skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"the assignment syntax "x=x+1" must be especially confusing to high-school kids"

Many other comments already discussing this, but I have to add this. I don't think that has ever confused more than a handful of high school students because you are almost certainly bringing an understanding of "=" that you acquired at a much higher level of math.

For a lot of students, "=" isn't even what you would consider the "equality" operator... it's the simplify operator. That is:

2 + 2 = ____

has, for them, One and Precisely One answer. (You know this to be true, because your brain has already supplied that answer, and you already know that "3 + 1" is not an acceptable thing to put in that blank, even if a later understanding swoops in to say "Well, yes it is..." You still first knew the One and Precisely One answer.) So it's not the "equality" operator for them.

(I will give this kudo to Common Core, it tries much harder to avoid grinding the "simplify" definition into children's heads than older curricula.)

I don't think they get much collision with the "simplify" operator while programming because the contexts are too different.

I'd also submit that the conception of mathematical statements existing timelessly in some abstract math space would be foreign to them, and it is not hard for them to develop the "intuition" that "x = x + 1" is simply a statement that "after" this statement x will be one greater.

The only people who have trouble with "x = x + 1" are mathematicians trained to a very particular formal level, where they understand the idea of equality more deeply than a high school student but still haven't noticed that operators and formalisms change between branches of math all the time and insisting on your precise definition of an operator hasn't yet inhibited you from understanding the branches of math that redefine it themselves. Granted, no branch of math uses a definition that looks like the imperative programming version (even mathematical formalizations of imperative programming tend not to use = for assignment from what I can recall), but it's still just one more definition in a constellation of definitions, not the uniquely odd one out. You're going to have a hard time with homotopy type theory if you insist on your conventional = definition, for instance.
How to Produce 7-Figures in Ecommerce Sales, on Amazon
I love the fact that there is a tool for detecting any collision using this algorithm:
https://github.com/cr-marcstevens/sha1collisiondetection

and it's super effective: The possibility of false positives can be neglected as the probability is smaller than 2^-90.

It's also interesting that this attack is from the same author that detected that Flame (the nation-state virus) was signed using an unknown collision algorithm on MD5 (cited in the shattered paper introduction).
I don't know enough specifics about sha-1 or bit torrent, but it would seem to me that it depends on the data that is chosen for the base ("leaves") of the tree: if it just consists in taking the hashes, concatenating them, and move higher until you only have one hash, then yes.

However, if the data itself is concatenated for the first step, that might not be the case (depending on the sha-1 algorithm). I seem to recall that md5 operates on 512 bit chuncks (padded if necessary), and takes the result to seed the next computation. So, with md5 (if I recall correctly, still), the attack could work if each part of the torrent was a multiple of 512 bits, Merkel or not, and regardless of the base.
Of course, you cannot change the whole torrent in that case, as it would be prohibitively expensive. And you still have to keep the same file size.

I would love to hear a bit more on the topic from someone more knowledgeable about hashes and torrents.
Peer review does not imply reproducibility, and it's the latter that is the problem.

I can confirm, as a reviewer, that your methodology and analysis looks sensible, but the flaws may be deeper, and the fact that you didn't publish the 19 other studies that failed, but that this is the "lucky one", or that you simply cherry picked the data, is not something I can see as a reviewer.

This is especially true if the experiment is nontrivial to re-do.
This is ego, politics and career ambitions undermining modern science. Unfortunately, the fact that this is occurring so rampantly will bolster anti-intellectuals and give them a very potent argument to point to when presented with facts. This is a systemic failure of basic ethics that will hurt us all. The success-at-all-cost career mindset is toxic in all tracks, but this is one of the most dangerous for it to take hold in.
I wonder if paying grad students to write a more full paper that includes all the steps and the negative results would help. It wouldn't be something that is published right away, and perhaps it wouldn't need to be published. Maybe it would simply be a follow-up to the original paper. It would be a "proof" of sorts, provided by the authors. There are many students out there that would happily do this, I think. I know so many that clamor for even the slightest bit of work in their departments. I think it would also be beneficial to their future, teaching them about reproducibility and impressing upon them to continue this practice down the road. The current climate of publish-or-perish isn't going away anytime soon, and neither are the clean, pretty papers with only positive results. And that's fine. Those are the quick highlights. But the full studies still need to be out there, and I think this could potentially be a way to approach that necessity.
What I learnt from 12 months off alcohol
You might also consider AWS batch. It's designed for this type of use case.
PPE: the Oxford degree that runs Britain
A lot of it is people over hyping their results and cherry picking their data to fit a narrative. Can you blame them? You can literally build a career off a paper or two published in Science or Nature.

Meanwhile, no one controlling funding sources or faculty appointments cares that you did amazing, rigorous work if it leads to less interesting conclusions. This is especially true if you generate null results, even though this work may have advanced your field. This puts in place a dangerous incentive system.

Another thing which is not mentioned is that the level of detail provided in many methods sections in papers is not sufficient for adequately reproducing the work. This can be due to word limit constraints or because people forget to include or aren't aware of key steps which are impacting their results. I've been on projects where seemingly irrelevant steps in our assay prep significantly impacted the resulting experiment outcomes.
>> The attacker needed access to the phone.

Yeah, he clearly says he had to side load that thing, and yet near the top of the story he says this:

'With a single SMS message, this spy had remotely activated the microphone in my smartphone, turning it into a portable and surreptitious eavesdropping device.'

That kind of implies that is how this thing was installed, but that's not really how it worked.
Haha, I am very well. Yourself? Hit me up on Twitter @jmulder to catch up!
One answer is that there isn't one Uber.

The first Uber is the ride-sharing Uber, which is on a trajectory that either will or won't turn first-mover advantage into an Amazon-like dominance.

The other Uber is self-driving vehicle R&D. Not the same people, and probably not the same culture.
No.

Linus' answer is correct, as far as it goes, but the threats he considers are only a subset of the real problems.

Laying aside the fact that this attack isn't the one you need to attack a hit repo, and recognizing that the theoretical weakness of SHA-1 (that has been known since (IIRC) before the conception of git) has now become a practical weakness

If an attacker can forge an arbitrary part of a git tree, then if they can poison an upstream repo (we are presuming a motivated attacker given the costs involved), then they can undetectably compromise anyone downstream that clones the repo.

Linus describes in 2006 a trust model where you don't trust remote repos more than your local repo. This isn't how git is used by most users today
You cannot unilaterally change the license on someone else's work. A lot of images on DeviantArt are under very restrictive licenses.

I'm assuming they will present an option for artists to allow their work to be used on Wix sites in exchange for royalties, with the middleman taking a percentage of said royalties.
Then this smallest piece must also change the file type to an executable, and contain a meaningful payload.
How much extra time investment does it take you to do that?
Save Costs: Track Your NPS
> hard to get away with ugly, intrusive ads

Deviantart has click-through ads that overlay the content on mobile and a big bright banner for registered users if they are using an adblocker.

It seems they are already getting away with ugly and intrusive.
For what it's worth I see the same thing in enterprise app development.

We've been doing a lot of data visualization and it often happens that someone comes to me with a thinly veiled task that's really to prove this or that person/process is at fault for delaying a project or something.

Sometimes though the numbers either don't support their opinion or even show a result they don't like and so inevitably they have me massage the graphs and filters until they see a result that looks how they want it to and that's what gets presented at various meetings and email chains.

The information at that point isn't wrong per se, just taken out of context and shown in a persuasive (read: propaganda) rather than informative way.
You're over dramatizing.

The human brain is very good at interpreting things in context and it's really trivial for even middle school kids to understand that `=` in math is different from `=` in programming.

Do you want an example of something that beginner programmers struggle with? Pointers.
1 KB = 1024 Bytes? No, 1 KB = 1000 Bytes (2008)
That price equation probably only holds for new or used luxury cars or within major cities. A cheap beater or something like a new Kia would likely be more cost effective for commuting over the life of the vehicle in my estimation.
Timing mats are usually placed at the same distance in every race: 5k, 10k, 13.1mi, etc. Adding extra mats probably means more cost.

That didn't prevent the 2016 Philadelphia Marathon organizers from placing an unannounced mat at a turnaround point 22 miles into the race. It helped them catch hundreds of cheaters.

And even if you can afford the extra mats, another challenge is where to place them. It's obvious with an out-and-back course, but there are many shortcut opportunities on every loop path, and you can't place a mat at every apex.
You could replace a single chunk with your malware. Then it could be any size and the rest of the chunks could be the legit content. I don't know much about video codecs, but this assumes there's some way to break out of the playback and run your malicious code. Maybe a buffer overflow, or maybe if your malware is the first chunk of the file you could get it to run first somehow before the video?

Or even better, torrents of apps sometimes come with an executable that you run to crack the DRM (so I hear). You could swap that out undetected, and you can probably also convince people they have to run it with sudo.
I know enough biology to be skeptical of papers like that (although, I admit I was skeptical when papers from the 50s predicted interplanetary mass transport, and didn't change my mind until we found Martian meteorites). I'd like to see actual evidence of this.

