skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Part of the reason people trust him is that he is a tech genius who has done things the experts had agreed were impossible.

On the other hand, the Koch brothers attack Musk as a fraud.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/04/elon-musk...

Perhaps you're with them?
Taxing investment income is totally separate money. That's just saying "we raised some taxes...".

The fees for self funded plans are a joke. Seriously go look them up. They amount to less than $10 per person on those plan (per year) and on top of that the majority of it is set to be phased out or already did.
Riot. Break through
The test mentions he ran Firefox using 2, 4 and 8 content processes. Does this mean that Firefox does not use 1 process per tab like Chrome does?
> How would one otherwise be "sure it has not been infected"? Any feasible ways?

If you are willing to assume they aren't infecting every computer. Walk into a random brick and mortar store and buy it there.

If you're paranoid to the point where you don't trust the people at a random brick and mortar store, point at a display model (or if they have non-display models visible one of those) and insist on that one in particular, without it leaving your sight at any point in time.
You would think so, but taking into account fees, there are actually ZERO funds that beat the market over a 30 year period. You can research this on morningstar. Maybe there are some super secret private funds out there that beat the market over the long period (Madoff's fund was one of them).

So ya, you would think they wouldn't stay in business, but marketing and complexity is powerful.

Their best trick is to hold a ton of funds in their portfolio then show you the ones that have had a good run the last 10 years. Then of course a different ten in a few years. Hold enough assets in enough configurations and of course you will have some winners over shorter periods of time. But good luck guessing which ones.
Somehow, the GOP can't stop making the case for single-payer stronger by the day.
Thanks for the reply, good to know.

Is there a current roadmap anywhere I can view? I looked at the Google Group for Nomad but the last roadmap post I saw was 0.4.
I always been curious about surfactants and whether you could throw some underneath yourself in a free fall to break up the surface tension in a splash landing.
Because it's not necessary. If a Turing-complete programming language can't be expressive enough without a Turing-complete metalanguage, then it's probably not designed very well.

What next? Will we start seeing meta-metalanguages because, hey, it makes compilation less error-prone (but adds something we'll call pre-compilation)?
>Also, if one of the systems is attacked, or has some sort of crisis that requires assistance (plague, natural disaster, etc), the rest of the civilization would be unable to react in a timely manner. In short, it's safer to stick together.

This is incorrect. This is the "all your eggs in one basket" problem: if you have a big crisis in your civilization, you don't want everyone in one place, because your whole civilization could get wiped out. A civilization this advanced is likely also a very large civilization, so it makes more sense for it to have different parts in different places, just in case.

As for communications, as the other responder pointed out, a continuous transmission, assuming the data rate is high enough, will help keep the different locations in sync. Who cares if scientists independently discover things? Hopefully a civilization that advanced won't be so worried about patent rights.

As for "hopping around" looking for life, you'll do a whole lot better keeping your civilization in one place (or a few permanent locations better yet) and sending probes or exploration teams to a bunch of different places at once. Moving your entire civilization to only one star system at a time would be horribly slow, and sticking everyone in a giant death star means your energy requirements for transporting your civilization between stars would be ridiculous.

A fleet civilization wouldn't have any advantages besides mobility. You only need that if you have something you're trying to get away from, or have a well-founded concern that staying in one particular place could be dangerous. For Battlestar Galactica, it made sense because they were constantly being chased by the Cylons, and even then, the show did a pretty good job, at least at first, of showing what a PITA it is constantly being on the move. For a large, highly advanced civilization that doesn't have a bunch of genocidal robots chasing it, I just don't see how there's any advantage to remaining highly mobile. Mobility requires a lot of energy and greatly limits you in other ways. For a modern analogy, look at people today who live in RVs. Sure, they can drive their whole home away quickly and don't have to worry much about packing up to move, but they don't have much space, their home is easily damaged compared to normal dwellings, and it costs a lot to move it (because of the poor fuel economy). The only way living in starships makes any sense is if energy is basically free for you, which includes having a way to store immense quantities of it, because you'll need a lot when you're between stars.
Generics in Rust are supposed to be used as generics, not really for metaprogramming like this (but you can, but it won't be pleasant).

But Rust has a hygenic higher-level macro system that helps.

On top of that, Rust is getting procedural macros. Right now this is limited to `#[derive()]` macros, but we want it to cover all cases. This means that you can write a macro that runs arbitrary rust code at compile time.

(While it currently is limited to `#[derive()]` macros you can abuse the API to make it work for inline bang-macros as well)
Alternatively: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_bounce
Riot is a pretty well known service around here, I don't think the home page needs to be a submission.
I am already struggling right at the beginning.

