skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Darn. AT&T makes you connect their router ("modem") to the ONT. They won't activate a direct connection to the ONT. Something about 802.1x certificates being baked into the router.
Problems aside, Swift is the future of the Apple platform. It's a much less verbose language than Objective C. (no headers, type inference, no @, no ;)

https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/should-i-use-objecti...
So why is this better from a user or engineering perspective than having just one app?

"There are plenty of design patterns and engineering experience to draw from. It's a somewhat boring topic."

I disagree, I think its a fascinating topic but then again I might be biased as I'm a mobile developer ;) Very few organizations have single app's that are worked on by > 50 people. I worked on the FB iOS app for several years. When an app gets that big you run into all sorts of problems that are not obvious both from an engineering and product perspective.

So to me it's pretty interesting to read about how Uber tackled these problems. Especially as it pertains to Swift which has had quite a number of performance issues and language changes.

"1. A native person in India will be presented with an "Indian" app, satisfying the locale, regulations, laws, culture, etc."

Why not have the app detect that and adapt to that user rather than having a separate app?

"2. A tourist landing in India, well, er, what version should that person use? Laws, regulations still apply (well, Uber may have a different take :) ) but how about the user experience and colloquial details? Would the tourist prefer something from home or something that more accurately, and perhaps more apt for India?"

When you land at a different airport currently uber provides a customized experience for that airport/locale. It knows that you are in a different local.
Electric Car Boom Seen Triggering Peak Oil Demand in 2030s
I don't think Google was soliciting for a counter proposal from Symantec. Will be interesting to see their reply, and whether it's a literal reply or just a version push of chrome with their original plan.[1]

[1]
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/m/#!topic/bli...

Edit: They did ask for community feedback, comments on risk, etc. But they do already have a timeline. See link above.
Should be about 1/8th more since it's just a 72-bit bus for carrying 64-bits data and 8-bits check. Or rather, your dimm will have 9 chips instead of 8.

How they get you is Intel will sell you a xeon which is the exact same die as an i5 in a different package for more money.
Firefox Reader view has been my savior both on laptops and on my mobile phone. It doesn't work on every page, but where it does, it removes the styling and JavaScript and I get to concentrate on the content.
It bugs the crap out of me that they don't integrate with other services like Mint. Right now I do a few things. I manually track my position using personal capital (I can't recommend this service / app enough for tracking ALL of your investments and planning for your future). It is kind of like mint, but exclusively for your investments (https://www.personalcapital.com/)

I've written a fair bit of code (python) to parse my statements and make sure things true up with what personal capital says. The app thing is annoying, but RH just closed 110M and they'll get more functionality in the future. You're not the first person to ask that and I figure eventually they'll have to open things up or they'll lose customers (like me). Right now, I'm ok with using it for a year or two provided they allow me to continue no-fee trades.
Mastodons used to be everywhere. Finding a mastodon's bones is not that unusual, so is not compelling proof of the veracity of the legend.
I see you've never worked with mister "creates a project for every class" or any of his friends. C# compiles quickly, but MS build is very slow and it's noticeable when there are a lot of projects.

Just for fun, try compile with csc directly one day, it's an order of magnitude (at least) faster than with msbuild.
For the signals that you must handle with a handler (SIGSEGV etc.), Rust doesn't help you. Your code must be "async-signal-safe", that is, everything must work correctly despite being called between two arbitrary opcodes in the host program. Importantly, this means anything that allocates is impermissible, since you might be in the middle of an allocation, and your allocator almost certainly has a per-thread lock and doesn't expect to be called reentrantly on the same thread. And there's no compile-time tracking (e.g., no function type) for functions that don't allocate. You also might be called in the middle of an unsafe block modifying global data, etc.

I've considered designing some sort of complicated DSL in Rust to construct async-signal-safe handlers, but it didn't seem worth the complexity. (Although, now that I write this comment out, I think you can handle SIGSEGV safely from another thread as long as your first thread calls for help in an async-signal-safe way, so maybe that would be a library worth writing.)

