skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There's been massive discussion about this in multiple places, in short "or later" fear-mongering is just FUD.

1. Nobody forces you to upgrade to the latest version, it's only an option that people can exercise if they have a copy of your code.

2. In GPLv2 the FSF is the only entity that can create new versions, while in GPLv3 there are provisions for the original author to create a proxy (allowing them to delay the application of a newer GPL).

3. If the FSF goes corrupt, it is unlikely the new GPL will apply because the GPL states that newer licenses will be "in a similar spirit to this license". Given how much documentation the FSF has on their philosophy, it would be very clear if a newer GPL version violates their stated philosophy.

Also, finally, you can't have a license that "assigns all ownership". Copyright licenses and CLAs aren't the same thing -- and I doubt that you can retro-actively force people to give up their copyrights like that.

You should always use or-later because if you don't then you're just asking for trouble when the next GPL version is released and you have to ask every contributor whether they want to relicense their contributions. If you make it or-later in the beginning then there's no issue. If you don't like a GPL version you can always add restrictions to the all-later clause.
Aren't most such accidents from people riding motorcycles without helmets? I don't think that practice will stop with autonomous vehicles.
% /bin/sh
$ echo $((1 + 2))
3
$ uname -srm
DragonFly 4.7-DEVELOPMENT x86_64
Unicode Broccoli Emoji Submission [pdf]
GPL licenses are hairy beasts. If you're not bothered by them, it's most likely only because you don't understand them.
Question: why do people generate waveforms by neural networks?

Would it be easier for a neural network to "control" an emulated throat/mouth and train against the sound output?

Emitting and post-processing waveforms entirely in neural networks seems like putting a lot of responsibilities into neural networks.
Neat and well done. Also nice to see how an emulator can be written in C#/.NET.

The "Sharp 80" name might be a tad confusing for those of us who fondly remember the Sharp MZ80:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharp_MZ
CDDL is basically like the MPLv1, but has some clauses that are worrysome. If you want file-based copyleft just use MPLv2 (which is also compatible with the GPL -- which CDDL is not).

I feel sad every time new code uses CDDL.
Link appears wrong. The linked issue is about UI as far as I can tell.
If that is in fact the reason for sticking with ANSI C then I would like to advocate for a language that compiles to C. In which case I would like to suggest Nim[1].

Of course, I don't think that curl should be rewritten in Nim. But since we are advocating for other languages I thought I would pitch in. If anything, writing new curl functionality in Nim would be the way to go. That is assuming that curl's author is unhappy with C, which does not seem to be the case.

1: https://nim-lang.org
> However the OSI didn't approve it and don't recommend it, mainly because it explicitly does not cover patent rights

That was not the reason. If so, [L]GPLv2, MIT or several other licenses won't be accepted by OSI.

The issue is CC0 explicitly disclaim any conveyance of patent rights (from the linked faq).
http://www.iflscience.com/technology/artificial-intelligence...
This got lobbyied in European Law about 10 years ago in the mandatory data retention directive ( Directive 2006/24/EC [1]). It got challenged in court for being unconstitutional up to the high instances and got invalidated by the Court of Justice of the European Union for violating fundamental rights in 2014.

Some countries have decided to face fines and sanctions to keep data retention in their national law as long as they can but most have promptly killed their local implementation of data retention.

[1]: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:320... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive
Are there any automated tools that you can help you convert a C codebase into Rust? And is there any reason why Rust couldn't be as portable as the C code that makes up curl?

Is it very difficult to transpile C into Rust?

As an aside, I not like the curl style guidelines [1]. Especially "'else' on the following line", and "No space before parentheses". That doesn't look nice at all.

[1] https://curl.haxx.se/dev/code-style.html
No, but once you had stitched together your photos and made a (georeferenced) map you could use this to combine those photos with terrain data and vector data you have from other sources and present the combined data in a google earth like viewer.

One advantage is that you can now host that viewer and the data on your own server (with any access restrictions you may wish to add) and even make the whole thing available for offline viewing.
Basically brand advertisers are becoming performance marketing oriented.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ddb-ceo-wendy-clark-mcdonalds...
Except AGPL has very few resources and is incredibly unclear on what it actually covers. Mainly because of the huge conflict of interest that the few adopters have with their commercial dual-license.

E.g.

- I have a database.

