounds previously.

It would be really surprising if the BLS, an independent statistical agency, did something like what the argument accuses it of doing, so there needs to be some more solid evidence that it actually happened.

Specifically with respect to people who gave up looking for work being included as unemployed, I'm pretty sure that's been like that for ages now.

Third, and my main problem with that argument, is that it's an argument ad hominem. Instead of settling the choice of unemployment measure on merit (economics is a relatively old discipline, there is more than enough to talk about to decide what the merits are), the argument instead tries to argue based on imputed motivation of the current administration. That's a very dodgy road to go down, because settling it on merit is always a better thing to do.

> these cannot both be the case

It's not my main field of expertise, but this, I believe, is just plain wrong. The structure of the economy can definitely change with time. Two prominent examples to my mind are: (1) women entering the labour force, leaving the unemployment rate unchanged, but drastically increasing the number of working adults, (2) changes to disability and health insurance rules that sometimes mean that people who are seriously ill drop in/out of the labour force with good reason (they might be very sick yet still need to work to be able to afford things). So I think it definitely can be the case that different measures will go different ways, depending on the underlying changes in the economy.

> Re people dismissing clear facts, again, this is just human nature.

Meh, I don't care, I just want to get it right.

Edit: On further thought, I think the argument you mentioned is pretty damn close to dismissing statistics. Your original argument, above, was totally different, and much better.
Man, I need to study some more weird languages. Just got done with the basics of Python and C for my first CS class. Over the summer I want to tackle LISP.
Show HN: In-memory message broker (first Go project, feedback welcome)
I think there are limitations to how much someone can change. The analogy I would use is physical traits, you can loose weight, or you can exercise and increase strength and so on but there are limitations. I am 59 and no matter how hard I train I am not going to be able to run a 4 minute mile but I am sure if I worked at it a little harder I could improve my running skills. Similarly, I think one can, through therapy, meditation or other types of mental fitness activities, can make improvements if they have the sufficient desire to do so, but within limits.
Do you have a link to the paper?

"Sybil attack" is a rather large category of attacks and I'm curious about the specifics of this particular one. In particular, certain vulnerabilities can still be prohibitively expensive for use in dragnet-surveillance.
Features you can use for other stuff, like entity detection.

E.g. AlchemyAPI has a cool demo, where they can detect names of diseases, cities, etc. I suspect the parts of speech would improve the accuracy for tagging words that have multiple meanings.

I used the disease bit on AlchemyAPI for https://www.findlectures.com, to make facets for a health topics: https://www.findlectures.com/?p=1&class1=Science&category_l2...
So maybe this is not the answer you'll be happy with, but... Maybe it just looks more scary than it is. Do you really need to automate it?

2gb is not that large these days - set up a local MySQL and import it. 36 tables should be doable by hand very quickly if they have good naming. If they don't have good naming, it's not going to link them automatically anyway.

If you want some GUI that allows you to create quick and simple search forms, try libre office base
The jargon "monomorphism", "codomain", "endomorphism" and even "function" and "domain" as it truly applies here are most certainly not taught even as part of a typical high-school calculus program. I can't speak for IB (they only offered AP when I was in high school, so long ago). The basic, hand-wavy version ("a function maps a domain to a range") is about as complicated and deep as it gets.
I think this is mostly an effect of nerds not wanting to be exclusionary and therefore enabling this kind of behavior. If you're a nerd and you're kind of a prick, other nerds will tend to excuse it rather than just pushing you away. They'll disregard your behavior and keep inviting you to events. They'll ignore the fact that you're unpleasant when bonuses/promos are being handed out at work because it should be based on merit, as if there's no merit in behaving sociably. They'll generally look the other way because the alternatives are to be confrontational (which most people, including nerds, don't want to do) or to exclude you.

On the other hand, if you're not a nerd and you act like a prick, people will just start to cut you out of their lives. You won't get invited to social events. You probably won't get promoted because no one wants to work with you. Your behavior will impact your life. You can be a prick and be successful, but it's harder, because you have to balance it by being really good at something else. You're an amazing salesperson so you get rewarded despite being unpleasant. You're wealthy so people hang out with you even though you're rude.

The bar for nerds looking the other way seems to be lower. You're rude, but that's just how you are. Obviously there are limits even for nerds, but the limits seem to be pretty high.
Congrats to the coreos/etcd team!

