skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Free speech is a classic example of rights with responsibilities. There are a certain class of rights in which you should be able to exercise but should generally have the good sense of knowing the appropriate time to exercise them. But, as you've said, this has been warped into "I have the right to say whatever nonsense I want and I am completely justified in doing so."
'Spinning sail' rebooted to cut fuel and make ocean tankers greener
I feel like the argument against #2 is usually purely hypothetical in nature. I really do not have a problem maintaining a small lookup cache for revocations. I feel like the argument against doing this tries to take the form of all server-side kept state is bad when in reality it's sticky state and huge object graphs (read: memory consumption) that get stuffed into session objects that are the real evil.

A server with 1GB can hold a lot of JWT's in memory. Probably more than most of the people building services here have to actually deal with.
> A hidden gem I recently discovered is doit [2]. I found this one incredibly helpful when I had a build with tons of 1:N, N:1, N:M dependencies.

> [2] http://pydoit.org/

Thanks for this! I need a build tool for a Python based data analysis project ("micro ETL"?). Doit looks like it will work nicely, with the bonus of keeping everything in Python.
Should you become a developer?
It's not a question of cultural positions but more a question about why airport communications were added to an exclusion list when it's perfectly legal listen into all other private signals bar police radio (as far as I'm aware). Even collecting data on private WiFi broadcasts is fair game; as we learned when it was exposed that Google Street Car was doing just this.

It's pretty obvious why it was made illegal to eavesdrop police radio but less clear why airport communications are also illegal. So I find it odd (baring in mind I'm speaking from a position of ignorance - which is why I'm raising this question) that airport communications were added to what seems a pretty sparse list of excluded broadcasts.

Maybe it's just another example of laws not keeping up with technology? ie that law originates from a time when radio transmissions were pretty limited to private and public broadcasts whereas nowadays most of our private communications are also broadcasted via some frequency and waveform - albeit we now have automated encryption/decryption techniques to protect our correspondence. So if the law was written now it would be more like a whitelist of content you could listen into (eg radio and TV broadcasts) rather than a blacklist of specifics you could not. I'm just guessing here though.
Are you talking about the Obama administration? Probably not, since what progressive folks usually mean by ignorant voters is "people that vote different from me, you know, those rednecks over there".
JavaScript Injection Approval Process for IOS
Wow.. that's a lot of planes!
Ask HN: Which Berkeley Courses Should I Archive?
Tomorrow UC Berkeley is removing all of their lecture videos from Youtube. Thousands of hours of content will be lost to the public. (This has already been discussed at length on HN.)

I'm in the process of archiving some of the most important Computer Science courses, mainly for my own benefit, but I intend to make them publically available. (This is a throwaway account b/c I don't want to run afoul of any legal issues.)

What I have so far:

- CS61 Series (61A, 61B, and 61C)

- CS162 Operating Systems (Kubiatowicz)

- CS164 Programming Languages & Compilers (Hillfinger)

- CS186 Intro to Database Systems (Hellerstein)
It also explains what an explanation is in this context (which is what was asked): a local linear approximation of the model. Additionally it has a diagram which is nice. Obviously it's not the one being discussed here though -- I'd hardly be adding useful information if I just linked to the submission again as a reply.
Indeed the article in question links here as required prior reading: http://cryto.net/~joepie91/blog/2016/06/13/stop-using-jwt-fo...

So my comment was in the context of having read both of these. In the link here he also strongly argues against storage of JWT in localStorage.
This. Also, I think that the build system itself is just the tip of the iceberg. At least in Google's case it has recently been very nicely documented [1] that blaze is "just" one piece of how google keeps velocity high

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.01715
It's really not a simple problem to solve! But one doesn't need to solve it in order to realize the parallel with, say, a heavily politicized and deeply factional user group voting on who will be the next datacenter admin. And then voting on who should vote on whether the maintenance budget gets approved. And so on.
> Do you support removing non-profit status from churches to formalize this?

I don't know. I see good arguments for and against.
The new reality for university grads
He could have, but that still doesn't dig satisfying deeply into the analysis: why would Americans be prone to evangelical / fundamentalist religion, and a general disdain for knowledge? It isn't a direct line from the Puritans, whose descendants anyway hardly account for the result of successive waves of immigration seen today. There are deeper issues at play such as:

The country's birth from a remote colonial revolution with a deep distrust of monarchy, tradition, and authority.

Being a destination for various people disenfranchised in their home cultures, who need a new metric of success, coalesce around money as the arbiter of success and indirectly "correctness".

Geographic isolationism from other and significantly diverse first world nations.

A lingering sense of superiority for our heroic role in WWII.

I don't know how much each of these contributes, but I think the answer to the questions Asimov raises is sooner found in, say, de Tocqueville than in Susan Jacoby.
Asimov was fascinated by psychology, so much so that he made it the ultimate technology in his Foundation trilogy. I think this stemmed from the common fascination among elitists with methods and technologies to get the people they perceive to be their inferiors to do what they want them to. "A Cult of Ignorance" is an excuse and a lament that their methods and technologies weren't effective.
But this is the biggest thing with any security-sensitive code or practice!

Do not give people options, do not allow algorithmic flexibility, do not have fallbacks, do not have backward compatibility, do not allow "testing" or "insecure" options, do not have complex state machine behavior.

All of these things are exactly what JWT or other "design by commission" standards like SSL suffer from and they have predictably lead to ongoing, at times unfixable security problems.
Read This Amazing blog on Python:

http://rvtechnologies.co.in/blog/is-python-good-for-web-deve...
I didn't misunderstand anything about probability. Japan is among the most seismically active regions in the world and tsunamis and large earthquakes are(in historical terms) a regular occurrence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_tsunamis

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_earthquak...

They don't hem to this probability no matter how you try and frame it.
Happy Half-Tau Day
All comments so far seem to disagree with the author ("PGP remains the gold standard, and it's here to stay", "PGP is a failure because it has no critical mass, so author writes ~1300 lines of C code that will never reach critical mass, reinventing gpg-zip", "why re-invent the wheel").

But there are two different things here: encrypted communications and archiving files. The author wrote software for the latter and just gave up on the former.

I don't think it's particularly nice to just drop PGP email support (more and more of my peers are using it), but the other part is still interesting. It uses memory-hard key derivation, elliptic curve cryptography, and some other details that make this thing very good (for its job, at least). This is all fairly state of the art: it has been around for years, but very few systems actually use memory-hard key derivation or elliptic curve crypto. Having more tools use this stuff exposes it more and works encouragingly to others who are also in a position to choose algorithms for new/upgrading projects. And it provides another alternative for those who wish to encrypt files for archiving.
500 years from now, someone will dig it up again and sell the British museum a 1000 year old skull for a trillion pounds.
> I couldn’t find anything that fit the bill, so I did exactly what you’re not supposed to do and rolled my own: Enchive.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the main thing you're "not supposed to do" is create or implement your own primitives.

If you have a decent understanding of the software engineering and cryptographic implications around them - especially if you're using a high level library like libsodium, implementing high quality algorithms into your own applications is fairly well supported.

Of course, before anyone puts much faith in it they probably want some reputation at stake at the very least, but the primitives you've gone with are some of the hardest to screw up with the least weird side effects around.
Hyperledger’s Sawtooth Lake Aims at a Thousand Transactions per Second
Yeah, that's the most obvious kind of thing.

Seems like a definite lack of interest, so I'll probably let the domain expire.
Then they let the admin know. The admin then whitelists the site and no more problem.

There can't be that many of these situations.
I agree on all the accounts on what you said. I am probably biased by the fact I like JSON over XML.
Probably JOSE just took the wrong path and could have been designed way better than it is...
> without assessing if their actions are causing more harm than good to the patient

That's a baseless assumption.
What type of art? Are you somewhat good at it (i.e., do you have the "gift" of an artist's eye)? See if that skill can translate to CSS page layouts. Many programmers (such as myself) may be able to put together a functional web app, but a good artist can come in and change a site from functional to an eye-popping pleasure to use. Architecture, photography, book layout, these are other areas that one may not consider to be directly applicable to a love of making art, but really they are (or can be).

And that was my point. It doesn't work for everyone, but it does for more people than they realize (and to more of a degree than what they realize). Find a way to apply a talent to some other domain that can benefit from that talent.
Judge Has Doubts About Gmail Privacy Deal
Slowly.

http://norvig.com/21-days.html
Can't you do "*.hostname.com" asp.net mvc handles it for me and I have subdomains for each customer and they log in and operate in their subdomain. All special cookie flags are configurable so it keeps top security. Getting cookies across domains is something you don't want to do, so I have kind of idea that maybe, probably you are doing something wrong.

My advice is "use proper framework".
People don't have linear responses to radiation. To simplify if you need 3 mutations in a specific order to cause cancer, if each events as 1/10,000 you get (1/10,000)^3 but if you go to (1/1,000)^3 it's not 10x as dangerous but 1,000x as dangerous.
I think pretty much all humans hold self-inconsistent internal beliefs. We're not rational agents.
The Pi Day Challenge
Short answer: Several [0].

Personally, I had a copy of WordStar 2000, which was completely incompatible with everything else.

However, most versions of WS used seven bits for ASCII, and one bit for formatting. Destroyed extended ASCII and internationalisation.

But WS went through a few formats in its lifetime.

[0] http://justsolve.archiveteam.org/wiki/WordStar
> In fact, many hypothermia victims die each year in the process of being rescued. In “rewarming shock,” the constricted capillaries reopen almost all at once, causing a sudden drop in blood pressure.

Interesting, it's like your body is made of independent organs and systems that don't orchestrate very well. Each part trying to survive on its own make the worst for the whole. Come to think about it, seems that some health problems are caused because some part of your body don't send or receive the proper signals, hormones and so on.
It makes things tricky from a risk and commercial point of view. I used to work on wind farm design and it was as simple as "will the turbine hit something if it falls over?". And turbine topples are extremely rare events.

I can't even imagine the complexities of estimating risk for a reactor design.
>What defines academic here? The author is not a professor nor a phd in CS as far as I can tell.

True - I did not realize that. But what I mean by academic is someone who is not in industry and mostly has teaching or research experience.

>I would argue this list is more broad than an academic would write necessarily.

Pretty much everything listed is part of the CS curriculum - either as a required course or as an elective.

>But I argue a lot of the new technology-driving things that are made, are not made by Type 2 engineers as well. I would argue many of the new "wow" things that are coming forward in tech require a quite strong Type 1 background - similar if you're trying to work in finance. E.g. Alexa the device alone requires a lot of hw, os, fs, nlp, ai, networking work.

No disagreement here. But how easy is it to get a job in these even if you have a Type 1 background?

It's the same story in other disciplines, like my own background in physics/electrical engineering. When looking for a job that utilized the skills I had learned, I found very few. Most listed a minimum of a PhD (even if the job really didn't need that much knowledge), which I didn't have as I dropped out of my PhD program. What's more, once I was "inside" with a job, I found out most people doing jobs that required a PhD were doing work that required even less technical skills than the job I was doing (and my job required knowledge of one somewhat advanced topic, but no heavy mathematics).

Yes, I accept the jobs you write about exist. But it is hard to get them even when you have the skills. The supply vastly exceeds the demand. So why spend time honing these skills (beyond personal curiosity)?

>But even at a google/fb/amazon/microsoft there are opportunities for type 1 work. At Apple for example there is the Core OS and Networking Teams. At Google there are quite a few OS, networking, SDN, algo, distributed sys, file store, ...etc teams.

Same is true at the large company I work in. And again, the majority of software jobs at my company are Type 2.

>And in terms of core skills I would argue there are people who get paid /quite a bit/ more for their abilities.

My argument is not that these people do not exist. My argument is that when you look at the typical person who has Type 2 knowledge, they are not paid that much more (I suspect it is true even when restricting to jobs that need that knowledge).

Look at web development. I know some people really get paid a lot for it. But most of the people I know in it who do network programming (and not trivial network programming) get paid less than I do. And my salary is not high. The web is a particularly notable example. I routinely bump into software developers doing web work that requires a lot more ingenuity than my boring business logic work. Few get paid more than me.
This really rubs me the wrong way. It's society's tolerance of this sort of thing which causes suffering. In a sane society, this man who provides no value to society wouldn't be fed, and washed and otherwise cared for at the expense of everyone else.

If he didn't get so many benefits which allow him to be that way, he would have no choice but to get up and fix his own problems.

Instead, the man had to suffer for years, and have dangerous surgery performed on him, which even though successful, didn't ultimately leave him unharmed (people with gastric bypass surgery have plenty of side effects to deal with, being unable to process food properly).

Ridicule and disdain would maybe have saved him from his life of misery. Even if he did end up suiciding, it would save others who may be tempted to fall into the same situation as he did.
> It should go without saying that religious belief (as varied as it is) has very little to do either way with sound reasoning. You can find monsters throughout history with faith or non-faith.

I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say.

The first sentence seems to be an assertion about the relationship between reason and religious belief. But the second sentence seems to be about the non-relationship between holding a [non-]religious world-view and being a monster.

Are those two sentences were meant to work together to make a larger point? If so, would you mind restating it so I can understand?
They've written a lot. I suggest the early essays on akrasia.
One of the author's reasons for writing a new encryption program was to be able to generate key pairs from a pass phrase. This seems convenient but at the same time must increase risk of compromise. Unless the pass phrases are incredibly long and weird they are going to have less entropy than a long binary key pair. The rules of language and the restricted set of words might well make his encryption fairly easily breakable.

Seems like a nice but very risky idea.
Your contention is simply false as you misunderstand the point.

Atheists expect to be mocked and laughed at by the religious.

The point is that religious people should expect to be mocked and accept that fact. They should not argue that it is improper and that religion somehow implicitly deserves reverence.
Oddly, in practice it's the other way around.

The vast vast majority of the population, for example, is in no position to question the LHC result identifying the Higgs boson. Unless you have a cool billion dollars or so to build your own collider, you are essentially in the position that an expert has told you so, and some other experts said they agree with them (peer review). So therefore believe what you are told. And whenever people do question scientific results, without the expensive equipment and basing their entire career around becoming employed as a scientist, we tend to call them cranks.

With most religious positions (eg, what is the biblical view on X), you've probably got three copies of different translations lying around the house, and have every means and encouragement to do your own questioning, argument, and interpretation.

In terms of the actual practice of questioning, interpreting evidence, and weighing up a decision on an open question where there are differing views -- most people have vastly more experience and engagement of doing that with religion than with science.
Certainly not the first time I've seen it.

It's a critique of right-wing libertarians that is common among anti-statist libertarian socialists or social anarchists. The argument is that the market is entwined with another kind of authoritarian violence and that liberatianism (and classical liberalism) are blind to (or worse, actively endorse).

Violence and coercion of the market is masked by [classical] liberal thinkers behind a veil of talk about contracts, negotiations between supposedly free parties, and natural rights. But in the end it comes from a history of enclosure, land expropriations, elimination of the commons, privatization, colonization, and is backed up by the army and the police.

Finally the corollary of this is that state (at least our kind of state) coercion is actually outcropping of market coercion. And so we have police forces, armies, schools, etc. enforcing property rights above all other things.
Ask very religious Americans if they think the laws of America should be more driven by Biblical principles, it isn't any different.

Besides, religious courts already exist in the US. For example, Halakha are religious courts run for Orthodox Jews, they exist in America and make many decisions on family law and civil disputes. But even among bigger groups, lots of disputes are dealt with within the religious community, Catholics have 200 diocesan tribunals, if you want to end your marriage and stay in communion, you pretty much have to ask for an annulment at a diocesan tribunal.

Lots more examples:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/08/applying-gods-law-religio...
I wrote some BASIC in nondocument mode, but it was my first computer, and my introduction to IT. (Aye, I'm a youngin who had the IBM PC port).
Nice, thanks for the link. My only complaint with the UI is that the download like to the sources should be more prominent.
> You can think of our choice of name more as an homage for a new generation of web-based developers.

Hmm. web-devs are known for NIH, this will only encourage this reputation..
I have experienced food addiction. It does not work like that.
Must have.
> But there are no physically real perfect squares either (assuming an analogue universe).

How does analogue vs digital (assuming you mean that analogue) matter here? You'd also want to specify which "digital physics" you want to rely on.

We don't need to think along those lines to consider a physically real idealized geometrical object.

Here I'll recast your square as a planar slice through a real object in our (3d+1d) universe.

With reasonable assumptions about the local behaviour of spacetime, you can't construct a physically perfect square because of the small-length-scale behaviour of matter rather than that or the presence of infinities of infinitesimals. The assumption here is that locally around the square the spacetime is Minkowskian, which for a small and light square is practically guaranteed everywhere outside the event horizons of black holes and far from the hot dense phase of the universe. "Practically guaranteed" here means that in spite of plausible theoretical objections to the perfectness, there exists no mechanism to show that the object is not a perfect square (i.e., such objections are conjectural physics leaning hard on a purely mathematical argument).

"Digitalization" and discretization arguments run into observational problems right away.

The wavelength of light is not quantized, for example, and is not clearly bounded in the infrared. (In the ultraviolet you get pair production and gravitational collapse, however.) While one could make an argument that at the emission event of every photon there is not an infinity of available photon wavelengths, you would have to forbid infinitesimal spacetime intervals to avoid emitted photons stretching into arbitrary wavelengths under the metric expansion of the universe, and the only practical way of doing that is through discretization (with or without emergence).

There is a substantial weight of evidence that suggests that if spacetime (or whatever it emerges from) is discretized, the discretization length is not significantly above the Planck length; notably gamma rays, x-rays, light and radio from violent astrophysical events do not appear to win races against each other in an ordered fashion.

So there may be infinitesimal spacetime intervals, and so any quantity that depends on spacetime intervals has an infinite set of values to choose from.

Absent a description of gravity-matter interaction when matter's small-scale behaviours are relevant, we cannot really preclude the possibility of building a perfect square in an unreasonable (but nevertheless physical) local patch of dynamical spacetime, such that the microscopic behaviour of the latter offsets the odd quantum mechanical contributions to the square. At best we can try to place limits on how long such a system could survive (it could last a very long time in the cold sparse phase of the universe).
That is the "text-shadow: 0px 0px 1px;", indeed it has a blurring effect rather than an fancy shadow effect in this case, I agree.
For the curious, the source code takes a somewhat obvious approach:

http://euler.party/pi.js

Yep, I think that is literally pi to 6 million decimal places then doing an indexof of the 6 digit year and 6 digit time of day.