skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Libsodium is big. Smaller than NaCl, but still a little unwieldy. A bigger contender is TweetNaCl, but it doesn't provide password key derivation, and I dislike some of its primitives a tiny little bit.

My library have two clear (albeit small) advantages: first, its interfaces are more consistent with its (non-existent) failure mode. NaCl and descendants have most of their function return an error code for no reason –the underlying primitives are foolproof.

Second, my Argon2i implementation doesn't allocate. Okay, the user must allocate, but that give more control, and let me guarantee I cannot fail. For some reason, the reference implementation is not like that. Surprising, considering the Argon2 authors make sure implementers could avoid spurious allocations.

---

My current recommendation still goes to TweetNaCl and Libsodium. My hope is to be able to recommend Monocypher instead. Maybe sometime later this year?
Is that your expert opinion?
OVER a MILLION WORDPRESS SITES DEFACED, RCE ATTEMPTS ON THE RISE
I am aware of all of his "scandals", but there never is any hypocrisy on his behalf. If some follower wants to put him on a pedestal, that's the follower's fault.

JK voluntarily tried to give up his fame by the Dissolution of the order of the star.
Is this something that would be affected by file system defaults? I see it writes in 512 byte chunks by default, when MacOS moves to APFS, is this something that might be altered as a result and thus get a 'free' speedup?
Can you completely disentangle an individual's spiritual/religious/philosophical teachings from their personal lives?

For example, would you assign the same credibility to the teachings delivered by a Catholic priest who has been proven to have molested children?
That's not what well-defined means. You might as well say we should jail people until their victims feel better.

Furthermore, there's no evidence demonstrating he actually can comply.
Said another way, interfaces may not mean integration – computing interfaces are starting to become much more pervasive and some parts of our lives are becoming integrated but I don't think it's viable to say that we are integrating with these systems quite yet. We are definitely interfacing more with computers and they are becoming ever more essential for our daily experiences but we haven't merged in the least.
> What's the benefit of decentralization?

No single point at which to apply judicial- and/or rubber-hose cryptography is the big one.

I do agree that the problem-space of attempting to make a reasonable UI for GPG has been explored for a long time with no useful results. I'd love someone to prove me wrong, but it seems like that's a hopeless endeavor.

It is worth asking why, though. I'm not a UI person, so apply appropriate weighting to my opinion. I think this is one area - application of the Unix philosophy to task-driven security software - results in software that only the really invested will use. A combination email encryption/key distribution system with most nonessential options stripped out, targeting one mail client (at least at first) might be simple enough to achieve something closer to Signal-level usability. And the rounding-errors can continue to use the full GPG for our weird open-source rituals.

But who knows. Maybe the entire model is just too complicated for mere mortals.
Rust doesn't even have a way to turn on fastmath, AFAIK.
That one gave me a good laugh ;-)
My problem with the video is that it doesn't show me what can be done. It shows me that the ball can follow the line and with some magical symbols and lines "other logic" can be "somehow" added. It didn't do anything to tell me what other logic is possible, nor did it explain what the symbols and lines mean. So I still don't really know _what_ can be done (besides a pong game) and I've no idea what most of the on screen stuff even is or means.
As someone who has early adopted technology since childhood, I'm surprisingly contrarian on this. And it's not the tech, it's the state of society and industry that's making me feel this way.

For I want said technology to all but disappear Avatar-style except when I need it(1). Along the way I don't want craptastic screendoor VR, I want BSG-reboot Cylon VR. I don't see that coming anytime soon.

I don't want to be bombarded by the outputs of conv nets, SVMs, and other assorted RainMan-level ML models that are occasionally helpful but mostly just distracting factoid spam (see Google Now for a perfect example of this).

I'd love a self-driving car (for real), but I'd love a life where I didn't have to drive everywhere even more. I don't need AI for that, I just need to move to a city. And honestly, driving my sportscar is fun when it's on nearly abandoned mountain roads and highways (see craptastic VR bit about why VR is not a good surrogate). Why would I want to give that up to run with the cool kids(tm)?

I'd even love a brain computer interface, in fact MIT Neuroscience turned me down for admission despite my GPA and GRE scores specifically for saying I wanted to work on this a couple decades ago, but the mobile web is godawful enough already without giving silicon demons like Google and Facebook a direct feed to my brain. I don't trust industry 1 QBit here.

Finally, to quote RadioHead, "I want a perfect body, I want a perfect soul(tm)." If that makes me a creep, I'm OK with that. If AI (and tech in general) doesn't improve me or my life, I don't want it around me anymore and we're just a few years into this.

1. I work in AI. And I'm trying to make it work behind the scenes rather than in your face. To that end, I focus on pull, and I despise any sort of push short of protecting me from harm or keeping me on my schedule.
So you say. And this crowd is probably more likely than average to do so. However would you really touch the engine - remember a mistake can destroy your engine, and there isn't much interesting there for the most part.