For the rest, using sigwaitinfo or signalfd works just as well in Rust as in C/C++, but not really better or worse. There aren't any good libraries for it (which I keep meaning to do something about), but the underlying POSIX APIs are usable equally well in all three languages.

As for whether you should worry about it? Try not to use signals, regardless of language. If you're writing some sort of demand-paging system using SIGSEGV handlers, I hope you know what you're doing already. If you're thinking about SIGALRM, there are other ways to get a notification after a fixed time (and Rust's mio/tokio, for instance, gets you timers in your event loop). If you're trying to use SIGUSR1/SIGUSR2, please rethink your design - you'll be much happier with something like a UNIX socket listening for connections or a localhost-only URL for debugging or whatever. If you want to handle SIGINT (intercept Ctrl-C at a terminal), SIGQUIT (intercept Ctrl-\ at a terminal), SIGTSTP (intercept Ctrl-Z at a terminal), SIGTERM (intercept the "kill" command's default signal), SIGHUP (do something when the terminal exits), SIGWINCH (get notified when the terminal resizes), or SIGCHLD (get notified when a child process exits), you do have to use signals, but all of these can be run through sigwaitinfo or signalfd. And you don't have to actively worry about them if you don't want to customize their behavior, or if (for SIGINT, SIGHUP, etc.) you just want to ignore them and not do anything special.

The only odd case is SIGPIPE, and Rust's standard library blocks SIGPIPE for you and returns EPIPE from a system call instead, and unblocks it in child processes, so you don't need to worry about it. (The default SIGPIPE behavior is basically legacy compatibility with existing C code from the very early days of UNIX.)
my point is that a full switch-over is usually a terrible idea. I don't know if an incremental change-over from ObjC to Swift is possible in the Apple ecosystem, but if it is that's almost always the better option in my experience.
A few good ones, yeah. Others, though:

> First of all, holy shit this is a dark desktop theme.

Most applications (e.g. Explorer, Edge) use windows with bright backgrounds. With such windows open, this is actually an extremely high-contrast desktop theme. Like, "Windows 95 with visual accessibility options enabled" high-contrast.

> Also that search box takes up an annoying amount of space in the task bar.

Large tap target for your finger in tablet mode.

> Like Windows 8, this still shows one long list of all programs, but now it is in one single scrolling column.

Something you flick through... in tablet mode.

> Cortana? What the hell is this? It looks like the mutant offspring of Clippy and GlaDOS!

She's actually the hologram lady from Halo. She loves bees. :)

> First they try and bring back touch screens and now they try to bring back speech recognition. Because we all know how pleasant being in an office full of loud talking idiots is.

Not for office use. Once again, this UI is dual-mode on convertible tablet PCs—which you might use for work in an office (in desktop mode), but then also use for leisure at home (in tablet mode.) It's easier to talk to a tablet than to type on it.

(It's also in part because Windows Phone has speech control, and it's good to have feature-parity, for people who know how to do something on one but not the other. And also also, requiring that everything be hooked up to the speech API makes accessibility a first-class concern for the developers. Apple is way ahead in OS-wide accessibility—and, not coincidentally, was the first to integrate OS-wide speech control.)

> Well, at least it has the usual Windows Explorer. Although those "Ribbon" toolbars are looking more cluttered than ever. Give it up already and put the menu bar back!

Experiment: take a touchscreen tablet PC. Install Windows 98 on it (in a VM, presumably.) Maximize said VM. Try navigating one of the menus with your finger.

(Explorer's ribbon really is cluttered, though, yeah.)

> Reports have it that they use different rendering engines. Perhaps this is to address local applications that are assimilated by IE breaking every time they updated it.

Probably true; at this point I wonder why Microsoft don't rebrand IE to "Legacy LAN browser" and lock it down to only access sites whitelisted via Group Policy.