If we open a book on set theory, we will find a proof of Cantor’s theorem which shows explicitly that for every map e : A → P(A) there is a subset of A outside its image, namely S = { x ∈ A ∣ x ∉ e(x) }

What about e(x) = { x }? In that case S would be the empty set, wouldn't it? Does map imply some additional properties in this case? Am I misunderstanding the statement and it does not try to imply that S is non-empty for every e?
Oh, good point, yes, privacybadger and ublockorigin
This can be done manually using flashrom [1] tool to read (and write) the SPI (and not only SPI) flash and UEFITool [2] to unpack the corresponding image. I've even done some patching for better support of Intel platforms here [3]. Now doesn't have much time to rebase/cleanup/improve it, but hopefully someone will start from where I've finished. Both tools clearly need more love, and I hope current revelations will help to do that.

[1] http://flashrom.org/

[2] https://github.com/LongSoft/UEFITool/tree/new_engine (use 'new_engine' branch)

[3] https://github.com/XVilka/flashrom/tree/layout_descriptor (use 'layout_descriptor' branch)
How much memory is it with mutt, or Alpine.. or let's be fair, Thunderbird?
It doesn't make sense for Apple to enforce sandboxing at the store level, since it merely incents developers to distribute outside the store. And some apps that remain in the store have a worse UX, like not having certain capabilities, or requiring a helper app, which is a horrible solution.

Instead, permissions should be implemented at the OS layer, not just for Mac app store apps. Here's how it would work:

- An app could specify a list of permissions, like on Android.

- One of the permissions would be "unrestricted", which is equivalent to today's unsandboxed apps.

- The first time you try to run an app that requires unrestricted permission, macOS will tell you the app could be dangerous and ask for confirmation. This is similar to how Gatekeeper warns about unsigned apps, but here the focus is on what the app can do, not who made it.

- If a legacy app didn't specify a list of permissions, it would be treated as "unrestricted".

That way, there's no incentive for developers to leave the Mac app store. Security is increased for all users, no matter where they download the apps from. This mechanism doesn't restrict the power of the platform, what developers can do.
I find it interesting that the author's male employee had such a terrible experience - but I'm a man named "Lyndsy", and I have never had such an experience.
Yeah, good point, though the new macbook is just the standard Air RAM, and it seems fine.
That's entirely besides the point. The fact that they're trying to get that information at all is offensive
I wasn't aware that Morningstar had publicly available hedge fund performance data. What do they show for Renaissance's Medallion Fund over the last 29 years?
I think you'd be right, but I'd guess that we'll be failing as a civilization before the worst privations can come to pass. War, chaos, and dissolution is more likely our future, fueled by climate change and global conflict.
As implemented, yes, sandbox is a hindrance. But it could be implemented better: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13844014
He's objecting to the "in practice rarely useful" bit.
The point of the competition wouldn't be a cash prize to encourage innovation. The point of the competition would be a public display of competing technologies so the winner gets bragging rights which it can likely turn into sales. You could feasibly make money from televising the event, but it would be trivial compared to being the automaker with the best self-driving technology.

Companies like McLaren and Ferrari made their brands by winning races and they make most of their money selling sports cars. Now imagine you're appealing to a demographic 100x larger and everybody wants self-driving technology, but they don't understand it well enough to know what to buy. There is a natural tendency for people to want "the best" and for people to associate prestige with trophies. If the event were properly marketed, I'd say the winner would make an enormous amount of money in sales. And it would definitely do wonders for brand loyalty.

That's why companies would be excited to participate. The public gets the advantage of a (hopefully) impartial competition to see how the technologies perform.
So the first thing done when seizing a computer storage devices is to hook it up to a device that read only capabilities and make 1 to 1 copies.

https://www.digitalintelligence.com/products/forensic_duplic...

This is done for chain of custody reasons but would also effectively circumvent your security.

You need to have your storage medium self destruct if it is hooked up to a system other than the one it was paired with.

This system would have to rely on the logic board of the storage device so you would have to harden that so that a swap of the logic board also renders the storage device inoperable.
> We're interested in the common case, which requires years of empirical observation.

You, perhaps. I'm interested in how much things can be simplified. It's a different kind of experiment: “If we prioritize simplicity and correctness, and say to hell with every other consideration, what kinds of programs can we write?”

> Deductive proofs (with Isabelle, PVS, Coq etc.) is used only to tie together results of automated methods, or fill in the holes where automated methods have failed.

I count fancy proof assistants among those technologies I don't want to have to trust anymore. When I read a proof script full of complicated tactics, my eyes glazeth over.

> I don't think anyone believes that "ordinary" non-high-assurance real software (aside from certain very small core components) would be verified by deductive proof any time in the next few decades.

If “real world software” presupposes this attitude of not wanting to do things the right way, I'm not terribly interested in it.

> But software requirements aren't for 100% confidence in correctness, if only because you don't get anywhere near that with the hardware the software is running on.