With that said, I feel really conflicted about v3. I understand why it was introduced and understand why it is objectively better than v2, however the reason I fell in love with etcd was because of v2. It was a simple, highly available, not very fast key store that exposed an easy way to view and traverse the store (via the /v2/keys API endpoint). Likewise, the client api was simple, quick to pickup and very easy to work with.

With v3, while the performance has increased dramatically (and many other things), the "ease" of etcd seems to have gone as well.

To this point, all of the software I've written that makes use of etcd is tied to etcd v2. Should I make a conscious effort to migrate to etcd v3? How much longer is v2 going to be kept around?
I generated this one with jwt.io, but after testing it looks like pyjwt (which is a very common library) does exactly the same thing
I didn't downvote you, but I can imagine two different reasons that people might have done so:

(1) They want to emphasize that there are lots of reasons to use Tor other than political dissidence and that Tor use should be normal or common for lots of people in lots of situations.

(2) They feel like the role of tools like Tor in facilitating political dissidence is overstated and that you were implying that Tor will be crucial or extremely powerful in political conflict situations, rather than, say, hopefully somewhat useful.

edit: (3) They feel like you're overstating how effective political dissidence can be (because having public opinion turn against a government doesn't mean that the government will lose power).
> I think the best technique for dealing with the soup of information is to find bona fide experts with a track record of providing correct explanations and giving what they say more weight.

It's up to the experts to make a persuading case & to engage the audience to think for themselves. There are many-a-con-artist who labels oneself as an "expert". That con-artist may even have credentials to make one's "authority" even more convincing.

Labels justify all sorts of things, worst of all, telling one to stop thinking beyond the abstract representation of the label. In the domain that the label casts a perspective shadow upon, the con-artist is free to utilize to take advantage of the audience's ignorance.
> Actually I use HMAC-SHA512 with key sizes between 1024-Bit to 2048-Bit.

This is utterly pointless security theater. You don't just get more security by rubbing bigger key sizes on it. The key goes through the hash function (twice, in HMAC; once via ipad, once via opad); the HMAC standard defines keys larger than the hash function's block size to go through the hash function first. With good reason, HMAC recommends key sizes to be equal to the hash function's output length; that's 16 bytes (128 bits) for MD5, and 20 bytes (160 bits) for SHA-1.

Relatedly: GCM supports large nonces, but I don't understand why you would ever use anything other than a 96 bit one. (Larger nonces go through GHASH.)
If you sign a JWT with the 5 character secret does it generate a token that you can verify with the 64 character secret? I'm wondering if it could be a key collision.
Help people to reach to facts. Who promised what and then was the promise delivered. Who voted what, especially when it comes to dangerous acts. Who was found to support shady individuals. Such historical horizon should go far back into the past, not 10 years or 20 years but at least until WWII - since great grand parents of current political establishment was holding power during this uneasy time and they obviously had influence on their descendants.
I love awk for text processing purposes. When analyzing log files, I often drop down into awk-mode to check the exceptional constellation that is currently under investigation. Very powerful to be able to say after three minutes: This happens in 0.5% of the cases.

Bought this book 2nd hand online. This book on one day costs $150, and on the next $2. The first bit has been an awesome read, never got to read much more. Tend to read much more from $READER. Sure this PDF will get me going again!
Ancient Egyptian pot burials
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/web-timer/ggnjbdfg...
Can you point me to a real world use case for what you are describing? I am honestly asking, so I can understand the use case.

Edit: I have never written code that required me to copy and paste or generate code.
I've never seen the overdot in a presentation of Lagrangian mechanics mean anything other than a time derivative (i.e. a dependent variable). Can you point me to an example where it denotes an independent variable? Because that would be really weird.
Is it wire compatible with Kafka?
Interesting, I'll check it out! Thanks for the tip
What kind of data store do you use with F#? Some sort of SQL variant?
Yes it would. I doubt too badly though. How often is actual mail getting misidentified as spam?

Plus the quality of political expression imho on these platforms has gotten so low in terms of signal to noise that I don't think it would be a great loss to society.

The speed and reach of a message on social media today is unprecedented. Such platforms need ways to retard the flow of ignorance. That would really be the goal.
And there is enough evidence to show that journalists and politicians are benefiting the most from such flows.
Honesty you having that mind set will make it impossible to get the 4 minute mile, but it is possible for someone with the motivation.
The replication crisis is not helped by the grant process, which demands ever more citable results but does not care about replication.
If you add a new member to a type aren't you usually describing new behavior? Isn't it sensible to have to implement that behavior everywhere?
Bigup !