What you would do it connect to the CAN bus and read all the data there - same as what most people do for cars - except there is a lot more interesting data for you to work with. There is not need to root the tractors, or install different software, just install your own computer, connect it to the CAN bus and do what you want. Our 10 year old computers that do this on a 200mhz CPU sell for $5000 - I'm convinced you would want something more modern that is also cheaper for your experiments.

There is one exception to the above: if you want to do computer steering you need an encryption key that we don't generally make available to the public. There is too many safety concerns to let us just give that away.
Because that's the right way to leverage social media: Meet your audience in the places they exist, so they can use and share your content, natively. They also posted this to Twitter, and perhaps other platforms.
Hi HackerNews Friends, Hayo just recently launched last week and we wanted to share our wonderful product with you all. Let us know what you think about the product. Any feedback would be truly appreciated.
AKA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_interdependence
Thanks for the reply.

I think we all will appreciate a follow up blog post on your experiences when you were writing it and also post-'Show HN'
I'm sorry, but I'm too lazy to dig up those statistics for you. Part of the reason is that I consider your question to be fundamentally misdirected.

First, I'd like to point out that medical staff form just the tip of the iceberg in terms of wage-reduction by immigrants. For example, my father in law lives in an old age home staffed almost entirely with low-wage foreigners - a mix of immigrants, migrants, what-have you. There are job markets in health and old age care, cleaning, agriculture and construction that completely dwarf just that for doctors.

Secondly, because much of the current discussion of immigrants relates specifically to refugees: to selectively accept desirable highly-qualified refugees from countries people are fleeing for their lives would be deplorably, cynically selfish and inhumane.

Third, if I remember correctly, "nationals-only" reproduction in Germany and some other European countries, but also e.g. Japan is below the level required to sustain a population (there's a technical term for that, but I've forgotten it), so many modern countries actually _need_ immigrants to fill job vacancies in countries with industries that insist on continuing to grow regardless of populations.

The Japanese are (at the moment) resolved to let their country dwindle out before diluting their treasured racial stock. That's their decision, and they can go that way if they want to. Other countries, meanwhile, don't base their immigration policies on -let's be honest- racism, or less so.
My web site, my domain name, my home, my freedom. I avoid centralised services whenever I can. Besides, my git history is not very interesting, so I didn't feel the need to publish it.
That can be more complicated, based on what I heard about i.e. Guantanamo Bay, where technically the Cuban goverment would really like the USA army to leave, and USA pretends they have a lease and that everything is fine.

I am not sure if there are other examples, though.
> I hate web because it provides a user interface instead of a programming interface.

https://api.github.com/
Tone...
It'll become pretty funny if humans become so addicted to alt-reality that future generations view leaving the planet's atmosphere as stuff of nightmares. Since they'll no longer have instant access any more.
"you're disagreeing with"

This is the problem with the security community, always with authoritative arguments. Building a religion around security is not going to end well. Some of those people already push government agendas and people eat it, because they were told not to question "experts".
I believe it's possible to show how this works without it actually working right now.

Exactly! A short tutorial using screenshots to explain what stuff means, for example, would go a long way and doesn't actually require anything to be implemented as the screenshots could be mocked up.
Don't judge a post by its author. If the user has done anything to merit being hellbanned on HN, that's a seperate matter. This submission looks fine as-is and there's no reason to flag it on its own merits. I would always vote for telling the user that they're doing something wrong and giving them a chance to correct the behavior before hellbanning them, too.

Users get shadowbanned on Reddit all the time for stupid reasons.
The Importance of .NET Core
Or rather, Rust is slower on those because SIMD is currently only supported on nightly, and the benchmarks game chooses to use stable Rust exclusively.
Good old-fashioned government subsidies. I guess you can't overlook the US-automaker bailout under Obama as being part of this process.
Money to do what?

Why is it so absurd to think that Musk might not be interested in money just for its own sake? I mean, he's a billionaire, there's not much practical point in getting more of it.

Most of Musk's money is spent on Mars, from what I can tell. Human-AI integration a side project.
With email, you can usually do a simple search and find an email. Super simple.
> The whole point was that I was discussing an alternative to mail clients, however. If this was an issue with clients I would have brought it up with clients.

Granted, but I think that if projects require submitting patches via email, then using a local mail client makes it much easier to do so. I don't see having to install and configure an MUA any more of a barrier to contributing than it is to install a web browser to use Github to contribute to other projects that expect pull requests.

>> It could use the value like <commit-sha1>@localdomain. Basically the message-id value should be a relatively unique value.

> git commit --amend breaks this.