---

But, in summary, over half of the article's complaints boil down to "I don't see why they did [thing that has no real disadvantages for desktop users] because I have never played with a Surface Pro for even a single minute."
> It somehow needs to be distributed, that is, composed of smaller computing parts, because there is a physical limit what you can do in unit of space.

That doesn't follow. Just because there is a physical limit doesn't mean you can't build something vastly smarter than a human without hitting that limit.

> It needs to change to adapt to environment (learn), and so all the parts need to potentially change.

What do you mean by parts? Presumably you aren't including hardware, because we already have machine learning algorithms that learn (not quite like a human, but they do learn), and the hardware doesn't change. Do you mean something more like software modules?

> From this follows that the parts will be subject to evolution, even if they don't reproduce.

Evolution means something. It means that when things replicate with errors (and perhaps sometimes die), there will be more of the kinds of things that replicate more. While this concept is pretty general, replication is central to it. I don't know what you mean otherwise.

So there's an AI that sometimes upgrades its parts (software modules?). How does this lead to parts that are "interested" in their own survival?

> You can argue that we don't actually know how to make AI to stop and think. I would respond, AI that cannot do that, and only pursues some pre-programmed optimum mindlessly, is not really general.

Sure. But how do you specify "stop and think" formally in an algorithm, and will we figure that out before we construct a super intelligence or after? Right now all of our ML algorithms pursue optima.
> What do you mean, the Linux kernel isn't developed for free? Many contributors aren't paid.

you're wrong, see item 6 in https://opensource.com/article/16/12/yearbook-9-lessons-25-y... though you might want to demand that Greg prove his identity first ;).

> And do you have proof that PaXTeam is not paid, if you are indeed PaXTeam?

sure, come visit me in hungary and i'll take you to the local tax authorities and grant you access to my files. of course you'll have to prove your own identity first ;).
I love how none of the example "dependencies" they give should be using public CA in the first place.
What world? I don't know. I searched and find this website before commenting: http://www.luckyironfish.com/shop , which says It costs $25 each, while you can find $22 iron pan on Amazon.

Sure it might be cheaper in Cambodia, then the price of iron pans would be lower as well.

They didn't just use an ingot, they shaped the ingot into a lucky fish, which also costs money.
> 51% attack would require a collusion of the large group of the miners

If you can shut off 70% of all the miners (because they run backdoored hardware), then you only need >50% of the remaining 30%, no? Which should be a lot easier.
The author should read this: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10987
You're still spending time compiling, it's just spread out at run time. Often with dynamic languages you're pushing the compile time down to the users.
POSIX signal handling[0] transcends what programming language is used, as it is a process/OS level concern.

Regarding Rust specifically, it would seem signal handling remains an open item[1] though some degree of support appears present.

0 - http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/signal.7.html

1 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/1368
or for btrfs users out there:

btrfs scrub start /mnt/volume_name
Could we go back to calling computer programmers computer programmers?

If it doesn't have an engine, or a motor, you're really not an "engineer". Also, there are these other people called engineers who do engineering, not programming.

On the same note, how did it come to be that every application program is now an "app"? Even the control panel programs are called "apps" in Windows now. Why not call it a "program" instead.

Stop using silly names for everything.
I think AI fear is a bit hyped up in the valley right now but the fundamentals are true.

You can think of intelligence as a couple of dimensions rather than just one dimension as the author is arguing. However I don't agree with his/her logic.

You can think of the brain as a massively parallel computer. Intelligence can be gauged by total cores, memory and CPU per core, power usage and network bandwidth between cores. Sure different configurations will give different strengths but something optimized atomically for performance will be faster than a mushy brain.

Now imagine a billion of this little pods placed all over the planet. With amazing bandwidth between the computers akin to our internet.

Worst case: they think humans are the enemy and out think us to extinction.