I hope people start to use more your search engine. Im very happy duckduckgo user.

I would not care a less about google's search or how they try to control/hide/penalty website owners.
Thanks for your kind words. It is mind-blowing to share knowledge with people from all around the world. Hopefully my humble website remains visible amidst the ever-growing hubbub of business that the internet has since become.
I believe that tor metrics counts when a connection starts, not when a connection is _established_

This is a important difference, because if there is active DPI that is shutting down a connection before handshake can happen, it will inflate the numbers massively.

I suspect what actually is happening is a ISP in UAE has deployed a DPI system that can detect the Tor TLS signature
I wish that certain simple tasks in awk were a little less verbose, especially for command line use.

The number one example for me is counting by string in a csv file:

>> awk -F',' '{a[$1] +=1} END {for(v in a) print v,a[v]}'

Not that this is particularly difficult stuff, it's just a bit exhausting to find myself typing that over and over again. I'd love a more concise alternative to this.

Also, 'sort | uniq -c' is not a viable alternative for very large files.
Is there any scientific theory outlandish enough that you are willing to call it nonsense on its face?
The meme is that tech people are generally just assholes. It is a pretty common meme, but I don't think it's actually true. Very few of the tech people I know are actually assholes. Most are quite pleasant, even the ones that are socially awkward.
> As root I killed all process, this was our main Oracle db box

Oh, my. I hope that is greatly exaggerated.
Last year I dug up Kernighan's 2012 release of awk, fixed up the test suite packaging and automated it, and wrote a makefile which adds clang ASAN support.

It found a couple bugs because the test suite is quite comprehensive. I think it's somewhat interesting that 5000 or so lines of C code polished over 20 years still has memory bugs.

I didn't fix the bugs, but anyone should feel free to clone it and maybe get some karma points from Kernighan. Maybe he will make a 2017 release. He is fairly responsive to email from what I can tell :)

https://github.com/andychu/bwk
This is kind of a nonsequitur. The etymology of a word does (obviously) not imply anything about the social impact that the use of statistics has and is just a clever anecdote. I haven't seen any marxist criticism of statistics itself, which is telling considering marxism is a ruthless critique of everything. Obviously a state or corporation can use any tool (science, technology, writing, math) for its own gain or detriment, and that fact speaks nothing to the general social utility of that tool- it also doesn't speak to whether or not specific uses of that tool by a state or corporation are legitimate or self-serving.

Also, "Data Science" doesn't refer to Science with Data, but the study of data analysis itself, and for that purpose is a reasonable albeit often unnecessary term.
I can definitely recommend the University of Washington's Coursera on Programming languages. It's available here, and starts every few weeks I think:
https://www.coursera.org/learn/programming-languages
You'll learn SML (a strongly typed functional language), Racket (in the Lisp-scheme family of languages), and Ruby (to compare the previous languages with object-oriented ones). You'll even write your own language on top of Racket. It is a challenging class but I can say for sure that it has changed the way I think about programming.
JWT does not define Ed25519 as part of the spec. It is supported "off-label" in one JWT library I could find (Joken) for a relatively uncommon language (Elixir).

Frustratingly, JWT defines a tons of stuff, where few are required but some are "Recommended" and some are "Recommended+". I'm not sure what "Recommended+" means, but apparently it means "has known cryptographic flaws", because RSA with PKCSv15 padding is "Recommended+".
A better indicator of quality of a model is to ask, "is this model useful?". At the end of the day, models are representations of another system. Like tools, some are more useful than others.
At some point, I had considered the idea that after the invention of the atomic bomb, the cabal of scientists surrounding its discovery were asked to obfuscate further advancements, and seclude practical findings behind classified restrictions.

Many of the scienctists of that post war era were hounded mercilessly for decades ever after, throughout the cold war.

If one were to try and obfuscate a scientific field, and introduce enough confusion such that whirlpools of disagreement ensnare the casual hobbyist, how would that take shape?
I think the following viewpoint has been interesting. If we look back at the development of the electronic computer, it's hard to say there was a single point it "delivered". Was it the Atanasoff–Berry Computer, the Collosus, the ENIAC (1940s)? Each of these miss some things that we commonly think of as a modern, generally useful computer. (Lacking programmability, Turing completeness, or stored program representation, respectively.) Do we have to wait all the way until, say, Apple II (1977) was released to consider delivery?