- I have a closed-source website that uses this database

- I have an APGL service that uses this database

Do I have to opensource the website? APGL companies say yes.
hmm.. I don't know what worse, that people find it difficult to live on $500k or that having $7500 extra at the end of the year is considered scraping by.
Maybe it's just my European mindset, but living on €100k in a European capital is perfectly fine and you can afford to have a relatively high quality of life. I feel the problems in the article are particularly America.
Robert Steele: Details on NSA Backdoor in Intel Chips
Information Wars: A Window into the Alternative Media Ecosystem
I am one of those people who doesn't have any relevant experience, but I think it would be amazing if curl and openssl were written with formal verifications, and with complete memory safety. And maybe in a purely functional style. It would be nice if lots of critical software was written to a much higher standard.
Also solid rocket motors are a lot less weight efficient than liquid fuelled rockets and are not throttleable and are awkward to gimble. Also where would you put them without increasing air resistance on the way up?

Also even with the rocket motors Soyuz hits the ground pretty hard.
Note: I am discussing using safe languages in general and reasoning for doing or not doing that. If you believe rewrite requests are unreasonable no matter what,
don't bother reading that. Or perhaps consider this to be addressed to people deciding how to choose libraries to depend on, not to specific library authors.

> curl is currently one of the most distributed and most widely used software components in the universe, be it open or proprietary and there are easily way over three billion instances of it running in appliances, servers, computers and devices across the globe. Right now. In your phone. In your car. In your TV. In your computer.

Congratulations. So how many of those have unpatched vulnerabilities right now that were caused by using unsafe language? In my phone? In my computer? In my car? How many accidents of data or money theft it caused? Not to mention common non-security related bugs.

> If we then have had 40, 50 or even 60 security problems because of us using C, through-out our 19 years of history, it really isn’t a whole lot given the scale and time we’re talking about here.

Curl had multiple unpatched security problems for several years before they were discovered. As the author admits, it most likely still has many.
dpkg -l | grep '^ii lib'|wc -l lists over 2000 libraries I have installed, lot of them written in C. An estimate of 2000 multiplied by 60 is ... scarily to many. Large amount of them avoidable by using safer languages.

> Using another language would’ve caused at least some problems due to that language

If it solves more problems than it creates, it is worth doing.

> none of the memory safe languages anyone would suggest we should switch to have been around for 19 years.

Neither have been mobile phones (at least as we know them), but they are useful, so I am using one.

> We will continue to work hard on minimizing risks, detecting problems early by ourselves and work closely together with everyone who reports suspected problems to us.

I prefer to work smart, not hard.
You Don’t Need a CTO to Launch Your Startup
How I made 40K from my little side-project. And you could too
That sounds like an enormous oversimplification of what, I imagine, is an extremely complex area of the law.

In the case of prospective tenants, I assume a fair degree of self-incrimination would be required to prove discrimination based on a protected characteristic.

To the point about some people's rights being "more important" than others', rights are a zero-sum game.

Giving protected classes a right to service from businesses necessarily comes at the cost of business owners' rights to refuse service.

The law is necessarily concerned with determine whose rights are "more important" in these cases.
The problem with such line of reasoning is an underlying assumption that we have to create a social order that "optimizes" the distribution of wealth in order to achieve some "just" result.

I find this assumption incorrect, and desired result unachievable.

Every person has a different picture of what a "just" distribution of wealth is, and what "optimal" society is. Some think that humanity should concentrate on art & philosophy, and those professions should be rewarded the best. Others are more concerned with our self-preservation, and think that science, and foremost climate science should be rewarded the most. Third just want to enjoy the good life right now, and don't really give a crap about any of those global goals or future generations.

Of course, you may consider some of those people to be more correct and others, and it's not the point. Democracy didn't arise in order to get to the truth - democracy have arisen as a tool for people who think each other as complete idiots and fools to solve their differences without killing each other. If you decide that one of those goals should be the goal of the whole humanity, the problem isn't that you will be incorrect - the problem is that a lot of people will disagree with you, and will defend their point of view. Quite possibly, with violence. And whatever your goal for the humanity was, you won't be able to built a society optimized about that metric anyway.

The capitalist system that we have instead is much wiser. It's not built with a "purpose" in mind. It's built for each person to pursue his own purpose, giving him an ability do compete with others. Any kind of influence, any kind of resource other people want that you have - you can use them in a capitalist system to pursue your goals, and you can keep the exploits. If you don't have what other people want, you don't have the influence. The fact that other people think that "an english major shouldn't have to work at McDonalds" don't mean shit unless they're willing to put their money where their mouth is and donate to your literature-related Kickstarter instead of having a Happy Meal.

Of course it's not "fair". Such a concept doesn't exist across many different minds. But it's a system that individual people decide to build using their own resources over series of small decisions and needs throughout their lives. Seems like a much more stable system than something built out of abstract concept of "justice" and "higher purpose" forced by some people on others.
I think that you just disagree with the idea, which is fine, but you might consider attacking it on its merits from the perspective of the people who agree with it, not have a meta-discussion about when it arose in his mind, how "immature" it is, etc.