I actually think the rock getting into space with the microbe embedded in it is not that unlikely (many rocks in the earth are laced with bacteria), nor the space transport. I think the excessive heat of rentry, the force of impact, and the difference in target ecosystems are what are going to kill the microbes.
GitHub starred
I bought that as an ebook on Amazon but it got remotely deleted for 'copyright' reasons from my kindle so I never got to read it. Is there something about listening devices in it?
But instead, they injected torrents into a torrent tracker and then DoS'd it when the files were removed. https://web.archive.org/web/20080530115944/http://revision3....
Lohalo, a better way to communicate around your location
I think they started their life as a crowdfunding platform but then pivoted to focus on payments. I remember seeing their logo on the ESPN fantasy football site a year or so ago, so I assume they struck a partnership deal for leagues to collect their dues. As someone else has suggested above, the appeal to AirBnB is probably acquiring the tech to make it easier for large groups to split costs.
Distributed orchestration and consensus discovery /w low bandwidth signal protocol
Where can one find a generic introspection query that can be used to produce output this tool will accept?
> more meaningful than spending one's time working for a company whose primary purpose is getting people to click on ads.

This nonsense needs to stop. That's not how "meaning" works.

Marketing and advertising are one of the primary drivers of the economy and very likely the reason the company you work for is successful in staying in business, finding customers and paying you. It's also the primary business model behind several of the largest companies on the planet and funds an immense amount of content across the web for everyone.

The advertising industry is not full of evil hackers running scams. It has some of the brightest people working on challenging problems and has driven several other sectors forward, including software development and database technologies that are often discussed here on HN and used for many other ventures.

There is no inherent ranking of morality, it takes all kinds of jobs and people to make this world go around. Claiming otherwise is shortsighted and simplistic at best, and never leads to good discussion.
Oh, hey, your comment was fine! Don't worry, you didn't do anything wrong. :)

My comment immediately above wasn't directed at you at all. I replied to @cammio who said only "troll" in response to me. His commment did get flagged and was later killed. I suspect when that happens, some people can't see the dead comment, depending on their profile settings. My comment was getting upvoted until the one I replied to got killed, and then it started getting downvoted, so I was suspecting other people also couldn't tell what I had replied to and mistook it for you. I should have quoted what I was replying to. C'est la vie.
I'm in the former Bell Atlantic footprint, so Verizon.
why isn't alexa scrubbing the data or anonymising it?

So that if you're a parent and Amazon ships you a doll house, you can figure out whether it was ordered by you, your partner, your child, a TV presenter, or an Amazon mistake.
Not if you sign with an ideal cryptography hash. (Rather than spend expensive compute on signing the whole message, you create a hash, and sign that.)

The big news here is that SHA1 is now definitively not a cryptographically secure hash.
I remember spending many hours browsing dA back way back when. There are so many art/design/etc communities now that I'm sure it's getting more difficult to retain users.
In the physical sciences experiments can be enormously expensive to run and doing them "continuously" is impractical. Groundbreaking work is usually verified independently, but it varies across fields. E.g. physics is usually quite careful about reproducing new physics before accepting it, while in the biological sciences it seems that work isn't always reproduced.
I've heard before (could be made-up) that instant noodles in dried form is, while enjoyable, basically indigestible and devoid (even moreso than if cooked) of nutritional content
Har to tell, as i fear that Xorg will slip further and further behind as "everyone" goes for the new shiny.
I had the same reaction.

I could totally see them taking all the CC licenses and open it up as a stock image repository. This could go two ways.

One, they open it up and its a total free for all, and as a Wix user, I can just go take someone's images and use them on my site royality free, which is downright scary.

Two, they take control of all the work that's under CC, involve the artists and offer them a percentage of the profit to use their art for their websites. Or cut out the artists entirely, which I could also see happening. You have huge opportunity to drive a ton of revenue from the stuff that's already on DA.
"all you have to do is read the methods section in the paper and follow the instructions."

I wish science was that simple. The methods section only contains variables the authors think worth controlling, and in reality you never know, and the authors never know.

Secondly, I wish people say: "I replicated the methods and got a solid negative result" instead of "I can't replicate this experiment". Because most of the time, when you are doing an experiment you never done, you just fuck it up.

Here is an example: we are studying memory using mice. Mice don't remember that well if they are anxious. Here are variables we have to take care of to keep the mice happy, but they are never going to go to the methods section:

Make sure the animal facility haven't cleaned their cages.

But make sure the cage is otherwise relative clean.

Make sure they don't fight each other.

Make sure the (usually false) fire alarm hasn't sound for 24 hours.

Make sure the guy who was installing microscope upstairs has finished producing noise.

Make sure there is no irrelevant people talking/laughing loudly outside the behaviour space.

Make sure the finicky equipment works.

Make sure the animals love you.

The list can go on.

Because if one of this happens, the animals are anxious, then they don't remember, and you got a negative result which have nothing to do with your experiment (although you may not notice this). That's why if your lab just start to do something you haven't done for years, you fail. And replicating other people's experiment is hard.

A positive control would help to make sure your negative result is real, but for some experiments a good positive control can be a luxury.
Cool, so by your definition of right, heterosexual supremacy, male dominance, slavery, racism, are all right because a majority guided by convenience and traditional beliefs thinks it's right.
Google Cousin Develops Technology to Flag Toxic Online Comments
The newest SHA members are based on sponge functions. http://keccak.noekeon.org/ gives a good overview.
I see, the classic example of tunnel vision where if you're carpenter everything looks like a nail? I hadn't thought of that reason, maybe it explains part of the rational.

But even though critique is important FB has a lot to be proud of with their leadership in open source. I know some people have qualms with the license but in general I think they've inspired other companies go more in this direction.
People do exploits by changing 1 bit! I'm sure you can distribute malware using just one chunk, given some cleverness.
That's very short sighted. He's exactly the kind of person we need influencing Trump.
I suppose the definitive example of this would be the Watergate scandal [1], which led to the coining of the phrase "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal
On the Milo Bus with the Lost Boys of America’s New Right
First, I can't imagine Lucas was confused between the two words. Second, in reply to your point, midichlorians were not used to judge someone's suitability for ruling, and even if they had been that would be a societal attribute of a fictional setting - not a prescription for reality. They were simply a scientific measure of force sensitivity, at least as depicted in the movie. Would it be wrong in your view to associate bigger lungs with increased breath capacity? Again, that is merely a physical attribute.
This only works if the attacker controls both sides, or at least a piece of both sides. That's a collision attack, and it's much easier than a pre-image or second pre-image attack which tries to match an existing hash.
"I asked if they considered to pay the driver more? [...] He then added that I must realize that they were not competing with Taxis for the drivers, but rather with Walmart."

https://www.alexkras.com/my-interview-at-uber/
> I do not know a single person who doesn't ship items with friends.

Huh? Where/in what culture is that? I don't think I know anyone who does ship items with friends with any kind of frequency. I think I've shipped an item with a friend once in my life (a figurine that I could only find on sale in the US), and there are proxy buyer services that cover that use case in a much easier (and safer for them) way.
I deleted my twitter because it's a distracting insular tire fire, however, I'll find you on FB. :)
You can get gnucash for free.

That aside there are hundreds of competitors. It has to be the most saturated software market.
Bullguard Antivirus Activation Key 2017 Crack Full Version Download
" Peer review does not imply reproducibility, and it's the latter that is the problem."

I think this is the key to it, I'm suggesting that reproducibility should be part of considering something peer-reviewed, but of course as currently practised, that isn't true.

Of course in a software metaphor, that would probably cover both code review and QA, which is sometimes done by a different job role which further muddies the water.
> will bolster anti-intellectuals and give them a very potent argument to point to when presented with facts

Case in point: the very first thing I thought of is, does this have any relevance to the field of climate science!

So....does it? Because we're told the reason we have to get on board with the program is because the people telling us the facts are scientists, and scientists are smart and trustworthy. However, we know this is not always true, don't we.

So what is a deliberately skeptical person to think?
An experiment should be reproducible. The fact that there exist many experiments that are not reproducible is not a problem and, as the parent post indicates, the fact that these experiments are being discovered as non-reprodicible is a good thing.

This is science at work. The system is error-correcting itself in real-time. We are already seeing laboratories devise new approaches and innovations that will, over time, reduce non-reproducibility errors. The "reproducibility crisis" -- isn't a crisis at all. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with science.

Historians of science will find this era amusing though. When the reproducibility crisis was limited to psychology and the "soft sciences" nobody really took it serious, in fact many people leaped at the opportunity to point out that these sciences aren't "washy." Now, interestingly enough, we're seeing essentially everything but physics (the 'hardest', but really the 'simplest' and most 'stable') science suffer the same fate and this idea of science as a socio-historical process is finally starting to sink in. It only took a good 80 years but here we are.
Code for Densely Connected Convolutional Networks (DenseNets)
I would argue that Go is very much a 90s language. It has none of the benefits of a 21st century language, none of the (as yet mostly unknown) drawbacks of a 21st century language, and fixes the drawbacks of 90s languages that we've learned over the last 25 years.

This definitely should not be interpreted as a slight on Go, many people would very happily trade that lack of benefits to get that lack of drawbacks.