I don't have an answer myself, but it seems to most people, "delivery" doesn't mean "when it's useful", but rather "when it's usable, useful, and generally available for use."

If we use that as a benchmark, quantum computing has definitely hit "usable". It is teetering on "useful". And the beginnings of "generally available for use" have been explored by a few industrial players [0, 1].

[0] Rigetti Computing's Forest: http://forest.rigetti.com/

[1] IBM Research's Quantum Experience: http://www.research.ibm.com/quantum/
IObit Uninstaller Pro 6.2.0.934 Crack and License Key Download
right? "all attempts welcome" philosophy
Well, every language is a product that has to compete with other languages. Nothing to do with composability or advancements in out-of-touch research areas.

And these days languages compete on a lot of things, on performance, reliability, security, productivity, on syntax, on tooling, on libraries, on deployment and supporting infrastructure, on interoperability. Syntax is not even that big of a deal, it's not hard to compete on it, you can just take Go's approach or you can do it thoroughly and properly, not forgetting about newcomers, their likely previous experience and designing the whole learning experience into the language too. You can't leave it as is though or it's going to be a huge disadvantage.
My guess, based on the similarity to aglets, would be coax terminators?
I don't know enough about Warren Buffett to emphatically hold an opinion either way. I agree his public persona and life story (or myth, I honestly don't know) reflect well upon him, but "unquestionable" is a strong statement.

Having said that, I agree my comment was a bit hyperbolic. The truth is probably a bit less bleak.
...a uniformly distributed real number in the range [0, 1] :)

Otherwise I can just pick 0 with probability 0.5 and 1 with probability 0.5.

If you can't be pedantic when discussing maths, when can you be pedantic?
Is the problem that statistics are losing authority, or that everything connected with the elite is losing authority? From what I see, just about every class of experts is less trusted now than a few years ago. Economists, scientists (climate change), doctors (vaccines), and so on. Statistics are used to back up every quantitative thing that's ever been studied, so of course that quantitative element sometimes comes under scrutiny as well.

As for statistics as a national health monitoring system, it is a victim of regime shift.

You collect the statistics that seem relevant when you are setting up the collection. You look at things like money supply, unemployment, GDP and manufacturing jobs because they seem to make sense at the time. Whatever models people are working on seem to want those numbers, so those are the numbers you collect.

Unfortunately, it's hard to model things for which you have no data. Social science is especially messy, and so there are many ways things might interact, but haven't yet, and some of those things will be a surprise to you, with the added problem that the confounding variable is one that you haven't collected, because you didn't think it was important.

This regime shift, which causes a new way for the numbers to be generated, is to be expected. Why would the economy grow for hundreds of years, like it has, in the same way? Looking at history, it hasn't. The structure of the economy changes, as you would expect from any ecology that isn't in equilibrium. And "The World Economy" has been growing for hundreds of years.

One example of numbers changing meanings was in the Economist the other day. Manufacturing is not what it was. A lot of builders of equipment now make money maintaining equipment or training people to use it. For instance I was surprised to find out a professional coffee making machine is actually not just a thing a coffee shop buys. They lease it, and along with the lease comes training for baristas. Something that would skew figures.
> the "ease" of etcd seems to have gone

Can you explain this more? One of the goals of the new API is to make etcd easier to interact with.

Can you provide a few examples where v3 is more difficult than v2 to work with? (etcd-dev or github might be a better place to discuss though) We would love to hear and improve.
Even statisticians routinely fall for cognitive biases when interpreting statistics. This was documented in "Thinking Fast Thinking Slow".
Thank you, it very much did. Hacker news seems to have much better blog posts than Medium :)
oops! You are right. I meant:

... so evilcorp.org cookies for evilcorp.org images on A.org will not be set for evilcorp.org images on B.org.
Wire recording
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brent_Roberts/publicati...
I really liked the "A living cell is much more complicated.³" which includes a reference to a cell biology book. On reflection, the biggest reason that I liked it is the way it reminded me of Randall Munroe's What If series; if Randall wrote a What If about biology, I'm sure it would include a line like

A cell is much more complicated than a clock [citation needed].

But this author went ahead and proactively gave the citation!