No, it doesn't. git am doesn't make any use of the message-id header when applying the patch to your working copy. The commit in your local repository will have a different sha1 compared to the corresponding commit the patch author has (or any other reviewer who has applied that patch to their own working copy for that matter).

Basically the steps would be:

1. Generate a patch series using git format-patch

2. Use git-send-email to send the patches to the mailing list.

3. Get reviews

4. Address comments

5. Use git format-patch to generate a new patch series for re-roll with a command line parameter that refers to the file containing the cover letter for the original patch series.

The command line parameter that I mention would be able to retrieve the value of the message-id that was generated by the first invocation of git format-patch and then set the values of the In-Reply-To and References headers in the new cover letter message without you having to manually copy it from your original message when viewing it in your MUA (or web browser).

> Yeah, but that's tricky to autoset in a stable way, too, like I say above.

The sha1 of the commit should be unique enough. Assuming the SMTP server doesn't override what was set by the client, then it should work without any issues. I have tested this with one commercial SMTP server by manually setting the Message-Id header in a telnet session and did see it unaltered in the message I received. I still need to run this test with other SMTP servers to see if I get the same result.

>> This is why I prefer having an NNTP gateway (like gmane) to browse mailing lists using my locally installed MUA (or newsreader).

> Right, but this just increases the barrier to easy participation

I disagree. It's not fundamentally harder to use a MUA, news reader, or IRC client than it is to use a web browser.
EFF has criticized WhatsApp for being closed source, but not for this particular aspect of the key exchange functionality.

Because of the history around how WhatsApp was criticism over this and some of the apparent results of that criticism, tptacek particularly doesn't want people to conflate "there is something bad, unfortunate, or inadequate about WhatsApp" with "WhatsApp has a 'backdoor' in its key exchange" (and I understand that!).
ASP.NET Core Logging: What still works and what changed?
Eve Gelen Samsun Escort Bayan Sınırsız Hande
They claim to be immune to data rot:

http://www.mdisc.com/mdisc-technology/
I think the interesting point is that he has a fleet of cars that are all driving around coming across new situations.

These are fed into the big AI that figures out new rules, these rules are sent to the cars to see how they work.

So the AI is learning way faster than any human could, it is learning in parallel. We can only drive on car at a time.

And this is version 1.0 of AI, I do wonder how relevant humans will be when AI is learning everything in parallel . Robots, rovers, the internet, cars, factories, humans, weather stations, satellites, everything hooked up to these AIs who learn and learn and learn.

Just like a parent can watch a child and predict their mood, what they want, what will make them happy, how to control and manipulate them... won't the AIs do the same thing. Sometimes with our blessing. How useful will it be to have an AI keep an eye on paedophiles, monitor them, maybe with tactics to distract them and to engage them in some other way. Society likes that. Now how far will we push that? Will we allow the AI to almost re-program them? To make them better? The AI will understand the human brain, it will understand how to change triggers and behaviours (don't we already have therapists who do this?) ... do we allow this to happen?

Fake news ... wouldn't an AI be able to perform mass experiments on the population to see how to change the popular vote. Say a Trump supporter dislikes muslims, then some gentle persuasion by showing a more pro-muslim news feed .... would the government want to alter this behaviour. We currently try to do this with terrorists, with illegal activity by blocking pro-<insert illegal activity here> websites ... when do we move from blocking a site to actively promoting the other point of view?

An AI that is reading what we read, simulating what we think (are we so unique? Could a population be simulated with a few thousand different personality types?) ... simulate how we respond to certain news stories, what are triggers are.
It used to be the case. It isn't any longer.

It's one of the reasons that packaging got more annoying in recent years.

In addition to consumer preferences, the FDA called for a phase out in 2015: http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm372915.ht...
This project seems to be the culmination of a rhetorial question that the author posed a while ago: if the advice is 'don't roll your own crypto' [1], then how does any crypto ever come into being? [2]

So perhaps the marketing is off: I don't view this as a "small, secure, auditable, easy to use crypto library"; I view this as a practical and ongoing study in investigating how to make small, secure, auditable, easy-to-use crypto libraries. To be fair, the page mentions that it's "not ready for production" and needing external review a quarter of the way down, but if the point is to prove that a sufficiently dedicated individual can learn the material, endure some criticism, and produce quality software following the example of well-acclaimed experts, then own this point, bare your disclaimers in the beginning, and make it more prominent.

And once you phrase it that way -- which is arguably consistent with the author's previous posts (and HN comments) on the topic, it's suddenly a lot more palatable, and regardless of its ultimate outcome, I can only applaud.