Best case: studying intelligence helps us figure out how Brians work. This helps us figure out how DNA nano manufacturing works. We figure out brain to brain and brain to AI networking. Now all humans are collectively a super computer being able to share knowledge and abilities. May be this is extended so animals are also included and Earth becomes a Pandora like planet where every living thing is connected and they all live in harmonius resource optimized world where AI tries to maximize happiness of every living being.
>require these applications to be recoded, recompiled and redistributed.

Aka "updated".

The entire post is basically "ok how about we be really good from now on and suffer no consequences, cause it'd be really shitty for us if we had to be penalised".

They also posture a lot talking about how big their customers are, almost boasting about how inflexible and slow these big companies are, as if that's somehow Google's or general Internet users' problem.
I don't believe the Bering Strait area was subject to any recent (within the timeframe we're discussing) glaciation.

And there is always a leading edge of the glacier where all that ground-up goodness ends up. Many dynamic biomes are found on the boundaries of extreme and hostile environments.
There is a significant amount of "we will" language in here, rather than "we have started" or "have already begun". The choice of language speaks volumes that they only appear to be willing to take necessary audit action if Google agrees to it, rather than something that needs to be done regardless.
Also fantastic when you need to CYA, you can email clients the minutes/discussion points and ask them to agree.
The FUPC Network Blog and Podcast
No, but they are contractually required to keep their customers (and their own) data confidential. And that can lead to them deciding to run their own mailservers as well as other infrastructure. Whether that's a good decision or not is another matter, that mostly depends on execution.
I agree, in the long-term, big-picture, distributed eye and hand is important. e.g. Although relativity could have been deduced from the evidence, first you have to obtain that evidence, by the action of constructing observation devices.

But there's nothing to stop centralized computing from having distributed terminal-like i/o devices, cameras and waldos.

A cognitive argument for distribution is that a diversity of ideas, developed somewhat in isolation, using their local unique observation and unique action, is more likely to innovate. Many points of view will see more. However, this can be simulated with internal divisions.
How do you calculate those checksums without relying on the memory?
Given some of the internal CA systems I've dealt within the past, I'd almost prefer a public CA in some cases. Sometimes your internal CA is just the group with manual access to the certificate provisioning and signing systems with either no API or some awful re-implemented API.
What specifically are you trying to say/show with this satire?

I mean I get the point but I think you are underestimating the usefulness of models for predicting white collar crime and crime in general by giving a really bad model for doing so. In terms of data analysis, the geotag stuff has decent specificity in terms of narrowing down your universe (from entire US to city blocks), but the face stuff probably doesn't have very good specificity (probably lots of false positives there). A good "data science" person would probably try to find factors with higher specificity. But most of the stuff in this model is already known via common sense and acted upon. The SEC knows to look for white collar crime in Manhattan and not Lebanon NH without such a model.
I've seen OpenOffice used in a school, that's at least 200 machines. I could be wrong but I think they are not the only school using it.
Nice to see some push back but all the chatter in the MSM these days about self-driving cars and AI that's going to replace everyone's job (except, I note : lawyers..) makes me strongly suspect that somewhere there is someone with an agenda, driving this chatter. Someone's bonus depends on the received knowledge being that "AI is a commin' ta getcha..", which it decidedly isn't, imho. Yes it works for facial recognition (sometimes) and deciding whether to reject spam (sometimes), but not for large swathes of the blue and white-collar job world. Long long way off.

Note: obviously there's nothing special about the meat between a human's ears, so _one_ day someone in theory should be able to build a machine that matches and exceeds a human's thinking ability. But that's not going to happen in any of our lifetimes.
You can use 'dangrossman's hnreplies: http://www.hnreplies.com
I agree that it is many years away.
I think you two are saying the same thing. First sentence of the parent comment is:

"From a user perspective, you may not have to download a new app."