Norquist, the Republicans who sign the pledge, and the voters who demand it all apparently think that it's a good idea, it's been effective from their perspective, and it's ideologically consistent, so having someone who doesn't like its outcome call it "extreme" and "immature" doesn't really mean anything. It's just another flavor of ad hominem attack.
The reason is, the only speech data that is available in high quality and large quantities is in audio form. There has been research for decades on measuring or estimating the properties of the speech organ (oral cavity geometry etc), but that is largely an unsolved model inversion problem. Existing physical speech synthesis models are pretty crude and sound quite robotic.
I've managed to setup Telegram for most of my (non-technical) family - wife, siblings, mother (she doesn't even have a smart phone and just uses Telegram as a message client on her desktop. It's a very convenient way to share family related pictures).

Voice calls are an excellent addition. If these could now also be extended to video calls, I could likely ditch Skype forever.
Autodesk Revit 2017 Product Key and Crack Full Version Download
I like and support the sentiments you have after chatting with an Uber driver. There is a way to strip away all the fees that Uber cuts out from drivers' compensation and yet make money.

I am technical and have been thinking about doing something in this space. If you are interested, we should connect.

-Ben
bensaini7@gmail.com
Many famous scientists have something in common: they didn’t work long hours
I understand it perfectly well it's just wrong.

I didn't ask you to be right all the time, you set that bar up yourself by claiming that things that couldn't get automated would get more rare.

I just gave you an example of something that wouldn't get more expensive even if AI couldn't do it. And now that I think of it I am struggling to find anything that will get more more scarce if AI do almost everything else. That just means more humans, more potential competition and thus less rare.
Tailoring Software
> It's many tens of thousands of deaths from Chernobyl and you can't safely go there now.

There were only around 50 deaths directly related to that disaster. Certainly more people died (or will yet die) later due to exposure, but these are only estimates; on one end you may find estimates of "many tens of thousands" (e.g. 200 000 - by Greenpeace, of course), on the other end you may find estimates of around 4000 by WHO.

Also, it is not true you can't safely go there now. In fact you can go there for a vacation trip: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/ukrain... "More than 10,000 tourists now explore the disaster site every year."
I hire developers based on fundamentals
It's just assumed that the government is doing the right thing.

This strikes me as a recipe for disaster in the long run. For any group of people who have tremendous power, not just the government.
This is my local system too, and it seems eminently sensible. Worth noting that the blue stuff will go through a process similar to the Raspberry Pi sorter, but on an industrial scale, so it's somewhat similar to the idea of sending mining robots into separate things out after the fact, but made much easier by not having food and babies nappies smeared all over the cardboard boxes.
An experiment to test whether nuclear fusion can be controlled to generate power
I think Brexit is probably the best decision Britain has made since WWII second only to electing Thatcher.

I would have imagined that techies would appreciate this the most. The E.U is a bureaucratic, insatiable behemoth. Too many regulations and I would like to think that this is something techies have a great disdain for. I mean, just look at how unfairly the E.U has treated co.s like Google, Microsoft and Uber - these companies have deliberately been attacked by the E.U using antitrust laws among other regulations.

How has this helped the situation? I'd say, in no way. Stopping American companies from thriving in the E.U won't help the situation. Instead, learning from previous mistakes and correctly anticipating/predicting the next wave would be greatly rewarded by market forces and this would be the best thing for individual, sovereign European countries.

Please watch this video about the insane E.U laws I've mentioned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44YTTyQKyJQ
:) Well I'm tempted to chide you for running arbitrary code from the Internet from an untrusted source, but then I remember that's the entire web via JavaScript and I realize I'm living in a glass house.

Who came up with this security model anyway?
The Non-Technical Guide to Launching Products and Side Projects
Is it because it's an adjective here?
A few here: http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin_Vulgar/Texts/Pompeii_...

Here's a book published by Royal Prussian Academy in 1909 Inscriptiones parietariae Pompeianae, Herculanenses, Stabianae: https://archive.org/details/inscriptionespar42zang

You can browse inscriptions at http://ancientgraffiti.org/Graffiti/
Property type has e.g. brothel, inn and tavern for the more raunchy stuff.
The large overriding reason the shuttle had wings is so that it could land "cross range", i.e. divert to land either left or right of the flight path. This way if there was a transatlantic abort landing (TAL) required the Space Shuttle could land in Spain, Portugal, France, Diego Garcia (and in varying years Gambia, Nigeria and a few others). This was a requirement if the shuttle was launching with a classified payload (i.e. NRO satellite).[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_shuttle_landing_...
Why just companies? Surely the pain and confusion applies to anyone wanting to incorporate open source code into something else that may or may not carry the same licence. The patent granting is rather critical even to other open source projects.
GTranslate – complete multilingual solution that helps translate WordPress site
> dpkg -l | grep '^ii lib'|wc -l lists over 2000 libraries I have installed, lot of them written in C

That '2000' number is not the relevant one here. The reason that security is important wrt Curl is that Curl is used to access the internet. Security in the library used to print colours to your terminal is a bit less important.