Hardware failure is Not My Problem (tm). I just want it not to be my fault when things go wrong.

> What the formal methods community is really interested in these days is how to reduce the cost of verification required to achieve current (and near-future) correctness requirements.

As I told other people, I'm not interested in “communities”.
Another lesson in the unintended consequences of prohibition.
>Side question: the last time I watched broadcasts coming out of my unassociated iPhone, it was specifically asking for certain SSIDs. The set seemed somewhat random (I've joined all of them, but not recently), and I don't think any of them had ever been hidden networks.

IOS, like the linux's NetworkManager (and probably whatever android, didn't check), just assume that the AP could be hidden and try to connect to it anyway. Those people, that did something as stupid as that(for "user convenience"), later implemented MAC randomization in their network managers. Windows has a checkbox for hidden networks.

>Are these broadcasts viable for tracking (it seems like they would be)? Is there anything I can do as a user to mitigate the effects (other than turning off WiFi)?

Yes. No. MAC address randomization helps somewhat, as per glancing at pdf.

All in all just fire up airodump-ng and see for yourself.
Will have prolog make easier to implement the type system in a language? ie: I have base language (F#, for example) and wanna implement a new one, I do the type system on F#.

If instead I add to the mix prolog, (or a prolog interpreter?) this will help a lot, or not worth the effort?
I have gmail opened, about 500 megs.
So they watched Chuck on NBC?
Developing a bicycle simulator (linux, windows.)

http://stolk.org/tlbtc/
No.

I wrote a small Rails project a while back and along with it small non-Rails utility that made used a couple of generic modules (mail, config). Both the Rails project and the utility bit-rotted faster than anything anything that I ever written. Ruby, the language, is pleasant, and you can write beautiful, terse, expressive code. Functional constructs are nice, etc. Soured me on Ruby, I am afraid. I liked Perl too, and Ruby is not that different.

Python... I don't care for the significant whites space. lambda is crippled because it has to fit into a single line, tertiary operator is weird, and compressions reads backwards to me. Haskell has the same problem. It is nice how you can start with a class, then wrap attribute access later. Writing a simple new style class is verbose. The version 2 to 3 was rough, not sure if it's done by now. There is a lot of libraries, some parts of the standard library are nice.

JavaScript to me is mess with classes being bolted on, different ways to build an object, different ways to handle errors, different ways to handle callbacks. The write it once and run it either in browser and server ignores that version differences (i.e. what is the crappiest browser you have to support), and in general that environment is different. node.js with the async is an interesting experiment. To me it becomes difficult to read and reason about. To me, it was surprisingly difficult, to write a small sync util in node.js. There is a metric ton of libraries. I quite like JavaScript, but to me its becoming complex (as in C++) instead of burning off the bad parts (as in C). The language will be around "forever" due to the web, so that is what I use if possible.
I use priority inbox, so 100-150 emails a page. I keep a gmail always open, but even opening a new tab with gmail gets up to 750MB within a few seconds. I have a lot of extensions (40-50), latest ubuntu and chrome 56.
I don't think you can any more, because the AIA changed that. (IANAL, get real legal advice if this matters to you.)

https://www.fredlaw.com/news__media/2014/01/13/521/aias_elim...

=====

In 2011, Congress passed sweeping patent law legislation, called the America Invents Act (AIA). The AIA changed many aspects of U.S. patent law, including the consequences of failing to disclose in your patent application the “best mode” you are aware of for practicing the invention. Traditionally, if you failed to disclose the best mode in your patent application, then that could be grounds for invalidating the resulting patent. The AIA changed this; no longer can patents be invalidated for failing to include the best mode. The AIA, however, did not change the basic legal requirement that inventors and patent applicants must disclose the best mode in their patent applications. In effect, the AIA left untouched the best mode requirement, but eliminated the punishment, or at least the main punishment, for failing to comply with the requirement.
Trade secrets and patents are roughly each others opposite. A patent is something you disclose to stake a claim in order to either license the tech or to use it in some other strategic way. A trade secret is something your company knows, does not disclose and guards as much as possible from becoming public knowledge (for instance, through NDA's with those employees that will be given access to that knowledge).

Examples of each:

- patent: Dyson's patent on their vacuum cleaner technology

- trade secret: The formulation of Coca Cola

So no, they are not related at all, and this does not risk Google having their patents invalidated.
But clearly people are reading it.

Welcome to clickbait.
132 Android Apps Infected with Windows-Based Malware via Webview (iframes)
“Interview with Adrian Lee”
oh no way! Whuddup loggers. I was there in 2005.
I had to keep rechecking which color was which. I suggest using two colors (you vs them) and two symbols (magic vs attack).
Zero tolerance is the problem: even with zero privacy it's not possible to perfectly predict actions of people because they are often irrational.
100 million hours of video played per day. Are people actually watching this video or are they just inflating the number?
I took an interest in programming in high-school and ran into Todd (mentioned in the article) in the lobby of an online first-person shooter. The topic of programming came up, and I explained where was at in this whole coding-thing.

After a few games, Todd gave me a challenge:
Thoroughly understand multilevel pointers, and then explain it back. In doing that, there would be a cash reward.

Hell yeah! So, I studied. Eventually, something clicked and I was able to answer those interview-style questions he threw at me. I ran the whole “money from a video game” thing past my parents, and Todd followed through on his promise. That small gesture fueled an understanding that projected into a career.

Interesting article, it's worth a read; there are good people behind it. Thanks again.
Let them try.

http://securedrives.co.uk/

I mean physical destruction of the NAND gates... just kill it with a "hammer" kind of destroyed. Set it up so it's a fail-deadly switch, and there you go.

Obviously don't keep your family photos on it.
Do you mean to say a finite ring? "Pure" integer arithmetic in math (without any notion of overflow or wrapping) is a ring also, so I'm not sure what distinction you're making by saying "in hardware".
Strutshock: Apache Struts 2 Remote Code Execution
Those fools leaving their DNA all over everything. Didn't they watch Gattaca and remember the part about your whole world being torn apart by a strand of hair?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca
But a solid strategy seems to be to pick the enemies attacks when they are just two blocks, and wait for your own to align up to more than 4. That combined with a strategy of exploring the entire level (and thereby healing) makes the game almost too easy.

That said, it was more low stress fun than I've had in a while. I find myself playing games for stress relief, and I have a tendency to play on the harder levels so it stops being "fun" after a while. I was playing metro 2033 recently, and while a nice game/story I don't really enjoy it that much because the sudden appearance of fast moving monsters that are hard to kill with limited ammo is just to much. I guess I should drop the difficulty but that seems like cheating. Games like that should have a better sliding scale for how well your playing and adjust so the player doesn't have to reload 10 times...
Hence the ad-hoc part. I don't think people go into writing a type checker and type inferencer thinking they're gonna re-implement Prolog.
This is neat! I recently worked on something similar (on a much smaller scale!) for a low resolution bitmap font. The code is a hack but basically takes pixels in a GIMP file, converts them to vectors, and eventually spits out a TrueType font file. Of course, this result is primitive and has none of the cool features listed on your page!

https://github.com/rndmem/mem-font
When you have the kind of money and influence that the NSA and CIA have, you probably do both.

As for other friendly and less-friendly nations, I'd be very surprised to learn that there weren't any other nations represented in the ranks of Intel engineers.
Boss, 'News doesn't even ping uBlock Origin as having anything truly objectionable. You run a wonderful website that I have been privileged to contribute to. In contrast, some of the other places on the web I've visited that have auto-playing ads & auto-playing rich media have made my browser explode due to my rural broadband which you've heard me whine about. I pretty much have had to have uBlock Origin installed lately to keep four or more tabs open even on my Xubuntu 16.04 box.
I don't understand the logic behind your statement, but yes ff doesn't use 1 process per tab atm. They plan to change this situation this year so that they can support wasm better.
I misinterpreted what you meant by a "short lived experiment". I took that to basically mean any project when you're starting out. My apologies.

Whenever I'm experimenting I rarely need a burst of 100 instances, it's usually 1 or 2 instances to run things and I prefer to run them on my own hardware.
In contrast, I still end up using a dedicated client for such things whether on the phone or on the desktop. That still responds better than trying to handle such through the browser. Sylpheed works wonderful on the desktop and K-9 Mail on the phone.

Of course, then again, I technically have multiple presences from Google's perspective as I'm technically a student at the moment too. The school's e-mail is handled by Google Apps. Handling that all through a client is easier than trying to flip between browser pages that I can't keep straight.
I understand the quoting now, thanks. I agree with you that its not technically a currency since it's not issued and circulated by a government but I disagree with the OP that it is not ready to be a "store of value" because of a single volatility event.

There are many who would argue it is a good store of value since it can't be manipulated by the issuing state's monetary policy or susceptible to the poor fiscal management of the issuing state.
Sure, they watched it, ate popcorn, and felt better about their lives by comparison. Most people don't watch things like that for the lesson, they're just entertained. The rest of us find it hard to believe, but go to a NASCAR rally sometime... you'll see. There are all kinds of people there, but there are vast swathes of... fools. Fools who you could never hope to reach or educate, even if they wanted you to do, which they vehemently don't.
This is like when you see looting on television, where windows are smashed, things stolen, other stuff just thrown on the ground for no reason. Things set on fire.

I don't think people realize the magnitude of the problem here. This is a Category 5 situation. They're pouring gasoline on important institutions that will take decades to rebuild, and the costs are going to be staggering.
The Story of Presumi: a reflection and manifesto on my first startup