[1] I use an interpretation of "don't roll your own crypto" that's slightly less circular than the author's. In my opinion, it's shorthand for 'defer to the opinion of experts, use ready-made constructs when possible, and if not, then exercise caution when hooking crypto primitives together in unproven ways'. Originally posted here: [3]

[2] http://loup-vaillant.fr/articles/rolling-your-own-crypto

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12400040
The disabled community is creating a virtual utopia in Second Life
>>but it doesn't mean it would be a successful product compared to other things currently on the market.

Why are you assuming said website needs to be successful on the market? Maybe it's a personal website or a hobby project.
That seems pretty obvious to me. But then, it's an old trope in SF, and I've read lots of SF.

I highly recommend Disappearing Through the Skylight: Culture & Technology in the Twentieth Century by O.B. Hardison Jr. (1989).
5 Reasons Why Online Bingo Sites Is So Popular
I like such tiny projects: you can drop .c and .h into your own project and have something useful ready-to-use. Thanks for sharing! For those asking, this is what distinguishes it from libsodium. Compared to NaCl or TweetNaCl, it has password hashing (Argon2), although, to be fair, I wouldn't recommend using non-optimized implementation of it, like in this library, for serious stuff.

Some notes:

- Let's call Ed25519 with BLAKE2b something like "Ed25519-BLAKE2b" to avoid confusion.

- crypto_chacha20_random is a confusing name, I'd prefer crypto_chacha20_stream

- Everyone uses "crypto_" for namespacing their libraries nowadays! Let's use something else to avoid collusions :)
Migration ban affects Bitcoin’s rate
Light Table IDE Roadmap – 2017
> The soda industry has poured over $67 million into defeating state and local efforts to regulate soft drink sales in the United States since 2009, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Why don't these companies just pivot harder towards diet sodas? Seems like a win-win.
knowing the frontend I can imagine how it looks beneath
> That's the medium - but how many bits of information, after compression, are exchanged in a conversation between humans?

We don't really know, but it is much more than 10 bits a second.

> He's saying that the amount of information contained in the combination of these human communication mechanisms can be compressed to about 10 bits per second.

No what he said is humans type, input text through a keyboard, on average at the speed of 10 bits a second.

> Imagine us talking for a minute, compressed to a movie script. Your wetware could easily use my expressions to come up with an estimate of my happiness, sincerity, confidence, truthfulness, sarcasm (and so on) on a scale of 1-10. These values might change from sentence to sentence. If you're very observant, in 60 seconds you might get 10 estimates for each of a dozen emotions with 3-bit fidelity from these observations - only a few bits per second of actual information transferred.

You're assuming all of our communication happens through our consciousness, which is just not true. People don't consciously evaluate each other's facial expressions and use formulas to draw a conclusion.

> I would perhaps speak 200 English words in that minute. 200 words, averaging 4.5 characters each, with a 20% compression ratio, is only on the order of 4 bytes per second. And most of that is overhead for grammar.

Most of the words people use are 'overhead for grammar'? Sorry, this is just false. Also keep in mind that human language is very complex, we do not understand how it works. Our processing of language does not happen in our consciousness.

> The medium is irrelevant. The question is how much information can be exchanged. And computers win that with no contest.

You have no idea how much information humans exchange. Your view of human thought and communication is very simplistic. These are things which we (bleeding edge science) do not understand yet. Furthermore, there is no contest because there is no purpose in any kind of contest, computers don't win or lose, they are used for different purposes.
Sure, gerrit has a learning curve.

When you end up using it for a long time, going back to pull requests is awful.

Its basic things:

- history of a PR - I cannot see the diff of last version of the patch and latest

- dependant changes - I need to do some work that depends on a patch someone else is working on. This can't be done in github.

- clean history - no "added tests", "fixed docs typo" etc commits

I learnt recently that most people don't use git-review[0] - and yeah, if you are manually doing the "git push gerrit ref/for/master" crap, it's really annoying. but git review and repo were written to help that.

0 - http://docs.openstack.org/infra/git-review/
Sadhguru is okay but I personally wouldn't take him as a template for my own path.

I find that Buddhist teachers tend to hold greater depth of teaching.
We already have better memory than before. Images, video, facebook timeline (I can go back 5 years and see a conversation between me and 20 other people)
You obviously didn't read the article. There is no way for you to actually do that. And the secure platforms themselves have NDAs around their specs and software tooling.

So yeah, there is a reason they didn't do that. The hardware they're using specifically makes it difficult to do the verification you want to do. Which is directly related to foiling the kind of attacks they want to foil.

> If you want to convince yourself the product is secure, that's up to you, but it's not

I think we have the same goal, but you have a conviction that open source stops "obvious back doors." It in no way would help that at all in this case. The hardware is configured before it is shipped, then locked in a way designed to prevent rewriting or inspection. You have no rational basis for the belief that the source code on a website and the binary a malicious and deceptive actor would deploy to the hardware are the same thing.

Being open source only affects the way security auditing can be done. It doesn't guarantee better quality.