Point is that even if it isn't a separate download, in different locale's, it may be essentially a separate app with different screens and UIs.
Not a particularly well written article, but he has a few good ideas. Here's a couple of important paragraphs:

"I asked a lot of AI experts for evidence that intelligence performance is on an exponential gain, but all agreed we don’t have metrics for intelligence, and besides, it wasn’t working that way. When I asked Ray Kurzweil, the exponential wizard himself, where the evidence for exponential AI was, he wrote to me that AI does not increase explosively but rather by levels. He said: “It takes an exponential improvement both in computation and algorithmic complexity to add each additional level to the hierarchy…. So we can expect to add levels linearly because it requires exponentially more complexity to add each additional layer, and we are indeed making exponential progress in our ability to do this. We are not that many levels away from being comparable to what the neocortex can do, so my 2029 date continues to look comfortable to me.”

"What Ray seems to be saying is that it is not that the power of artificial intelligence is exploding exponentially, but that the effort to produce it is exploding exponentially, while the output is merely raising a level at a time. This is almost the opposite of the assumption that intelligence is exploding. This could change at some time in the future, but artificial intelligence is clearly not increasing exponentially now."

The last bit about requiring experiments in real time is also interesting.
It may be the future, and I love the syntax, but I've run into many of the same problems mentioned in the article (long compile times, SourceKit issues, increase in binary size, etc.) with my own smaller apps. It's honestly frustrating, sometimes more so than the eyesore that is ObjC.
For the U.S., I think the cost overruns of nuclear have been a bigger problem than change of public opinion due to Fukushima. If Westinghouse's four new units at the Summer (South Carolina) and Vogtle (Georgia) plants had come in on time and on budget, there would be states and regions willing to build more nuclear, even if it remained unpopular in many parts of the country. But the extent of the construction problems there and Westinghouse's subsequent bankruptcy are going to discourage any new construction and financing for a while.
But the backporting-security-patches thing is already done by every distro—just, not as well as grsec+pax do it. Said distro maintainers just need help to get their -stable kernels up to grsec/pax's standard—at which point the grsec/pax patchsets could be based directly on top of each distro's -stable kernel package, rather than having to do all the work of backporting again themselves.

Which would, of course, free up resources on the grsec/pax side to go toward protecting users; and, moreover, would also partially protect those users who just rely on their distro's -stable kernel, more than they're being protected today.

Perfect is the enemy of good; ideal security is the enemy of less vulnerable.
Hmm, perhaps this is a quirk of ark.intel.com then; it shows that (as an example) that the Xeon X5690 supported ECC, but the Xeon L5638 did not.

The list on WikiPedia also seems to imply that not all models did historically, perhaps this reflects the northbridge change?
A decade is a pretty short time for an investment of that magnitude. Learn C (yes, I know), COBOL, Java, Erlang, Python or any other non-niche language and you'll hopefully be employable for decades, or at least until general AI rolls around.
Is this how we solve security? An army of white botnets in a never ending war with an army of black botnets?
Thanks, but I was thinking more along: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqUG2_cmZ6I&feature=youtu.be...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqUG2_cmZ6I&feature=youtu.be...
Great Technical Primer on Blockchain Technology
"This site does not support Chrome. Please use a browser that does not take unilateral CA authority action." might very well be the response of orgs married to Symantec.

As a user, you need your bank (or other large org) more than you need your preference of browser.
In many sites, hitting the ESC key will dismiss those overlays.
> That sort of mechanism doesn't build itself, though, so I have to imagine they have at least one scenario in mind...

Most likely this is an attempt at DRM, an ability to remotely shut down any units they've deemed infringing or violating their TOS or haven't paid a renewed licencing fee or whatever (I don't know what their business model is)
Great Code Reviews
Mind elaborating without revealing personal info? This stuff is pretty interesting..
You can't join in the political discussion and wag your finger at those talking politics. I also don't think much of the both sides are equally bad dismissal of the current disaster that is American politics. Its a disappointing lack of analysis.