It's those widely used, public facing libraries that need a good security story (and using a memory-safe language is a good start there).
This 2012 article is very dated, esp considering alphaGo.
The Helsinki Metro was built in 1982 and has 17 stations, of which 6 are underground. The New York City subway system has 472 stations, almost all of which are either underground or above grade. It was first opened in 1904. The difference in cost and complexity of providing universally accessible service is massive.
I think most of the points he made in his original post are very valid ones, it's just the fatalist "devs are going to create bugs, such is life" approach to errors that I think I glimpsed in the original post that prompted my response in the previous thread. I'm tempted to call it the "C Stockholm syndrome".

The reason I say that is that I could actually have written something like that a few years ago myself. I think it's a pretty common mindset amongst the "low level" C crowd. And there's a good reason for that, we've been burned before.

People have been advertising "safe" alternatives to C since forever. Use Perl! Use Java! Use Lisp! Use Haskel! Use Python! Use Go!

But none of these languages can replace C in all of its use cases. You have big runtimes, garbage collection, interpreters, you name it. You can't just bootstrap a stack pointer in 3 lines of ASM and call into them like you can with C. And even if we don't say it out loud there's a bit of snobbism to writing low level "unsafe" code. "Safe languages are for noobs and webdevs, real coders debug with oscilloscopes".

And so I had this mindset that you couldn't have your cake and eat it too: you could be safe or you could be low level. Segfaults and NULL pointers were just a normal part of dealing with low level "unmanaged" environments and we'd just have to deal with it. People who complain about it are just not worthy.

In my opinion the biggest success of Rust so far is in proving that you could be safe without needing a GC, a big runtime or complex abstractions. You could design a better C without having to compromise. Even if Rust fails in the long run, it would still be a very important "proof of concept". It showed that C was unnecessarily unsafe, that you could achieve the same feature set without throwing safety completely out of the window.

That being said if there really are folks bugging devs by asking them to consider switching to language X or Y then I think it's fair to say that these people are idiots. Might as well ask JK Rowling to rewrite Harry Potter in Esperanto because "it's totally the future!".

I mean, let's face it, at this point Curl probably has a much bigger userbase than Rust itself by at least an order of magnitude. Which one is more likely to be irrelevant in 10 years? Rust or Curl (and by extension, C)? If you answered the latter you should read less hacker news.

And even if Rust ends up being successful it's not like C will go away any time soon, or even in our lifetimes. Curl (as a C library) will probably still be useful and relevant for decades to come no matter what.
I would argue that the delegation of powers and the dynamic of the power relationshio have been quite wrong in the case of the EU.

I agree, the people have voted for parties that had these policies. The problem is, people vote for the same two (occasionally three or four) parties regardless, and then expect them to change. Somewhat silly!
Use Textchat and Facechat to communicate easy with your expert
Also, the Terms of Use page is completely empty, so nobody knows what they're getting into. Privacy Policy seems nonexistent too, but that's not really news.
There's a difference between "statelessness" anarchism and the type of anarchism entirely opposed to power structures or other forms of central authority.
> quantum systems appear indeterministic to him.
> However, the state of [experimenter + system]
> is governed by an entirely deterministic equation ...

This sort of thing only makes sense in the context of many-worlds QM, and it is amusing how many professed non-many-worlders say such things.

We often describe quantum systems using an entirely deterministic (Schroedinger) equation. But we don't know in what sense that equation describes the physical state of the experimenter + system, or in what sense it is "just" a probability model.

If you choose to include the whole thing as physical reality, then you are left with all the terms in the equation -- and thus all of Everett's multiple worlds. Fine, that is a logically coherent position. But it's not the only one.
Well, you can't really assign ownership in that fashion. First off, the "any later version" provision only applies to licenses published by the FSF:

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.

Secondly, you can't revoke rights previously granted. A project licensed under GPLv2 will continue to be distributable under the GPLv2 regardless of future license versions. So even if the GPLv4 says 'You have to sign your copyright over to the FSF, mwahahah' then you are free to ignore that change.
From the same publication that wrote this about the Bilderberg meetings, surprisingly failing to mention their effect on 'democracy' around the world: http://www.economist.com/node/17928993/

And yup, not voting how the establishment and their media wants you to, is quite rightly an issue for them.

" The Economist is 50% owned by the English branch of the Rothschild family and by the Agnelli family through its holding company Exor."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist