skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Of course they aren't, there is a huge capital cliff to make it happen.

Automation is not something that happens slowly in this context. Self driving car research has no impact on the auto industry until the moment tremendous savings can be had in this financial quarter at which point we see the destruction of millions of jobs.

Cell phones were not a slow burn advance. The Internet did not slowly take off. These things exploded in (economically speaking) blinks of the eye, and the same happens in every other industrial capacity for automation.

The barrier is the up front opportunity cost to bring down the wall and take the costs to that short term economic projection - as long as it costs $150k to replace a $50k truck driver, no publicly traded company is going to do that en masse. It hurts this quarters results too much to accept.

The fervor is not about slow burn automation. That has been happening since the industrial revolution, but it is important to not conflict role optimization with role obsolescence. We don't have elevator operators anymore. We still have farmers. The foresight is to see that we will have innovations that eliminate labor classes overnight, that they won't have an impact until they are deleting industries, and that the opportunity cost to get there is a pill few are willing to swallow so the outcomes get delayed. But we can see they are inevitable, in the same way climate change is an inevitable catastrophe that to many seems not to matter until New York City is under water and we have a billion humans dying of famine in a desertified equatorial region.

We are very good at creating bullshit jobs[1] to fill the gradual innovative automation. The job optimization that creeps through every domain constantly pounds us so we create more bullshit jobs to keep the economic system afloat. Instead of looking at statistics relating to peak employment, look at worker satisfaction and confidence that what they do actually means something. Those numbers are telling on how many people actually feel like they are making a real economic contribution[2].

[1] http://evonomics.com/why-capitalism-creates-pointless-jobs-d...

[2] https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/12/british-jobs-meaningles...

I just want to postfix this with anyone can make up numbers or just use the numbers out there to rewrite history into their favor. You can make a legitimate argument that automation is fake, that worker satisfaction is high, and that this is all fearmongering. If so, I would ask why there is so much civil unrest surrounding it globally. The statistics and numbers might all be bullshit commissioned by biased interests, but the macroscopic behavior of people can reflect the reality. The entire global movement towards isolationist nationalism and totalitarianism is centralized on the obsolescence of people and the rise of bullshit work. People feel abandoned, unfulfilled, or forgotten. It is a growing trend. It is valuable not to ignore why that might be.
Exactly... so, couldn't this just backlash at them, and at others, if this ends up succeeding?

For example, other CPUs architectures, GPUs, Memory ... like, everything that's pretty much set as standards?
Again, I'm not sure about that. Speaking in generalities, why can't two parties enter into binding arbitration? For example, divorce arbitration can be significantly cheaper than going through the court system but it only works if it's binding otherwise one unsatisfied party can simply ignore the ruling.
Matter to whom? Mattering to myself was an important step in my personal growth, and there are other people in my life who think I matter, and people I've never met who simply believe we all matter.

How sad to convince ourselves not to matter to ourselves by saying look, I don't matter to the universe, so how could I possibly matter? Does anything matter to the universe? If not, it's probably not the best entity to look to to figure out what matters. If the universe does care about something, who says it doesn't care about you, just because it's big and you're small in comparison?
Came here to say this, and I wish more non-lawyers understood how to read a patent. The scope of coverage is not the title. The scope of coverage is not the drawings. It's the claims.

If folks want to explain why this shouldn't have issued, identify a single document from before 2008 that describes every single feature of the claims.

It's worth noting that this issued just before a 2014 Supreme Court case (Alice v. CLS Bank) that probably can be used to kill the patent regardless of whether it's novel and non-obvious.
Honest question: why is anything that is patented ever made to be part of a standard?
Thanks for the analogy. I am now update-to-date w/ 3 years of JS churn :)
I feel he's come to the conclusion that the right answer is to bring a healthy standard of living, education and stability to the billion-plus people in extreme poverty, who would be contributing far more had they only the chance.
There is nothing in the market to signal that Qualcomm is not licensing under FRAND. It's not like they have 80% market share.

Apple intel and Samsung have a combined market cap of 1.3 trillion. Qualcomm is 80 billion.
A person who wants to make money.
Qualcomm is doing pretty the same as Intel did and does: protect investor value. So if it is OK for Intel and Samsung protecting their business, it is OK for Qualcomm doing the same.
(Sorry, can't test, as I don't have a Windows machine ready)

AFAIK, whenever you get a dialog that asks for your admin password, hit Control-Alt-Delete. If the dialog is a real one, focus stays with that window. If it is fake, a real one pops up on top of the fake one.
I don't understand how a machine becomes infected, it is perhaps not very clear yet? this article explains receiving an email containing a link OR a PDF with a link to a .hta file ? what a strange sentence. Can one get infected without user interaction, or even with a passive client ?
Theoretically there's nothing legally stopping a NSA/GCHQ tag team from mercilessly hunting down and destroying ransomware operations.

NSA only has red tape when it comes to U.S. citizens, but GCHQ doesn't. GCHQ's mandate also includes serious organized crime. Moreover, considering the damage ransomware can do to critical government infrastructure (for example NHS), it's not a stretch to imagine that targeting ransomware operations would fall under legitimate national security grounds.

Personally I'm surprised they don't just completely fuck these people up to set an example. On the other hand, there's always the possibility WannaCry could be a mud slinging attempt from a state actor, given the much-publicized fact it uses leaked NSA vulns.
Programmer’s guide to homogeneous coordinates
Suppose you needed to install this particular Debian package with root privileges (well, necessarily, but you get the point) that you otherwise would not want to install and that then goes on to enforce a certain behaviour of your computer against your interests as a prerequisite for using some other piece of software.

Suppose further that someone put forward the argument that it's not so bad, as at least there is no rootkit involved.

Then, yes, it would obviously be perfectly sensible to in that context call that Debian package a "random volunteer's rootkit".

Whether most users would like to have some other functionality provided by that same package is completely irrelevant to the question at hand, as is whether most users would install the package.
You are right they are not enforceable in California but they are enforceable in most jurisdictions. California is in the minority.

The issue with requiring your employer to make it only be for the duration of the employment is many companies don't want you to learn about their customers, and methods and trade secrets and then quit to set up a business in the same area . . . which is reasonable. Non compete clauses are allowed in most jurisdiction so long as they are reasonable as to duration (don't last too long after employment) and reasonable as to distance (only cover a limited geographical area)
Using the same means that have locked other competitors out of Intel's and Samsung's market.
I appreciate the OP's desire to learn how Node's FFI works, but for production purposes utilizing an existing project like Neon is almost certainly the right answer. Interfacing interpreters with native code can be hairy and no two interpreters are alike, so going it alone is going to take a lot of time understanding the nuances and pitfalls of each individual system. Neon is still young yet, but it's from Dave Herman, the head of Mozilla Research, so I'm hopeful that it has a bright future ahead of it.
I wish they hadn't patched XP so we can collectively put that one to rest.
> The idea that 2008 was the first time someone had the notion of grid layouts and allowing an end user to place a window in them is just silly.

That's not what's being patented. The gui menu to select placement of windows is what's being patented.

Did that exist before 2008?
"The malware spread via SMB... used by Windows machines to communicate with file systems over a network. An infected machine would then propagate the infection to other at-risk boxes [that have] not received the critical MS-17-010 security patch from Microsoft which was issued on the 14th of March ... In other words, you had to be almost 2 months behind in your patch cycle in order to get hit with this. Windows 10 machines were not subject to the vulnerability..."

More details starting about a quarter of the way into the article.
XP, 8 and Server 2003. Patches for 3 unsupported versions

edit: 2003* my bad

https://arstechnica.com/security/2017/05/wcry-is-so-mean-mic...
okay you like the guy, but unlikable people need sympathies too.
Intel has the de facto x86 standard, and has been hiper-protective regarding its IP. Why Intel and Samsung should expect Qualcomm giving away their strategic IP for cheap, risking their long-term survival? Also, Qualcomm is the "small" here, not Intel nor Samsung.
Repair and Software: Updates, Obsolescence, and Mobile Culture's Operating Systems
the problem with math is codebreaking; strangely enough, as late as the time of G. H. Hardy (died 1947) the notion of using number theory to break codes wasn't considered a major concern of war-making.

Not so much today. Now we think of war as codebreaking with some bullets and honor and a few missions to tie it together.

And if you replace the soldiers with drones, you don't need bullets OR honor. Those darn things just kamikaze themselves to victory like the drones in Screamers or Second Variety.

I suppose if you replace the drones with computer programs, you have a 100% virtual war.

The point is that war invaded math; war invaded music too.

If you consider a contradiction to be failure and the object of a proof to avoid failure, then the completion of a mission may be seen as a successful (contradiction-free) proof of a fact. It is now tempting to think of the "fog of war" as the edge of known mathematics; agents who use codes at the edge of mathematics will be at an advantage until the front lines of the mathematical arms race changes.

In reality, 2017 has become a mental great war, a great math war, a great war of codebreaking. Perhaps we should be glad that mathematics has its "proper" place now in the minds of the youth, but we could have achieved this end with a somewhat more aggressive learning programming targeting synthetic electronic music...opportunities lost along the way, oh well
I'm not entirely sure if this is scalable. Do we (as in the world) have enough reserves of Lithium for this to be possible ? There is also the question of trade balance (presumably with China/Japan as well as upstream Lithium miners). Add to this, India barely has power for normal domestic consumption; even in Bangalore, the ostensible "Silicon valley" of India, power cuts for an hour or two is a daily affair.

Environmental solutions, incl. solar, are okay for assuaging the guilt about wrecking the environment (and India is totally wrecked), but frankly it's not clear if any of these are really scalable. This appears to me as another PR stunt pulled by the new regime in charge.
Sure unemployment is low now. The automation wave hasn't come yet. It takes years for new technologies to get out of labs and into the real world. But self driving cars and learning robots are definitely coming soon. AI has made tremendous progress in just the last few years. There are very few jobs that can't be automated with technology that already exists.
Because a lot of standards wouldn't exist without patented technology
down for me. Here is a copy, albeit useless because the audio files don't work: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https%...

Edit: audiofiles suddenly work, but still can't access the website
because the patented method is better than any non-patented method, and the patent owner agreed to license them to competitors under FRAND.
The default time restriction is 24 hours, so maybe the UI could do more to emphasize that or change the default.
Because of the need of covering the investment.
Well, standard != tech. They wanted to roll out an entire new network based on some flaky tech, instead of focusing on making a better radio.

In 10 years LTE is going to be to slow, and Qualcomm is busy developing whatever is going to replace it. if Intel wants a piece of that pie they need to do some r&d.
The issue at the heart of it is what can be charged for the standard essentials patents which must be licensed in a fair, reasonable and non discriminatory manner (FRAND). Qualcomm committed to these rules and got in return its patents written into the standard i.e. a monopoly. That is the way the wireless and a lot of other industries have worked - like it or not. What is at the heart of the matter is whether Qualcomm lives up to the FRAND rules.

In its Amicus Brief Intel argues (http://blogs.intel.com/policy/files/2017/05/Intel-Amicus-Bri...) especially against the no-license no-chip policy:

> The Complaint focuses, instead, on Qualcomm’s policy of conditioning its chipset sales on the OEM agreeing that handsets using another vendor’s chipsets
be licensed on the terms Qualcomm dictates. But selling Qualcomm chipsets to an OEM plainly does not “assist” that OEM in producing a handset that uses another vendor’s
chipset making Qualcomm’s policy unnecessary to avoid “assisting” supposed infringement that Qualcomm is no part of. Qualcomm “assists” an OEM’s sale of handsets using other vendor's chipsets only in the sense that Qualcomm could devastate an OEM completely by cutting off its supply.

Imagine Intel insisting that buyers of AMD's chips are following Intel's licensing terms. Qualcomm uses its standard essential patents as power levers. The pricing structure reflects that and is now so out of whack with what is happening elsewhere that Apple now balked. The way Qualcomm yields it power is at the heart of not adhering to FRAND rules.

And I somehow doubt that Intel and Samsung gang up here. It was probably a friendly call from a dear customer that got the ball rolling.
#[no_mangle]
pub extern fn string_array() -> *const *const u8 {
let v = vec![
"Hello\0".as_ptr(),
"World\0".as_ptr()
];
v.as_ptr()
}

This has exactly the same problem as with `CString`; the `Vec` is deallocated at function exit.
To be fair, it doesn't look like this was entirely fiction. Here's what Wiki has to say on the subject [1]:

> Interest in the potential exploitation of polymetallic nodules generated a great deal of activity among prospective mining consortia in the 1960s and 1970s. Almost half a billion dollars was invested in identifying potential deposits and in research and development of technology for mining and processing nodules.

And in a few cases they actually succeeded in extracting some metals:

> In the late-seventies, two of the international joint ventures succeeded in collecting several hundred ton quantities of manganese nodules from the abyssal plains (18,000 feet, 5.5 km + depth) of the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. Significant quantities of nickel (the primary target) as well as copper and cobalt were subsequently extracted from this "ore" using both pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical methods.

A lot of R&D money was sunk into this before it even had a hope of commercially viable (and it still isn't to this day), but it wasn't a hoax either.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganese_nodule#Proposed_Mini...
I was starting on the opposite tack, tho haven't got far, synthesizing/sampling kicks, snares and bass lines from scratch, which is prett tricky, like a kick is a sine wave swept down, play with ADSR envelope, saturate/compress, then you typically layer 3 separate kick tracks by phase aligning and more post processing. There's a lot to getting a good sounding kick with presence, attack, body.

The reference on this is Rick Snoman's Dance Music Manual, 3rd ed.
> Suppose you needed to install this particular Debian package with root privileges (well, necessarily, but you get the point) that you otherwise would not want to install and that then goes on to enforce a certain behaviour of your computer against your interests as a prerequisite for using some other piece of software.

This happens to lots of people under the name of systemd. I think any definition of "rootkit" that includes involuntary installations of systemd is so broad that we cannot conclude anything from the term. (There are legitimate criticism of Debian requiring systemd, but they're basically entirely orthogonal from the criticisms of, say, the Sony BMG rootkit.)

So, let me ask - what in particular are you seeing as the "google rootkit," and how would you describe its negative behavior in words other than "it's a rootkit"?
This patent was granted in April 2013 (see http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=08434019&IDKey=...), and does indeed pretty precisely describe Moom's "drag across a grid" window repositioning method. Which... first appeared in April 2011. See this old blog post, describing the brand new grid-selection feature of Moom 1.2: https://manytricks.com/blog/?p=1297

So that should be interesting.

This patent may also cover the window arrangement widget in Adobe's products, which seems to date back to at least 2011 (google for 'adobe application frame'): http://egypt.urnash.com/media/blogs.dir/1/files/2017/05/Scre...

...but somehow I doubt they'll be suing Adobe until they've successfully gone after all the other folks who independently invented something similar to their patent.
Musk doesn't seem to be very serious about his Asia plan.
How do I use it? there is zero docs on how to even get started, what the API is like(is there even one?) This could be worth all the peanuts in the world, but if the only way to learn how to use it, is read the Go source, very few people will bother.
This debate was hot too like ehen print come to Ottoman Empire. They feared same thing, destroying jobs of hand writers. So the nation lost several years due to "print ban".
I don't think it really matters which decade is looked at, as the underlying principals are the same... Music to dance to is almost certainly going to have simpler lyrics. That was just as true with the Rock And Roll in the 50s as it was with the Pop-Dance tracks of today.

You can pick popular tracks to dance to from any decade with simple lyrics:

50's:
Tutti Frutti - Little Richard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F13JNjpNW6c

60's:
Cold Sweat - James Brown
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8f4s9fm-CE

70's:
Rock and Roll - Led Zeppelin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bv_ALKkTjQ

80's:
I Feel For You - Chaka Khan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX9E44mClKs

90's:
Tubthumping - Chumbawamba
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCkmIyC6v00

00's:
As The Rush Comes - Motorcycle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGH8rnraxoE

10's:
Get Lucky - Daft Punk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5EofwRzit0
The numbers I provided include FICA.
Sergey Brin was enrolled in an advanced PhD candidate program at a super-elite technology university. Brin's parents were highly educated academics. Brin himself was highly educated and was raised in an environment of middle-class affluence. This is not the story of a struggling immigrant who struggled to pay rent. Brin had a priviliged upbringing.

Elon Musk also had a middle class upbringing with highly educated parents who provided him with an affluent middle class childhood. He enrolled at elite universities (UPenn, NYU Wharton, Standford) where he started his career surrounded by wealth and access to capital.

Musk is an interesting case in particular in that luck and timing account for most of his initial capital. He started a website (Zip2.com) in the middle of the dotcom bubble and it was purchased from him $300 million. The site was acquired by Compaq in 1999 and ceased operations in 1999. The dotcom bubble burst less than one year later. The money from that sale positioned Musk as a member of the capitalist class and he leveraged the money and connections from that for all his future businesses. While he did, technically, bootstrap his career, it would be naive and foolish to ignore the element of luck involved here.

I'm having trouble taking you seriously because you choose such bad examples to make your points and ignore the obvious counter-examples. In short, the system just works differently for people of low socio-economic status. Musk and Brin were not of low socio-economic status. They started as very high status and ascended to become ultra-elite status.

You make another assumption that is flawed and unfounded, and makes it seem like you are arguing against a strawman. I do not assume that equality of outcome is desirable. There are some in the social justice left that believe this but I don't, and in fact very few Americans do (as can be seen by election results). I believe that sane policy must acknowledge that inequality of opportunity is an endemic problem in our society and that success in capitalism is based on opportunities, which are not distributed in a fair manner.
TeX implements a very good spelling engine that that is driven by patterns [1]. I would expect it very difficult to improve on this and as far as I can see, the article doesn't include a comparison.

[1]: https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/262588/how-are-hyphe...
> no coherent theory of competitive harm and no allegations of the type of conduct that the antitrust laws are designed to address

This line of defense from Qualcomm would serve Google just as well. No competition - no competitive harm, hence all is well.
This is what I want to know[0] too.

To mitigate, you can disable SMB1.0 with the following command. Make sure to run as administrator:

dism /online /norestart /disable-feature /featurename:SMB1Protocol

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14335845
The founder of Baidu Robin Li published his RankDex paper in 1997, a year before Larry Page's PageRank in 1998. And Larry was clearly aware of RankDex when he founded Google.

Here's what Wikipedia says in its PageRank entry:

>A small search engine called "RankDex" from IDD Information Services designed by Robin Li was, since 1996, already exploring a similar strategy for site-scoring and page ranking.[16] The technology in RankDex would be patented by 1999[17] and used later when Li founded Baidu in China.[18][19] Li's work would be referenced by some of Larry Page's U.S. patents for his Google search methods.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank#cite_ref-20

I don't think Google is a Baidu clone but in the cavalier way that people accuse other people of copying the timeline only supports Larry copying Robin Li.
I am tempted to go back to dialup style connectivity. Meaning i disconnect the router from the net unless i absolutely need something online.
There is a link to the docs on the github page.

https://godoc.org/github.com/dgraph-io/badger
What's Changed? Only Running PHPUnit Tests for Changed Classes
You're right. I just ran the code again, it produces something funny:

[ '��\u0002\u0002', '8+���~', buffer: <Buffer > ]

I will update the post. Thanks for pointing it out! :D